[Signing] Oilers sign Evander Kane

[Ghostsof1915]

 

[tas]

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

who says he doesn't?

you don't think he'd be willing to pay a paltry nhl fine to voice his opinion? or any of the last 3 GM's, for that matter?

[tas]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

They wouldn’t have signed off on this settlement, they had no say in it.

 

Francesco knows as well as anyone that going up against Bettman’s NHL gets you nowhere. Staying quiet and accepting your punishment is your only option.

canadians en masse have such an absurd, childish view of gary bettman. 

[Goal:thecup]

1 minute ago, tas said:

canadians en masse have such an absurd, childish view of gary bettman. 

And tas knows everything including how to be an adult and a rational Canadian; sheesh!

Get over yourself; you're acting like a total Marchand.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

you don't think he'd be willing to pay a paltry nhl fine to voice his opinion? or any of the last 3 GM's, for that matter?

from the media reports, they did complain. Gary didn't budge.

 

Aqua isn't going to throw away a 650 million dollar asset over Gary, that doesn't mean he likes the treatment or has any real recourse outside of suing. Maybe he will use that option one day if it gets bad enough.

 

[DeNiro]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

canadians en masse have such an absurd, childish view of gary bettman. 

Actually not just Canadians.
 

Fans league wide have a disdain towards Bettman. Anyone who’s followed hockey for more than a season knows that.

 

I take it you’ve never complained about politicians? Otherwise you’re kind of a hypocrite. 

[mll]

29 minutes ago, JM_ said:

the NHLPA is only concerned with Kane getting his money. They don't make any determination on cap penalties. 

 

again, more excuses tho. None of that matters, Edmontons involvement shouldn't matter at all to SJSs cap hit for their decision on Kane. 

 

The arbitrator might have agreed with SJS and his contract would have remained voided.  The arbitration decision was one or the other.  There would have been no in-between.  A settlement allows to find something between the 2 extremes.  

 

If the arbitration had gone Kane's way, the Sharks were still not going to get hit too hard because Kane proved to be a fit in Edmonton.  So at worse they were going to trade him back to them for future considerations and 1.875M retention.

 

Can get upset that his contract was voided in the 1st place but that went through.  He also fit in Edmonton so SJS was in a good spot to resolve the situation.  

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by mll

[tas]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Actually not just Canadians.
 

Fans league wide have a disdain towards Bettman. Anyone who’s followed hockey for more than a season knows that.

 

I take it you’ve never complained about politicians? Otherwise you’re kind of a hypocrite. 

the only complaints I make about politicians are that they exist in the first place. I think every single one of those narcissists should be lined up against a wall. 

[Goal:thecup]

Just now, tas said:

the only complaints I make about politicians are that they exist in the first place. I think every single one of those narcissists should be lined up against a wall. 

Now who is acting like a childish American?

[DeNiro]

Just now, tas said:

the only complaints I make about politicians are that they exist in the first place. I think every single one of those narcissists should be lined up against a wall. 

Sounds like you’ve got some growing up to do then…

 

Just get used to it.

[tas]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Sounds like you’ve got some growing up to do then…

 

Just get used to it.

I did a long, long time ago. 

[Smashian Kassian]

Commenting on the inconsistency with how the league operates/enforces their own rules makes you a loser....?

 

That's a take.

 

@tas just let us sulk & be triggered, it's what Canucks fans are good at.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Smashian Kassian

[JM_]

29 minutes ago, mll said:

 

The arbitrator might have agreed with SJS and his contract would have remained voided.  The arbitration decision was one or the other.  There would have been no in-between.  A settlement allows to find something between the 2 extremes.  

 

If the arbitration had gone Kane's way, the Sharks were still not going to get hit too hard because Kane proved to be a fit in Edmonton.  So at worse they were going to trade him back to them for future considerations and 1.875M retention.

 

Can get upset that his contract was voided in the 1st place but that went through.  He also fit in Edmonton so SJS was in a good spot to resolve the situation.  

 

but that trade is a huge assumption. Being forced into a trade likely would have upped the price to move him, and may have made the deal impossible.

 

Its this assumption of a "trade" thats the problem. Because it wasn't a trade, Kane signed as a free agent. 

 

Also, why is a settlement even on the table? why is SJS getting that consideration in the first place?

 

[mll]

Just now, JM_ said:

but that trade is a huge assumption. Being forced into a trade likely would have upped the price to move him, and may have made the deal impossible.

 

Its this assumption of a "trade" thats the problem. Because it wasn't a trade, Kane signed as a free agent. 

 

Also, why is a settlement even on the table? why is SJS getting that consideration in the first place?

 

Edmonton signed Kane as a UFA - why wouldn't they want him back.  The season is about to start - it's not like they can find a replacement at this stage.  I don't see why it would be any trouble for SJS to trade him over to them as long as his cap hit is no more than what they agreed to pay him in free agency - 5.125M.

 

The initial status was contract voided.  Kane filed to dispute that.  He was at risk of getting nothing if the arbitrator agreed with SJS and the gap in salary between the SJS deal and the Edmonton one is only 2.5M for the next 3 seasons.  He would have lost that extra year from Edmonton as that contract would have been annulled.  It's not really worth for him to go down the arbitration route.  So it's understandable that he preferred to settle.  As long as there's no ruling both parties can settle.

 

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

This is the NHL we're talking about. They can't even get player safety and fines straight.

If this was Vancouver, we probably would have had to pay. Plus lose all our draft picks.

And forfeit the first 20 games of the season.

And Edler would be suspended somehow if he weren't playing for LA

[EB43]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

This is the NHL we're talking about. They can't even get player safety and fines straight.

If this was Vancouver, we probably would have had to pay. Plus lose all our draft picks.

And forfeit the first 20 games of the season.

The coyotes get our 20 games as wins.

[JM_]

35 minutes ago, mll said:

Edmonton signed Kane as a UFA - why wouldn't they want him back.  The season is about to start - it's not like they can find a replacement at this stage.  I don't see why it would be any trouble for SJS to trade him over to them as long as his cap hit is no more than what they agreed to pay him in free agency - 5.125M.

again, thats an assumption that shouldn't play into how much of a cap penalty SJ faces. 

 

35 minutes ago, mll said:

The initial status was contract voided.  Kane filed to dispute that.  He was at risk of getting nothing if the arbitrator agreed with SJS and the gap in salary between the SJS deal and the Edmonton one is only 2.5M for the next 3 seasons.  He would have lost that extra year from Edmonton as that contract would have been annulled.  It's not really worth for him to go down the arbitration route.  So it's understandable that he preferred to settle.  As long as there's no ruling both parties can settle.

 

again, why should any of this influence the cap hit?

 

There's no getting around this being favourable to SJS, and I don't see the justification for it.

[mll]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

again, thats an assumption that shouldn't play into how much of a cap penalty SJ faces. 

 

again, why should any of this influence the cap hit?

 

There's no getting around this being favourable to SJS, and I don't see the justification for it.

There was only 2 possible outcomes in arbitration

- contract remains voided  - ie no change for SJS or Kane.

- contract reinstated.  SJS has Kane and his 7M back on their books.  They would have to then find a way to move that contract with Edmonton a logical trade partner.  As Edmonton signed him to a 5.25M cap hit they likely wouldn't have taken back the full 7M. 

 

The arbitrator was never going to impose cap penalties.  The league had already accepted that the contract was voided.  That's why Kane was able to sign with Edmonton.  It's Kane filing for arbitration that opened the possibility for the contract to be re-instated but he had too much to lose even if he won the case.  

 

[mll]

Seravalli on the settlement:

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/sharks-evander-kane-settle-grievance-with-unprecedented-retroactive-cap-penalty/

 

The San Jose Sharks and Evander Kane formally settled Kane’s outstanding grievance for wrongful contract termination on Friday, ending the saga more than eight months after the Sharks terminated his deal. Kane has since signed two contracts with the Edmonton Oilers, who are unaffected by Friday’s settlement terms.

 

The Sharks’ salary cap this season and beyond will also be unaffected by the unprecedented settlement.

 

That’s because San Jose’s penalty will be applied retroactively to last season’s cap, according to multiple sources, something that is believed to never have occurred in the 17 years since the NHL moved to a cap system in 2005.

 

While no party directly involved in negotiations would confirm exact details to Daily Faceoff, the settlement is designed to essentially make Kane ‘whole’ from the difference between the amount of money remaining on his contract with the Sharks and the new one he signed with the Oilers.

 

The Oilers signed Kane to a four-year, $20.5 million extension on July 12 in the hours before free agency opened. His new contract calls for $16.5 million to be paid over the first three years, the term remaining on Kane’s original deal in San Jose, which was through 2024-25.

 

San Jose owed $19 million to Kane over those three seasons, leaving a difference of $2.5 million.

 

As a result, Kane will receive a one-time cash payment from San Jose in the neighborhood of that $2.5 million to make him whole. (One source quibbled with that number, saying Kane was not ‘fully’ made whole, but that it was close to that number.)

 

Since the Sharks ended last season with just over $4.97 million in salary cap space, according to CapFriendly.com, all of that approximate $2.5 million penalty will be retroactively applied and San Jose will have no cap consequences moving forward. It’s the best-case scenario for San Jose; they simply cut a check and move on.

 

All of the previous salary cap penalties enacted – most notably Mike Richards’ contract termination grievance with the Los Angeles Kings in 2015 – impacted future season’s salary caps. The Kings are carrying a penalty for Richards until 2032; this season the hit is $900,000, which is more than the league minimum salary.

 

“We are satisfied that its terms will not adversely impact the team, either financially or competitively, in this or future seasons,” the Sharks said in a statement on Friday.

For Kane, who has filed for bankruptcy, the $2.5 million lump sum payment is welcomed relief – on top of the $6.125 million he has earned in the 2022 calendar year in signing bonus alone.

 

“I played some of my best hockey in San Jose and gave everything I had on the ice,” Kane said in a statement on Friday. “I really enjoyed playing in front of the Sharks fans and appreciate my loyal fans who have supported me throughout. Adversity can either break you or make you stronger, it certainly made me stronger. I’m happy to finally close that chapter of my hockey career. Edmonton let’s go!”

 

A settlement was always the most likely outcome for this case as it mitigated the risk for both sides of an all-or-nothing decision from a neutral arbitrator. It also eliminated the possibility for the Oilers (and Kane) that his deal would be reinstated by the arbitrator, voiding his new deal in Edmonton.

 

Now, with the relative ease in which the Sharks erased more than $20 million from their books, the question is whether this outcome will embolden other NHL teams to take a similar step with a player or contract they deem problematic.

 

[Slegr]

So slimy how some teams like San Jose seem to do this with no problem, but the NHL screws Vancouver over. At least we’re all done the whole Luongo contract now. It’s onwards and upwards.