Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh
Maybe, but I wouldn't be so certain.
The other owners would weigh this as "precedence to terminate a contract over loose language", vs "Freeing the Kings from a tight cap situation" AND "paying less in penalties".
I imagine there's active communication between owners and Bettman around this.
Does Bettman have full endorsement to push on this contract termination language piece for benefit of the owners as a whole, OVER the short term benefit for a single team? Plausible.
Definitively? Surely, the next 30 days will establish that.
|
Well do you see the contract termination reversed, and Mike Richards showing up to training camp?
I don't.
The part that really has me convinced is that it was Dean Lombardi doing this - a guy who historically has been known to be (a) loyal to his players, and more likely to give loyal but declining players a chance, and (b) he's a lawyer, so I doubt he does this on a low percentage risk and he believes legally, the player has violated his contract enough to warrent termination.
Also, I don't think the owners are as vindictive as fans may be. To me, if the end resolution is favorable to the LAK, I don't see this as just a LAK win - I see it as a NHL/owners win. It might be a "LA got away with bad contract that the should have got rid of last year" to some, but owners might actually see it as a collective statement that a player cannot abuse having a long term contract and let loose, stop being professional and/or abusing legal policies and get away with it because they are pro athletes... this keeps long term contract players more accountable to their contract.