Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
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.
|
They terminated the contract (in June) before Richards was even charged (late August). And he hasn't been convicted yet. But either way, it's the arbitrary nature of the action (it has never been done before, including by the Kings, when other players get arrested or even convicted) which tells an arbitrator that the Kings didn't view the breach of contract as serious - they wanted to avoid the contract.
Would the Flames be justified in terminating Ferland when he was charged? Can the Ducks terminate Stoner's contract? What about Ryan O'Reilly? What about Patrick Kane (at this point he's in the same legal situation as Richards was when he was terminated).