Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
If the LAK get a cap consequence-free buyout (aka. "settlement") thats actually more beneficial to the NHLPA as that free's up extra dollars that could go to another player. Not sure why the NHLPA would argue that. If anything, the NHL should want the LAK to have the penalties so they aren't paying "unaccounted dollars"
|
Some of that might be true, and I was kind of on LA's side in terms of canceling Richards' contract, but this whole scenario doesnt make any sense to me.
They terminate his contract, ergo losing his cap hit and not sustaining any cap penalties and not paying him anything. If the termination was just then this is okay.
But now they're discussing an offer to pay him some of his owed salary.
Is that not just effectively a buyout? How do they justify paying him anything when they also claim to be justified in terminating his contract and somehow still not incurring any cap consequences?
I dont get that.