Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
|
It appears to me that there are two different standards involved:
1. Sufficient evidence to show, on balance, that the San Jose Sharks had adequate grounds to terminate Kane's contract. The Sharks definitely have a prima facie case, and it appears that the NHL doesn't have enough evidence against that case to intervene by refusing to let the Sharks out of the contract.
2. Sufficient proof of a particular violation of the league's rules to administer further punishment to Evander Kane, beyond the suspension he has already served. Apparently this is what the NHL is saying it hasn't got.
The way I read the league's position, the Sharks were in their rights to terminate Kane's contract, but the league has already punished him for what he did under their jurisdiction. His latest border-crossing shenanigans, it would seem, were not for the NHL to punish because he wasn't in the league at the time, but were grounds for terminating his contract because he was still on the Sharks' payroll.
No doubt the AHL could suspend him for violating their rules, but since he is now under a new contract with an NMC, he
can't be sent back to the AHL and any suspension would be, as some of our posters like to say, a moo point.