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

[automaton 3]

There are usually two sides to the story and so far we have only heard the King's marketing campaign.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that Richards did train hard but has long term injuries accumulated from his style of play that prevent him from meeting the Kings' expectations? Or that the Oxy was originally prescribed by a Dr. to combat the pain of the long term injuries in an attempt to keep playing?

I am obviously speculating here but certain posters seem pretty quick to judge.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually it's about not being able to weasel out of a contract feigning morality while another one of your players puts his wife in the hospital, but is good, so is welcome back. It's a bull#### move and I want them to pay for it.

If this was a team in the east who had these two situations play out, I'd feel no different.

This, 100% this.

[bax]

Yeah this situation and my stance on it has nothing to do with the Flame.

It's the difference between Voynov and Richards that really rubs me the wrong way

[KootenayFlamesFan]

If Richards was in his prime with a cap friendly contract would the Kings want to terminate it?

I doubt it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

If Richards was in his prime with a cap friendly contract would the Kings want to terminate it?

I doubt it.

Yep and it all boils down to the lawyers determining if the language in the CBA has a loophole for players to be treated as disposable commodities.

[868904]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

If Richards was in his prime with a cap friendly contract would the Kings want to terminate it?

I doubt it.

I agree with you, but these players have a golden goose, and if you do something stupid to spoil it, it's your own fault.

Mike Richards really has no one to blame but himself here. He had it made and he goes and does something stupid like this?

The lesson here is, don't do drugs, it'll cost you.

And really, is Richards' drug use a cause of his poor play? If it is, then the Kings have every right to be pissed and terminate his contract. They signed him in good faith expecting the very best Mike Richards. Instead they get a guy who can no longer perform?

Nevermind the technicalities and legalalize, Richard's did not live up to his end of the bargain, that's a fact.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Numerous NHLers have possession convictions and DUI w/manslaughter charges and I believe all of them are able to cross the border freely.

The only time I remember it being an issue with an NHL player was Bob Probert back in the day, but even then he was able to get a contract. He just couldn't play in Canada.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 868904

I agree with you, but these players have a golden goose, and if you do something stupid to spoil it, it's your own fault.

Mike Richards really has no one to blame but himself here. He had it made and he goes and does something stupid like this?

The lesson here is, don't do drugs, it'll cost you.

And really, is Richards' drug use a cause of his poor play? If it is, then the Kings have every right to be pissed and terminate his contract. They signed him in good faith expecting the very best Mike Richards. Instead they get a guy who can no longer perform?

Nevermind the technicalities and legalalize, Richard's did not live up to his end of the bargain, that's a fact.

None of these are facts, which is why this is being grieved.

[JohnnyT]

If the Kings argument is that he didn't tell them, yet he is only just now getting charged it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Now I don't know the legalities and clauses in the SPC, but from an outsiders view I can't see how Richards not telling the Kings before there was an actual charge is a violation, had he hidden the charge yeah that's a whole different story. Basically if you're under investigation are you forced to tell your employer? What if your investigated and not charged? Is there a precedent for this type of thing?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually it's about not being able to weasel out of a contract feigning morality while another one of your players puts his wife in the hospital, but is good, so is welcome back. It's a bull#### move and I want them to pay for it.

If this was a team in the east who had these two situations play out, I'd feel no different.

We have to separate Voynov/Richards. It isnt the same thing.

Dont get me wrong, I agree in some respects, one dude has some painkillers and its the end of the world and another guy beats the hell out of his wife and all is well, thats crappy, but thats not on the Kings.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Locke

We have to separate Voynov/Richards. It isnt the same thing.

Dont get me wrong, I agree in some respects, one dude has some painkillers and its the end of the world and another guy beats the hell out of his wife and all is well, thats crappy, but thats not on the Kings.

How they handle the two situations is most definitely on the Kings.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually it's about not being able to weasel out of a contract feigning morality while another one of your players puts his wife in the hospital, but is good, so is welcome back. It's a bull#### move and I want them to pay for it.

If this was a team in the east who had these two situations play out, I'd feel no different.

Originally Posted by Serapth

This, 100% this.

The thing is, have the Kings ever come out and said, "We are terminating Richard's contract due to the illegal activity and the morality of it?"

I see that many on this board are comparing them on that basis, but I don't recall ever hearing the Kings say that...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by the2bears

How they handle the two situations is most definitely on the Kings.

It doesnt exist in a social vacuum, the Kings have to operate their business and their team as they see fit and deem proper.

If they attempt to cancel Richards' contract and Voynov's and then Richards rides out into the Sunset but Voynov gets immediately picked up by the Sharks and the Kings miss the playoffs then all hell breaks loose.

Obviously thats a far-fetched scenario, but I think the point gets across.

Yes. Its about money. What isnt?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 868904

I agree with you, but these players have a golden goose, and if you do something stupid to spoil it, it's your own fault.

Mike Richards really has no one to blame but himself here. He had it made and he goes and does something stupid like this?

The lesson here is, don't do drugs, it'll cost you.

And really, is Richards' drug use a cause of his poor play? If it is, then the Kings have every right to be pissed and terminate his contract. They signed him in good faith expecting the very best Mike Richards. Instead they get a guy who can no longer perform?

Nevermind the technicalities and legalalize, Richard's did not live up to his end of the bargain, that's a fact.

Of course what Richards did was stupid, agree 100%.

But you're speculating whether his play has dropped off due to drug use. We have no idea if it is. Maybe his body is just beat up and that's affecting his play, he never exactly played a perimeter or soft game.

My original question was would the Kings want to terminate his contract if he was in his prime and had a cap friendly contract. In my opinion, there's no chance. His play has dropped off, he's owed a lot of money, they've wanted him gone for at least a year and now they have an excuse to terminate it, or at least try. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

The thing is, have the Kings ever come out and said, "We are terminating Richard's contract due to the illegal activity and the morality of it?"

I see that many on this board are comparing them on that basis, but I don't recall ever hearing the Kings say that...

This, exactly. If you wanted the unfiltered reason, the Kings would say "We want to get rid of Mike Richards and his contract cause he is a terrible player and out of shape, and the guy was stupid enough to do something that may legally allow us to get out of this contract, so we're going to try it."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep and it all boils down to the lawyers determining if the language in the CBA has a loophole for players to be treated as disposable commodities.

If there is one thing both teams and players have shared attitudes on, it is the fact that they inevitably seek to break every CBA before the ink is dry on the day they are signed.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by Locke

It doesnt exist in a social vacuum, the Kings have to operate their business and their team as they see fit and deem proper.

If they attempt to cancel Richards' contract and Voynov's and then Richards rides out into the Sunset but Voynov gets immediately picked up by the Sharks and the Kings miss the playoffs then all hell breaks loose.

Obviously thats a far-fetched scenario, but I think the point gets across.

Yes. Its about money. What isnt?

Well I think the obvious answer here is, for the NHL to even permit a contract cancellation, the offence needs to be great enough the player is no longer eligible to play in the league.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Serapth

Well I think the obvious answer here is, for the NHL to even permit a contract cancellation, the offence needs to be great enough the player is no longer eligible to play in the league.

Thats a really tough bar to set on a whole plethora of moral and legal reasons.

Its really skewed in one direction, I think there likely needs to be some middle ground.

If you look at the current state of affairs players can commit an intermediate to severe felony without any risk of losing their jobs or suffering anything more than minor financial harm and minor inconvenience.

Shouldnt there be some fairness going the other way?

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats a really tough bar to set on a whole plethora of moral and legal reasons.

Its really skewed in one direction, I think there likely needs to be some middle ground.

If you look at the current state of affairs players can commit an intermediate to severe felony without any risk of losing their jobs or suffering anything more than minor financial harm and minor inconvenience.

Shouldnt there be some fairness going the other way?

Frankly that's just a matter of calibrating the bar.

Basically what I am saying is, if the league is willing to authorize a termination of a contract, that should apply on a league wide basis, unless of course its for a reason that has nothing to do with the player, like a clerical error etc. If the league decides a drug charge, or domestic abuse, or whatever else is enough reason for a player to have his contract terminated, it should go one step further and remove all eligibility to play, so the situation you described can't happen.


In my view this would both help and hinder players, as having their contracts terminated would be very difficult, with huge consequences, which IMHO it should be. On the other hand, it also punishes players heavily, basically kicking them from the league completely. Terminating a contract should never be something that is easy, but on the other hand, it should also have teeth when it happens.

It's done in several professions. In many cases having a criminal records is grounds for expulsion from an industry. The league just needs to be absolute and consistent in it's criteria.

[Passe La Puck]

People who think Richards will be barred entry needs to give their head a shake, millionaires don't get barred entry for minor things like drug possession.