JM_ Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 17 hours ago, mll said: 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. OK.... but you still haven't answered why SJS should be allowed to have such a favourable outcome, or how this is fair to other teams. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, JM_ said: OK.... but you still haven't answered why SJS should be allowed to have such a favourable outcome, or how this is fair to other teams. Because it would be wrong to retroactively punish a team, for decisions that had previously been ok'ed by the league/Bill Dailly? Edited September 17, 2022 by gurn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, mll said: 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. What a crock of sh*t. Edited September 17, 2022 by Gnarcore 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 This f***ing league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 20 hours ago, EB43 said: The coyotes get our 20 games as wins. They'd still miss the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 30 minutes ago, gurn said: Because it would be wrong to retroactively punish a team, for decisions that had previously been ok'ed by the league/Bill Dailly? huh. You might be on to something there. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 “Retroactive penalties”. Gotta love the NHL. No shame at all… 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 56 minutes ago, gurn said: Because it would be wrong to retroactively punish a team, for decisions that had previously been ok'ed by the league/Bill Dailly? The league punishes all the other teams every year for letting Arizona still have a team so this should not be surprising 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 so what does the retroactive penalty do? if anything if they are paying the difference between what kane is making in edmonton vs his original contract.. the difference should be added as a penalty for the rest of the duration of original contract.. oh well.. it's really not that big of a deal.. SJ ain't gonna be a cap team for years to come anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 This is exactly the outcome I said would happen months ago. The Sharks realize they aren't going to win in arbitration, and will make a deal that will be the difference between what Kane can make on a new contract for that period and what they owed him. I am sure I could find the original threads on this and quote where I said it repeatedly. The cap implications are entirely outside this process and something the league got to decide on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 22 hours ago, mll said: 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. That isn't quite right from experience I have had in these sorts of case.... unless you can point to some specific NHL terms of reference the arbitrator would have been given that limits the scope of their decisions. The other, and most common outcome in these sorts of employment contract disputes is that a financial award is made for losses and a decision by the arbitrator that the employment relationship has been poisoned to the point it is not tenable for it to continue. That is almost 100% the outcome when both parties agree that is the case, and often the outcome even when only one side agrees. Employers don't want a disgruntled employee back, and employees don't want to go back to an employer who wrongly fired them. Arbitrators aren't in the habit of forcing them together. The cap issue isn't even an element of the arbitrator's decisions... it is a league decision and nothing to do with the contract between the team and the player. The league clearly said they weren't part of the decision to terminate Kane. The fact he was allowed to sign a new contract has nothing to do with them accepting the validity of the termination. It has to do with legal jeopardy they would be in if they refused to let him mitigate his losses by barring him from other employment. Suddenly the league would be the one facing a court case for losses if they did that. Go back to all the original threads on this subject and I said the outcome was almost certainly going to be that a deal was going to be made once San Jose came to the conclusion that they were going to lose... and that San Jose would owe Kane the difference between what he would have made under their contract and what he was able to make on another contract for the remainder of the term he would have been playing for San Jose. The legal philosophy is making the person whole and at the same time they are expected to mitigate their losses and not just sit back and maximize their award. Kane did a huge favour to the Sharks by making himself worth so much and minimize their liability... he also did himself a huge favour by making it an almost indisputable fact he was still capable of fulfilling his contract with San Jose.. because another team felt he was able to do so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 The moral of the story is that by making up cap rules as they see fit… the league has just opened the door to other teams circumventing the cap and getting out of bad contract decisions. Could other players and teams decide to mutually nullify their contract for a cash payment without any cap implications? How great… why bother having buy out clauses. I mean they can’t punish another team with a cap hit if they let San Jose off the hook with a made up new process. …. oh wait, it is the NHL, not a major league. They will just decide whatever they want depending on how close league execs are to a team owner or governor. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Provost said: This is exactly the outcome I said would happen months ago. The Sharks realize they aren't going to win in arbitration, and will make a deal that will be the difference between what Kane can make on a new contract for that period and what they owed him. I am sure I could find the original threads on this and quote where I said it repeatedly. The cap implications are entirely outside this process and something the league got to decide on. ya i said they were gonna settle months ago.. but i expected the settlement to be a lot higher i was expecting kane to play hardball and get half of what he's owed.. coz i honestly think he woulda won if it went to arbitration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 Just now, wai_lai416 said: ya i said they were gonna settle months ago.. but i expected the settlement to be a lot higher i was expecting kane to play hardball and get half of what he's owed.. coz i honestly think he woulda won if it went to arbitration I thought the settlement was going to be bigger as well, but I thought the arbitration dates would be scheduled by the summer when no one knew what Kane could earn on a new contract. I had guessed 50% of the remaining value, assuming Kane would go for it believing he could find a new contract for at least the difference if not more. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Sharks we’re going to lose the arb case. Nothing came out in the news about Kane doing anything that would actually merit a $20 million dollar punishment. Once Kane has his new contract it basically made the arbitrator decision and award simple math…. The settlement reflects that and Kane’s counsel knowing that it effectively capped any award he would get. The only “surprise” (not surprised) is how the league has apparently completely just made up new rules to suit their purposes. They have no mechanism for two sides making a cash settlement agreement to terminate a contract. That means they should have applied an existing rule. They could have hit San Jose with the total amount as they never won an arbitration case saying their termination was reasonable. They could have applied an assumption that the contract stood, but allowed that San Jose would have bought him out at the end of the season and applied the buyout cap penalty. At the very least if they were making things up, they should have charged the Sharks the same cap hit each year for the rest of the term as the settlement calculated (San Jose salary minus Edmonton salary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 If Vancouver did this we'd have to keep Kane's cap hit for the remainder of his terminated contract and forfeit a 1st round pick. Then they'd void the Miller extension and force him to be a UFA immediately. And for some reason Linden would have to join the Night's Watch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 17 hours ago, JM_ said: OK.... but you still haven't answered why SJS should be allowed to have such a favourable outcome, or how this is fair to other teams. The league had already accepted that the contract was voided on grounds that Kane did not respect the terms of his contract by notably not reporting back on time. If Kane hadn't contested that's how things would have stayed. Whether it made sense to allow them to void the contract, that's a different discussion and was for when it happened. It was accepted though and it now sets a precedent for other teams who might be in the same situation in the future (as long as there's no arbitration ruling saying otherwise). Might not work out as well for other teams though - a good player like Kane vs a player with little value won't have the same outcome. Things are working out well for SJS because Edmonton signed him to an extension and the gap in salary is minimal. If he had just received say a 1x 3M extension or found no new team, then he would have likely asked for a larger settlement and SJS would have been in a tougher spot. Or he could have let the hearing play out where SJS might have risked having him back on their books if the ruling didn't go their way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 6 hours ago, mll said: The league had already accepted that the contract was voided on grounds that Kane did not respect the terms of his contract by notably not reporting back on time. If Kane hadn't contested that's how things would have stayed. Whether it made sense to allow them to void the contract, that's a different discussion and was for when it happened. It was accepted though and it now sets a precedent for other teams who might be in the same situation in the future (as long as there's no arbitration ruling saying otherwise). Might not work out as well for other teams though - a good player like Kane vs a player with little value won't have the same outcome. I think this kind of sums up Daly and Bettman in a nutshell. Things change depending on how players and/or teams are valued. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 5 hours ago, JM_ said: I think this kind of sums up Daly and Bettman in a nutshell. Things change depending on how players and/or teams are valued. I agree and the market strength of the team that can absorb stiff penalties and not do harm to the overall strength of the League They run their penalties like a business, of which will hurt the team and league more Big market teams will catch a break, that bring in cash flow and fans, and hurting teams that will jeopardize the interest in the team and weaken the league and they will twist rules to favour a better outcome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 6 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said: I agree and the market strength of the team that can absorb stiff penalties and not do harm to the overall strength of the League They run their penalties like a business, of which will hurt the team and league more Big market teams will catch a break, that bring in cash flow and fans, and hurting teams that will jeopardize the interest in the team and weaken the league and they will twist rules to favour a better outcome Canadian team have always produced an outsized portion of the NHL revenue, we carry shit teams like AZ and SJS but Daly lets SJ of the hook on 20 million in cap because its a US market. I mean look at where SJ is for revenue: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193736/revenue-of-national-hockey-league-teams-in-2010/ I'd actually be fine with a new league that was a mix of Canadian, Euro and maybe the O6 US teams and see the current NHL go away. I wish our Canadian teams could band together and be a bigger force at the table but I doubt they'd ever do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 (edited) 59 minutes ago, JM_ said: Canadian team have always produced an outsized portion of the NHL revenue, we carry shit teams like AZ and SJS but Daly lets SJ of the hook on 20 million in cap because its a US market. I mean look at where SJ is for revenue: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193736/revenue-of-national-hockey-league-teams-in-2010/ I'd actually be fine with a new league that was a mix of Canadian, Euro and maybe the O6 US teams and see the current NHL go away. I wish our Canadian teams could band together and be a bigger force at the table but I doubt they'd ever do that. Perhaps a way that U.S. teams revenues (gate/ mech ect) directly subsidize the Canadian Dollar to Canadian Teams to par . perhaps even a way to equalize all travel and expenses. I don’t think the escrow does that entirely? I think it’s more about sharing the loss with all teams? Edited September 18, 2022 by SilentSam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now