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

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Why do people keep saying the Kings were being classy not using their compliance buyout? They were being cheap! He would've got paid for not playing and could've signed with another team. Not using their compliance buyout was 100% selfish because they either thought he could be a good player or figured they could cheat their way out of cap and payout.

I doubt that was a consideration last summer.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

It's easy to say "Don't do drugs," but this is not cocaine or meth we're talking about here. We're talking about painkillers. Painkillers that were most likely originally administered by the Kings or Flyers medical staff due to hockey related injuries. If he got addicted under those circumstances, wouldn't you say the team/NHL has a certain degree of responsibility to rehab him? Besides, the CBA SAYS THEY DO! Instead the Kings just cut him loose in order to circumvent the cap. Yeah, super classy there. (Sarcasm)

The "pour addict victim who is being thrown under the bus by his drug pusher" angle some are touting is easily one of the most annoying takes I think I've ever read.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Possession of Oxy is considered way worse then both of those and will be a much harsher punishment usually.

All 3 of them are listed on Schedule 1 in Canada.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

The "pour addict victim who is being thrown under the bus by his drug pusher" angle some are touting is easily one of the most annoying takes I think I've ever read.

Then choose another thread. Plenty of decent people end up getting hooked on painkillers after legitimately taking them for an injury.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Ice

Lighter note, I'm just glad for the Flames fan in me that he wasn't traded here.

The funny thing through all this crying is that if the LAK didn't terminate his contract, Mike Richards might have been a Calgary Flame instead of Dougie Hamilton. So... thank god the LAK terminated his contract.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Why do people keep saying the Kings were being classy not using their compliance buyout? They were being cheap! He would've got paid for not playing and could've signed with another team. Not using their compliance buyout was 100% selfish because they either thought he could be a good player or figured they could cheat their way out of cap and payout.

Phil Anschutz has plenty of money. Paying off Richards wouldn't make a dent and would have been the easy way out. But there was an agreement made to keep Richards and someone didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Do you really think THIS is easier than writing a check? If ownership and management had any idea how badly Richards might stumble they would have most certainly given him the 20 mil, sent him on his way and rejoiced at the cap space a year ago, possibly two years ago.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

The funny thing through all this crying is that if the LAK didn't terminate his contract, Mike Richards might have been a Calgary Flame instead of Dougie Hamilton. So... thank god the LAK terminated his contract.

Yeah, while Treliving has made some good moves, some of them seem to be about being in the right place at the right time. I'm not complaining, it's about time things went our way.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Then choose another thread. Plenty of decent people end up getting hooked on painkillers after legitimately taking them for an injury.

I don't disagree. So who do we hold responsible when it happens to non pro athletes?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

The funny thing through all this crying is that if the LAK didn't terminate his contract, Mike Richards might have been a Calgary Flame instead of Dougie Hamilton. So... thank god the LAK terminated his contract.

That's a pretty big stretch. By all accounts, Lombardi didn't find out about Richards' problem at the border until just prior to the start of the Draft, which was hours after the Hamilton trade was made.

Acquiring Hamilton was not Treliving's Plan B.

If anything, acquiring Richards would likely have meant the Flames wouldn't have gone after Frolik. Without knowing the details of what Treliving and Lombardi were discussing for a Richards trade, it's tough to say whether or not it would have been a good deal (Richards' legal issues aside).

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by Ice

Phil Anschutz has plenty of money. Paying off Richards wouldn't make a dent and would have been the easy way out. But there was an agreement made to keep Richards and someone didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Do you really think THIS is easier than writing a check? If ownership and management had any idea how badly Richards might stumble they would have most certainly given him the 20 mil, sent him on his way and rejoiced at the cap space a year ago, possibly two years ago.

That makes no sense, maybe they just made a really bad decision not to buy him out but it's not like it was a huge favour towards Richards they thought he was serviceable is all.

Not sure if this has been asked already, but how does cap work for a player suspended during rehab? Either because he's suspended for refusing rehab or because he's taking the 6 months off for rehab.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don't disagree. So who do we hold responsible when it happens to non pro athletes?

We get them checked into rehab centers and treat them.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don't disagree. So who do we hold responsible when it happens to non pro athletes?

We cares. We just fire them anyway, right?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don't disagree. So who do we hold responsible when it happens to non pro athletes?

Why does that matter?

If you work in a profession that employs a doctor to look after their staff, and those doctors prescribe a painkiller like Oxy to an employee, that ends up in that employee being addicted to painkillers, then that employer should have a responsibility to that employee.

In the Richards case it is yet to be determined if he had a prescription at the time of arrest, or if he was ever granted a prescription that led to the addiction, but if that is the case then the Kings have some responsibility here.

If he went out and purchased the drugs illegally without any previous team prescription then they would not be responsible.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don't disagree. So who do we hold responsible when it happens to non pro athletes?

In Canada, an employer has to tread pretty carefully when deciding to terminate an addicted employee. It's treated as a form of disability.

Also, non-pro athletes who happen to be in unions have further rights as well.

http://www.devrylaw.ca/the-right-to-...ns-in-toronto/

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Why does that matter?

If you work in a profession that employs a doctor to look after their staff, and those doctors prescribe a painkiller like Oxy to an employee, that ends up in that employee being addicted to painkillers, then that employer should have a responsibility to that employee.

In the Richards case it is yet to be determined if he had a prescription at the time of arrest, or if he was ever granted a prescription that led to the addiction, but if that is the case then the Kings have some responsibility here.

If he went out and purchased the drugs illegally without any previous team prescription then they would not be responsible.

I think there is joint responsibility likely in an NHL situation when a player ends up taking pain killers. There is far too much, "the team made them play" angle being thrown out there when it comes to a lot of these situations IMO. I'm sure the team does want them to play (although in Richards situation who knows, the team didn't seem to mind him not playing recently) in many cases, but the players also push to be in the line up too, and there is an element of responsibility that lies with them as well, everyone needs to be responsible for themselves also.

Rumours (and I'll stress rumours as I don't know) about Richards and his "behaviour issues" have followed him around for years, and LA certainly doesn't appear to be the first organization to have issue with the way he conducts himself. We obviously don't know for sure, but I'm far from willing to assume LA is acting in an less than moral or above board way when it comes to this situation, and more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until more details come out considering the subject in discussion is Richards and has as mentioned before at least rumoured consistent behaviour issues.

I'm just waiting, for the conspiracy theories to start where we theorize that LA actually orchestrated all of this and got him addicted on purpose so they could terminate his contract.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In Canada, an employer has to tread pretty carefully when deciding to terminate an addicted employee. It's treated as a form of disability.

Also, non-pro athletes who happen to be in unions have further rights as well.

http://www.devrylaw.ca/the-right-to-...ns-in-toronto/

We have had a couple of employees with substance abuse issues and one of them would take a year off to rehab, come back for 6 months then fall back and the cycle continued three times before the company could let go of him in a 3 strikes you are out thing but it took years. Heck a lot of companies are scared to fire people even when they are terrible employees usually waiting for an excuse to lay off instead. It seems larger companies are petrified of the thought of getting sued.

[getbak]

Has a date been set for the hearing of the PA's grievance? I assume it will have to happen before the season starts.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by getbak

Has a date been set for the hearing of the PA's grievance? I assume it will have to happen before the season starts.

from yesterday:

Chris Johnston @reporterchris
The NHL and NHLPA have yet to set a hearing date for the Mike Richards grievance.

[Mattman]

I find it disgusting that Slava Voynov's contract is still going despite the fact he abused his wife. But I guess it's a good thing the Kings drew the line at illegal drug possession, right?

oh wait...http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...-say-1.3041111


I mean come on LA!!! You're 2,529.1 km away you you still stink of bull####!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

It's easy to say "Don't do drugs," but this is not cocaine or meth we're talking about here. We're talking about painkillers. Painkillers that were most likely originally administered by the Kings or Flyers medical staff due to hockey related injuries. If he got addicted under those circumstances, wouldn't you say the team/NHL has a certain degree of responsibility to rehab him? Besides, the CBA SAYS THEY DO! Instead the Kings just cut him loose in order to circumvent the cap. Yeah, super classy there. (Sarcasm)

How do you know one or more teams did not try to rehab him? And why should that absolve him completely of blame?

Way too many assumptions in this thread by people on both sides.