elvis15 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 NHLPA @NHLPA 3h 3 hours ago The NHLPA has filed a grievance on behalf of Mike Richards contesting the termination of his contract by the LA Kings. I'm sure more will come out on this, and I'll try and add it to the thread, but many of us wondered if there'd be anything filed by Richards or the NHLPA. EDIT: almost forgot the tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 LA deserves to be punished with their salary cap for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Well THAT was inevitable. Richards hasn't even been charged as of yet. L.A. has kept enough cap room available to take him back, if required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 So Richards' contract is terminated for allegedly trying to carry pills across a border and Kane allegedly raped someone and is still under contract. Interesting, this should add credence to The nhlpa greivence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 So Richards' contract is terminated for allegedly trying to carry pills across a border and Kane allegedly raped someone and is still under contract. Interesting, this should add credence to The nhlpa greivence. LOL amazing point +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 So Richards' contract is terminated for allegedly trying to carry pills across a border and Kane allegedly raped someone and is still under contract. Interesting, this should add credence to The nhlpa greivence. Except one is still an allegation, whereas Richards was basically caught red handed, so to speak. The bottom line is, if the NHL deems Richards is able to play in the NHL still, then the Kings should be stuck with his cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Anschutz has Bettman by the stones, this will be a long drawn out process involving a lawsuit, a pre-trial followed by backroom deal with a gag order. At least that's the conclusion my cynical thoughts about the NHL being run by a small handful of old rich dicks is leading me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Except one is still an allegation, whereas Richards was basically caught red handed, so to speak. The bottom line is, if the NHL deems Richards is able to play in the NHL still, then the Kings should be stuck with his cap hit. And what of Voynov? If the Kings are such a Moral organization that the smuggling of prescription drugs across boarders is an instant contract termination how come wife assault convictions are deemed worthy for the team to stand behind their player? Perhaps Richards was caught red handed but there hasn't been any charges laid as far as I have seen, though I may be wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Good, I feel like this is one of the most obvious attempts at Cap Circumvention we have seen since the Salary Cap Era Began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 When LA loses this, I would expect the NHL to allow a one off sweet heart deal so they can buy Richards out and not have the cap hit. None the less, the timing of it reeks bad faith and should be penalized but I don't expect this from the old boys club Termination of contracts should be allowed for extreme cases but it should not be done unilaterally. The NHL should have a committee to determine if it is warranted, otherwise this will occur more and more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Good, I feel like this is one of the most obvious attempts at Cap Circumvention we have seen since the Salary Cap Era Began. Worse than this is the trading of players with large contracts who have career ending injuries, i.e. Pronger, Savard, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 If they terminated Voynov's contract (or tried to at least), I would've been fine with them doing it to Richards. Either keep both or neither of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 So Richards' contract is terminated for allegedly trying to carry pills across a border and Kane allegedly raped someone and is still under contract. Interesting, this should add credence to The nhlpa greivence. And yet you know very little about the detail of what actually happened in either case. We can assume Richards was charged at this point, where we know Kane hasn't been (as yet). Voyonov is a better comparable, even if there isn't as clear cut a policy on abuse within the NHL as there is for drugs. That this comes on the heels of the Stoll signing is another point that should be relevant as well. Just because he pled down to a lesser charge he's still fit to be signed to an NHL contract. Richards (not knowing what he was charged with) is similarly tagged to illegal activity with drugs and is deemed to be unfit for his current contract and gets terminated. I agree the Richards termination is very suspect considering other contracts that haven't been terminated for worse, but let's hold off making sweeping comparisons just yet. It is really strange for the contract to be terminated after Lombardi talked about it being the right thing not to buy Richards out earlier, and then to terminate his contract at seemingly the first opportunity and when they were starting to be in a more significant cap crunch. I do want to see how this plays out and what evidence is presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Worse than this is the trading of players with large contracts who have career ending injuries, i.e. Pronger, Savard, etc. That's simply "getting around" a part of the CBA that was not set up properly. Why the hell should Pronger or Savard count on anyone's cap? I get the spirit of the 35+ rule, but when the player gets a career-ending injury, it's flat-out ridiculous to make the team carry that year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 If a non darling tried this it would have been taken care of by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 That's simply "getting around" a part of the CBA that was not set up properly. Why the hell should Pronger or Savard count on anyone's cap? I get the spirit of the 35+ rule, but when the player gets a career-ending injury, it's flat-out ridiculous to make the team carry that year after year. Because it can lead to shady things where a player gets injured and both the team and player agree that the player will just sit out and retire and call it a career ending injury while they just collect their paychecks off the cap. Front loaded super long contracts now have consequences, what about offering a player his last contract knowing the player doesnt want to stay in the league that long, but saying after ___ its up to you if you want to play or just collect your check. Spread over an additonal year or so it could hugely impact a players cap hit. Of course Pronger & Savard are truly done in the league, but proving another player does or does not have "issues" may not be as simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 That's simply "getting around" a part of the CBA that was not set up properly. Why the hell should Pronger or Savard count on anyone's cap? I get the spirit of the 35+ rule, but when the player gets a career-ending injury, it's flat-out ridiculous to make the team carry that year after year. Savard doesn't have to count on the Bruins cap as he's not a 35+ contract. He could retire whenever he wanted and not impact the Bruins in any way. I get what you're saying though, but while there are exceptions that could be made the idea of the rule is to have teams be more measured when dealing with players nearing the end of their careers and not sign them to ridiculous contracts that could handcuff them in the event of injury, deteriorating play, or anything else. Sure, Pronger getting injured wasn't exactly fair as he could have played longer, but would he have played out his contract? Besides, if it was insured, the club doesn't pay any of the salary and his cap hit becomes an exception over the cap with LTI. There isn't much penalty there for the team. Compare that to the Luongo deal, where the NHL had the opportunity to make a decision on these types of new contracts that weren't foreseen and they let them slide until they got overly ridiculous. Zetterberg and Hossa's deals were both before Luongo's and the NHL let them all stand but chose to penalize them after. Why not make the decision on a grey area of the CBA and say these players cannot be traded? Because they don't want to. But, here we are again with the NHL allowing teams to pick and choose when they want rules to apply and when they'll let them slide if it gives them an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Phooey Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Inevitable that the NHLPA was going to file a grievance on behalf of one of its members. What a big surprise. From a purely selfish perspective, I hope the Kings have to eat the Richards cap hit...put the Kings into cap purgatory for awhile. NHL has always been full of sketchy characters -- from players to owners to agents (Alan Eagleson, anyone?). Can't wait to see how this plays out in the NHL kangaroo courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 That's simply "getting around" a part of the CBA that was not set up properly. Why the hell should Pronger or Savard count on anyone's cap? I get the spirit of the 35+ rule, but when the player gets a career-ending injury, it's flat-out ridiculous to make the team carry that year after year. In your words, how is "getting around" any different than cap circumvention? Teams are getting cap relief and allowing other bottom feeders room to get to the cap floor rather than actually spending the money on real players to try to be competitive. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/making-sense-of-the-pronger-to-coyotes-trade/ As per the article; "What it ultimately added up to is a creative bookkeeping maneuver for both teams" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I'm sure more will come out on this, and I'll try and add it to the thread, but many of us wondered if there'd be anything filed by Richards or the NHLPA. EDIT: almost forgot the tag Forgot to search to... http://forum.canucks.com/topic/370586-report-mrichardsla-contract-terminated/ "Hey, let's just rehash a bunch of moves again in a new thread!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.