Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
Who cares what people would hypothetically think if the Flames did this? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. People are pissed because this is precedent setting and very, very convenient. Literally no other team has done this before (on a big contract) and it seems to good to be true from the Kings POV. If Richards was still a good player, they wouldn't do this. It's not that they're against his behavior, they just want the cap flexibility. It's so obvious what the Kings motives are, but they shouldn't worry, I'm sure the NHL is in their corner because they won't want to see a big market team saddled with a disadvantage, even if they deserve it.
|
This is such a ridiculous line of thought, and your last sentence just exposes where you opinion comes from "NHL not caring because they want big market LA not to get screwed" or something to that matter.
I don't doubt for a second, the Kings are looking to take advantage (if you want to call it that) of what Richards did to get out of this contract because it's a bad one. The only thing that matters though is that the only reason the Kings have this option is because of the "severity of what Richards did". There is no dangerous precedence being set here. The you can get out of bad contracts if said player breaks the law and gets arrested precedence is one that likely won't come up too often, and when it does, I'm firmly on the side of the teams should they choose to execute getting away from the bad contract.
Like I said before, for me "buyer beware" applies to a players attitude, work, ethic, mindset, likeability type stuff - Evander Kane type stuff. It stops being a hockey issue when crimes start getting committed and being forced to actually pay players, and take their cap hit when that line gets crossed is something I'm completely fine with the NHL and teams working around, cause I don't think it should happen.