[News] Kings terminate Richards contract. UPD: Kings and Richards reach settlement

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I'd sign Richards to the Flames for league minimum. No questions asked.

His play has dropped off and there are off-ice issues. Why would anyone want that on the Flames?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

His play has dropped off and there are off-ice issues. Why would anyone want that on the Flames?

If he's been getting help and he wants to turn his life around, a player like Richie would unquestionably be of service to this team. The Flames have given quite a few players who were perceived as washed up (Huselius, Nolan, Bourque) a chance to succeed and it's worked. For the player that Richards was (and if he's been committed to getting help), I'd do a one year contract without even thinking twice.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by jayswin

That's like giving a convict 4 years in jail, but he can serve it in 1 day per year segments.

Or like telling a bank robber that they can go live it up big for a few years and spend everything they stole (ie. win 2 stanley cups), and then come back and spend a few weeks in jail and do some community service.

“If the settlement was simply a disguised way to get favorable Cap treatment, we certainly would have considered it to be a circumvention and acted accordingly. But this wasn't that. Far from it. There is absolutely zero concern that anything that transpired here could in any way be considered a `circumvention’ of the CBA. Anyone who believes to the contrary is clearly not privy to the facts.”

This quote from Daly smells. Unless he is going to provide these so called "facts", then of course everyone is going to see this as circumvention.

[H2SO4(aq)]

I love richie. probably my favourite player since Yelle. Don't think it would be a good idea to sign him here tho

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cole436

If he's been getting help and he wants to turn his life around, a player like Richie would unquestionably be of service to this team. The Flames have given quite a few players who were perceived as washed up (Huselius, Nolan, Bourque) a chance to succeed and it's worked. For the player that Richards was (and if he's been committed to getting help), I'd do a one year contract without even thinking twice.

Saying Bourque was washed up when we got him is a stretch. Maybe you were thinking of Tanguay, who was coming off a bad year?

As for Richards, I'm not interested but I'll leave that judgement up to Treliving.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Cole436

If he's been getting help and he wants to turn his life around, a player like Richie would unquestionably be of service to this team. The Flames have given quite a few players who were perceived as washed up (Huselius, Nolan, Bourque) a chance to succeed and it's worked. For the player that Richards was (and if he's been committed to getting help), I'd do a one year contract without even thinking twice.

Lol well good thing we have Treliving doing the thinking for us and not someone who'd be fumbling with a pen trying to get a washed up Richards signed without a second thought

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Lol well good thing we have Treliving doing the thinking for us and not someone who'd be fumbling with a pen trying to get a washed up Richards signed without a second thought

Insults aren't a great way to generate conversation.

[renny]

Originally Posted by Cole436

If he's been getting help and he wants to turn his life around, a player like Richie would unquestionably be of service to this team. The Flames have given quite a few players who were perceived as washed up (Huselius, Nolan, Bourque) a chance to succeed and it's worked. For the player that Richards was (and if he's been committed to getting help), I'd do a one year contract without even thinking twice.

Thing is, those reclamation projects were brought in when our cupboards were bare and we had nothing in the pipeline. We have a pretty good pipeline now there's really no need for a player like Richards on the Flames at the point in time even at league minimum. It sucks that he's all messed up, I hope he gets better, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near the Flames.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Insults aren't a great way to generate conversation.

Bad ideas don't merit conversation.

[GioforPM]

There have been way more reclamation projects that didn't work than ones that did.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Insults aren't a great way to generate conversation.

Not trying to be insulting. I'm just saying that Treliving would think long and hard about signing Richards (or any other player) before putting pen to paper. Not ''without thinking twice'' like the person I was quoting would.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Haha, what a joke. "Okay LA, the bad news is we're going to punish you for this, the good news is we'll spread it over 150 years so you won't even notice".

That's like giving a convict 4 years in jail, but he can serve it in 1 day per year segments.

Yeah, what the hell? And I mean, just tacking on a 'non-precedent' clause is such garbage.

Every team in the league has a contract that they'd love to get this treatment for.

I've never even heard of a 'non-precedent clause.'

"We did something that every team wishes they could do but you can never refer to it ever again for...reasons."
- The LA Kings...presumably.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Haha, what a joke. "Okay LA, the bad news is we're going to punish you for this, the good news is we'll spread it over 150 years so you won't even notice".

That's like giving a convict 4 years in jail, but he can serve it in 1 day per year segments.

Are they trying to punish the Kings, or is this just what the settlement is? I think, regardless of your opinion of this situation, your thought process that this settlement and how it has been drawn out as meant to be punishment to the Kings is very flawed, I don't think punishing the Kings was at all the intent.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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).

For me, the answer to all of those situations are "maybe" depending on history of the player and previous instances with the team, and the facts surrounding the arrests and the likelihood that there would be legit charges. In Richards case the evidence surrounding the situation was likely well know to the Kings before the formal charges, but no two situations are the same, so it would depend on what's going on in each case.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Are they trying to punish the Kings, or is this just what the settlement is? I think, regardless of your opinion of this situation, your thought process that this settlement and how it has been drawn out as meant to be punishment to the Kings is very flawed, I don't think punishing the Kings was at all the intent.

Bingo.

There was absolutely no incentive on any side to punish the Kings.

The NHL already supported them while the NHLPA doesn't like teams to be stuck with dead cap space. Logically, the union shouldn't care, since their share doesn't change either way, but the union has always preferred to get as much up front money as possible and hope the escrow doesn't hurt too badly. Dead space reduces that up front money. The NHLPA's real goal here was to get Richards as much money as it could.

[Street Pharmacist]

Mike Richards settlement does little to prevent players’ ‘destructive spirals’


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...service=mobile

Everyone involved in this case is quick to point out the settlement does not set a precedent because, well, it says so right in the legal language of the agreement.

This is considered a “one off.”

But if you’re wondering why other teams aren’t contesting the deal, perhaps it’s because it effectively gives owners and general managers a powerful trump card to keep players in line.

Especially those on unwanted deals – of which there are many these days.

Richards’s play has been in decline for years. A former Selke runner-up and all-star who was a key member of the Kings’ first Stanley Cup team 3 1/2 years ago, he was waived through the league and sent to the minors last January.

He was 29 years old.

There’s no indication – and certainly not after the arrest – that the Kings tried to help Richards with his problem.

And had he been performing at a higher level, on a more reasonable contract, it’s unlikely the team would have been so quick to nullify his deal.

(Especially given there was talk this summer that the Kings were considering welcoming defenceman Slava Voynov – who pleaded no contest to domestic assault in July – back into the fold had he not returned to Russia amid immigration issues related to his jail time.)

This doesn’t become a grievance if Anze Kopitar is involved.

Kings GM Dean Lombardi offered his version of events in an emotional letter to the LA Times on Friday, explaining – without offering specifics – that Richards had abused his trust and entered “a destructive spiral” that affected his play.

Lombardi portrays himself and the Kings as the victim. He explains he wanted Richards to become his “Derek Jeter” – his own version of the beloved Yankees captain – and that when Richards didn’t live up to that ideal, it was a personal disappointment.

Lombardi doesn’t mention attempting to get Richards help for off-ice issues, only that there had been rumours that went ignored.

“I refused to believe that they were true despite some obvious signs,” he wrote.

It’s a disturbing response to the situation, especially considering NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly’s recent admission that illicit drug use is on the rise among players.

layers considered valued and cost-effective – like Montreal’s Zack Kassian – are suspended and placed into treatment.

Players who have outlived their usefulness are punitively dumped and forced into a grievance process to recoup their contracts – if teams believe they can get better terms there than on a buyout.

It’s an outcome that will only breed distrust rather than help these players, who will be less likely to come forward with their issues if they risk a lucrative contract being annulled.

It’s an outcome that won’t prevent future destructive spirals.

Mirtle is bang on here

[Resolute 14]

Mirtle is, but as usual, the media forgets to wonder why the NHLPA is also failing to offer support for its members. Other than to collect paycheques, that is.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Mirtle is, but as usual, the media forgets to wonder why the NHLPA is also failing to offer support for its members. Other than to collect paycheques, that is.

He's not absolving anyone here. He blames Lombardi for knowing but not doing anything and the PA for allowing the charade to settle.

Lombardi certainly taking his lumps here because he's the only one with decision making power here, and he intentionally made the bad decisions

[CroFlames]

I wonder if player agents will look for "guaranteed money" now like in NFL contracts.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I wonder if player agents will look for "guaranteed money" now like in NFL contracts.

Yes, but not because of this.

Front loading bonuses is already a thing. They call it "lockout protection".