Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
The NHLPA wouldn't really care how big the resulting cap penalty is. The players' share is the players' share regardless of the cap hits involved. If Richards' cap amount disappears and is replaced by another player, that just means more escrow is held back than if his cap hit remained on the books for the Kings and wasn't replaced. There's zero net difference for the players as a group in terms of money.
Much bigger is the precedent this might set and it's why I'd expect the PA to fight for him.
|
Thanks for this - I was trying to reconcile the escrow impacts in my mind, and this sounds exactly right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
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.
|
An issue that many are speculating on here is whether his possible pill addiction is directly correlated to his job. This is obviously a very complex discussion, and precludes me from seeing this as a black and white issue.
As many have mentioned, their treatment of the Voynov situation (much more serious allegations IMO, that have no correlation to his profession) makes this smell much worse.