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

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Since when to players under contract in any sport do you get fired for it? Heck even in the real world very few employers would have the stones to fire an employee for a drug or alcohol problem.

He was already given a second chance after he did rehab and promised the Kings he was healthy and rehabilitated, after they wanted to buy him out last summer and the Kings stood by him.
When does it become his responsibility to adhere ?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by timbit

He was already given a second chance after he did rehab and promised the Kings he was healthy and rehabilitated, after they wanted to buy him out last summer and the Kings stood by him.
When does it become his responsibility to adhere ?

None of this has any bearing on the Kings avoiding the cap hit, which most think this is really about.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

None of this has any bearing on the Kings avoiding the cap hit, which most think this is really about.

Lol. It has everything to do with it.

[timbit]

It's called cause and effect.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well yeah but what exactly is your point in relation to the Kings trying to use that to get out of a bad contract?

It's a bad contract because the player has become drug dependent. The team from what has been said would prefer that he was clean and sober so he'd be able to fulfill his contract. How many chances should a player get?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by timbit

He was already given a second chance after he did rehab and promised the Kings he was healthy and rehabilitated, after they wanted to buy him out last summer and the Kings stood by him.
When does it become his responsibility to adhere ?

It's not like someone is an addict one day, then goes to rehab and is cured. It's a lifelong affliction.

Addiction is recognized as a disease and I think a case can be made that it is an occupational hazard for hockey players that are prescribed strong pain killers.

Is it any different than say a coal miner getting treated for lung disease, then having relapsing health issues after the treatment?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

The settlement here should be a regular buyout on Richards contract, with the usual cap penalties. If the NHLPA allows this they are giving the Kings a special buyout window to deal with their BS, and that is more than enough preferential treatment. Anything less would be a sham.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The settlement here should be a regular buyout on Richards contract, with the usual cap penalties. If the NHLPA allows this they are giving the Kings a special buyout window to deal with their BS, and that is more than enough preferential treatment. Anything less would be a sham.

If the LAK get a cap consequence-free buyout (aka. "settlement") thats actually more beneficial to the NHLPA as that free's up extra dollars that could go to another player. Not sure why the NHLPA would argue that. If anything, the NHL should want the LAK to have the penalties so they aren't paying "unaccounted dollars"

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not like someone is an addict one day, then goes to rehab and is cured. It's a lifelong affliction.

Addiction is recognized as a disease and I think a case can be made that it is an occupational hazard for hockey players that are prescribed strong pain killers.

Is it any different than say a coal miner getting treated for lung disease, then having relapsing health issues after the treatment?

I could be wrong, but I think timbit was referring to Richard's responsibility in terms of his lack of conditioning, preparation, partying it up in Vegas too much, etc.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I could be wrong, but I think timbit was referring to Richard's responsibility in terms of his lack of conditioning, preparation, partying it up in Vegas too much, etc.

There have been hundreds of players in all sports that signed big deals only to party it up or not get in proper shape. Richards can be another one of those guys but contracts are contracts and it goes both ways when an underpaid player plays at a level above his contract the team doesn't have to pay them an extra dime and they don't.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with Richards conditioning or substance dependency as it's about the Kings trying to circumvent the salary cap. No team ever fired Dustin Penner for having a beer belly and the masters of playing great in contract years then floating like Geoff Courtnall always got paid. NHL contracts are guaranteed end of story. One of the biggest busts in sports history in Albert Haynesworth who got a record contract and then quit trying to play at all for the Redskins got paid every penny of his guaranteed money. Contracts are contracts and what the Kings are trying to do here is something that's never been done in a salary cap sport which is get out of a contract that they fully agreed to inherit when they traded for Richards. The Flyers and Rangers have sucked it up in the past and bought out their bad deals and the Kings should be no different.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There have been hundreds of players in all sports that signed big deals only to party it up or not get in proper shape. Richards can be another one of those guys but contracts are contracts and it goes both ways when an underpaid player plays at a level above his contract the team doesn't have to pay them an extra dime and they don't.

Not really true. Contracts are valid until they are breached.

The Flyers and Rangers have sucked it up in the past and bought out their bad deals and the Kings should be no different.

The Flyers and Rangers only wish their crappy players were stupid enough to give them a legal means of getting out of their contracts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

If the LAK get a cap consequence-free buyout (aka. "settlement") thats actually more beneficial to the NHLPA as that free's up extra dollars that could go to another player. Not sure why the NHLPA would argue that. If anything, the NHL should want the LAK to have the penalties so they aren't paying "unaccounted dollars"

Some of that might be true, and I was kind of on LA's side in terms of canceling Richards' contract, but this whole scenario doesnt make any sense to me.

They terminate his contract, ergo losing his cap hit and not sustaining any cap penalties and not paying him anything. If the termination was just then this is okay.

But now they're discussing an offer to pay him some of his owed salary.

Is that not just effectively a buyout? How do they justify paying him anything when they also claim to be justified in terminating his contract and somehow still not incurring any cap consequences?

I dont get that.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Locke

Some of that might be true, and I was kind of on LA's side in terms of canceling Richards' contract, but this whole scenario doesnt make any sense to me.

They terminate his contract, ergo losing his cap hit and not sustaining any cap penalties and not paying him anything. If the termination was just then this is okay.

But now they're discussing an offer to pay him some of his owed salary.

Is that not just effectively a buyout? How do they justify paying him anything when they also claim to be justified in terminating his contract and somehow still not incurring any cap consequences?

I dont get that.

It will probably cost them less dollars. I bet internally, the NHL is not on the side of the LAK in terms of the settlement; the NHL doesn't want to see the LAK pay accounted dollars to Richards. Their participation in this negotiation settlement is probably trying to make sure the LAK aren't trying to pay un-accounted dollars; meanwhile, the NHLPA's interest in this is probably trying to get as much money for Richards without it taking the cap hit. Kind of funny that the teams in this negotiation may end up being (LAK + NHLPA) vs NHL (Richards probably doesn't care either way, he just wants max number of dollars possible)

[Phanuthier]

I should clearify, I see 4 parties interests here (not 2) :

LAK - want to get this issue settled ASAP so they can move on and sign Kopitar. Don't care about the dollars going out. Hoping the cap penelty are as low as possible, to none.

Richards - try to get as much $$ as possible. Don't care about cap penelty.

NHLPA - want to see very little cap penelty, but as much $$ as possible.

NHL - want to see as little $$ paid out as possible, but $$ paid out should be accounted for in cap penalties if $$ paid out.

[powderjunkie]

I think the NHLPA needs to worry about the precedent here more than the benefit of having a little extra cap space across the league. (5.75M is peanuts in a 2.142B league wide cap).

It would be like having a 71.6M cap/ team instead of 71.4 (of course it wouldn't be evenly distributed like that).

If I'm a player, I'd rather have my contract protected from any kind of slippery slope of termination. Taking drugs across the border today could become "getting too drunk at the team Christmas party" or "missing a workout".

I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a boat anchor contract and are not performing, the language concerning the contract breach is pretty nebulous:
“fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the club’s rules governing training and conduct.”

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think the NHLPA needs to worry about the precedent here more than the benefit of having a little extra cap space across the league. (5.75M is peanuts in a 2.142B league wide cap).

It would be like having a 71.6M cap/ team instead of 71.4 (of course it wouldn't be evenly distributed like that).

If I'm a player, I'd rather have my contract protected from any kind of slippery slope of termination. Taking drugs across the border today could become "getting too drunk at the team Christmas party" or "missing a workout".

I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a boat anchor contract and are not performing, the language concerning the contract breach is pretty nebulous:
“fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the club’s rules governing training and conduct.”

Yeah I agree, that should be their #1 concern (and probably is). Especially when weighed against the hypothetical 0.09% of the league-wide cap being opened up for player X instead of being dead space due to a buy out.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

If the Flames had somehow traded for Richards, no one on here would have any issue with the Flames trying to ditch this contract. The talk on here would be all about how Richards was a bad seed, he's been given his chance and this is a extenuating circumstance that should allow us to drop the contract.

I'm literally blown away by some of the thoughts on here, which must be coming from just a desire to see a rival team not have the opportunity to succeed. I'm fully supportive of the Kings or any team taking different approaches with players on these things, based on the contract and quality of player. Me don't get where this one size fits all mentality comes in, not sure where else in life any of you experience that? Richards has taken actions that IMO make him an unfit employee. Regardless of any thoughts I have about getting him help, IMO that's something Richards has done to himself, and the Kings should be free to terminate his contract. And in the sense of the cap hit, I'm also fine that when a player crosses the line like Richards did with his legal troubles, that that becomes a point where the "buyer beware" of signing contracts goes away. It's not that he just got out of shape or has a bad attitude, he got arrested. At some point the player has to be held responsible.

On the flip, I'm also fine with the Kings, or any other team for that matter choosing to not terminate a contract in a similar situation if they don't want to part ways with a player. I don't doubt for a second if Richards had a more friendly cap hit or was a player performing up to value for contract, the Kings might be taking a different stance, and I'm 100% ok with that. It doesn't have to be fair or one size fits all, that's not how life works. And it's not like this is some loop hole teams can just use to get out of bad contracts, this whole thing is prefaced on players committing crimes. Unless we find out the Kings "set him up", then I'm fine with what the Kings are doing.mid want the Flames to have this option if we invest in Aa player for big money and term and they do the same thing as Richards did.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

If the Flames had somehow traded for Richards, no one on here would have any issue with the Flames trying to ditch this contract..

Disagree, most people here are aware that when you trade for a long term contract you assume the risk the the player may regress for become a moron. I'm sure the Flames would love to cancel some of their less desirable contracts but it doesn't work that way.

So far we don't see NHL teams trying to cancel the contracts of good players, that should be proof enough of their true motivations. It has nothing to do with the players behavior and everything to do with cap considerations.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

If the Flames had somehow traded for Richards, no one on here would have any issue with the Flames trying to ditch this contract. The talk on here would be all about how Richards was a bad seed, he's been given his chance and this is a extenuating circumstance that should allow us to drop the contract.

I'm literally blown away by some of the thoughts on here, which must be coming from just a desire to see a rival team not have the opportunity to succeed. I'm fully supportive of the Kings or any team taking different approaches with players on these things, based on the contract and quality of player. Me don't get where this one size fits all mentality comes in, not sure where else in life any of you experience that? Richards has taken actions that IMO make him an unfit employee. Regardless of any thoughts I have about getting him help, IMO that's something Richards has done to himself, and the Kings should be free to terminate his contract. And in the sense of the cap hit, I'm also fine that when a player crosses the line like Richards did with his legal troubles, that that becomes a point where the "buyer beware" of signing contracts goes away. It's not that he just got out of shape or has a bad attitude, he got arrested. At some point the player has to be held responsible.

On the flip, I'm also fine with the Kings, or any other team for that matter choosing to not terminate a contract in a similar situation if they don't want to part ways with a player. I don't doubt for a second if Richards had a more friendly cap hit or was a player performing up to value for contract, the Kings might be taking a different stance, and I'm 100% ok with that. It doesn't have to be fair or one size fits all, that's not how life works. And it's not like this is some loop hole teams can just use to get out of bad contracts, this whole thing is prefaced on players committing crimes. Unless we find out the Kings "set him up", then I'm fine with what the Kings are doing.mid want the Flames to have this option if we invest in Aa player for big money and term and they do the same thing as Richards did.

Same here, I'm actually kind of surprised what a somewhat "can do" Calgary belief would support someone getting a free ride for not doing his job. I guess thats part of being a hockey fan though, caring more about trying to screw over your rivals instead of what makes logical sense. Maybe I just believe that you should work for what you pay, and if you constantly show up to work unfit and poor conditioning, you are known to be a party animal and not show up to work ready, you are underperforming, and then you give your employer a legal way out of your contract... I think the choice is very obvious.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I should clearify, I see 4 parties interests here (not 2) :

LAK - want to get this issue settled ASAP so they can move on and sign Kopitar. Don't care about the dollars going out. Hoping the cap penelty are as low as possible, to none.

Richards - try to get as much $$ as possible. Don't care about cap penelty.

NHLPA - want to see very little cap penelty, but as much $$ as possible.

NHL - want to see as little $$ paid out as possible, but $$ paid out should be accounted for in cap penalties if $$ paid out.

I think the you could consider the other 29 teams interested parties. As the Kings competition they should be pretty interested in seeing that the Kings don't get to side-step rules that they themselves follow.

The absolute most the Kings should get is a special buyout window (and I think even that is shady since any fraudulant termination perpetrated on the part of the Kings would have given them unfair access to cap dollars that would have otherwise prevented much of their past offseason).