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

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

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.

That is all fine and good, but the NHL CBA wasn't drafted that way. Guaranteed contracts, with an "out" clause that has never been used, to my knowledge.
It is about a level playing field, in my mind. If the Flames did it, I would be pissed as well.

[opendoor]

The NHLPA wouldn't really care how big the resulting cap penalty is. The players' share is the players' share regardless of the cap hits involved. If Richards' cap amount disappears and is replaced by another player, that just means more escrow is held back than if his cap hit remained on the books for the Kings and wasn't replaced. There's zero net difference for the players as a group in terms of money.

Much bigger is the precedent this might set and it's why I'd expect the PA to fight for him.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

That is all fine and good, but the NHL CBA wasn't drafted that way. Guaranteed contracts, with an "out" clause that has never been used, to my knowledge.
It is about a level playing field, in my mind. If the Flames did it, I would be pissed as well.

Its not an out clause, its a violation.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I really want L.A to get burned by this. In no world do they deserve much, if any cap relief from this situation. It was so blatantly obvious what they were trying to do, even before all the facts came out.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

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.

Who cares what people would hypothetically think if the Flames did this? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. People are pissed because this is precedent setting and very, very convenient. Literally no other team has done this before (on a big contract) and it seems to good to be true from the Kings POV. If Richards was still a good player, they wouldn't do this. It's not that they're against his behavior, they just want the cap flexibility. It's so obvious what the Kings motives are, but they shouldn't worry, I'm sure the NHL is in their corner because they won't want to see a big market team saddled with a disadvantage, even if they deserve it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Who cares what people would hypothetically think if the Flames did this? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. People are pissed because this is precedent setting and very, very convenient. Literally no other team has done this before (on a big contract) and it seems to good to be true from the Kings POV. If Richards was still a good player, they wouldn't do this. It's not that they're against his behavior, they just want the cap flexibility. It's so obvious what the Kings motives are, but they shouldn't worry, I'm sure the NHL is in their corner because they won't want to see a big market team saddled with a disadvantage, even if they deserve it.

"Precedence" aka the CBA, used to be the union protecting their players from NHL owners. But for the past 2 decades, the CBA is mostly used to protect the owners from themselves. Its all about Bettman putting the owners in a very small and confined box and to try and limit the owner from hurting themselves too much. And the precedence changes every few years; from hiding players in the AHL (2 goalies facing off in the AHL a few years ago that were worth more then the rest of the AHL combined), hiding players over in Europe to avoid the cap, and now this. Hell look at how NJ got away with the Kovalchuk deal, first the cap circumvention (which the penalty was even revoked) to then actually getting completely out of it after 2 years of his (what was it, 11 year deal?)

Unlike those other gimmicks teams used, the difference here might actually be that the LAK might actually get away with it with minimal number of dollars spent. So it'll be interesting to see how the 4 parties involved here (I don't count the peanut gallery) fight for their own personal interests here. In a argument between millionaires and billionaires, we are only the peanut gallery.

[MissTeeks]

Rick Westhead ‏@rwesthead1m1 minute ago

LA Kings and Mike Richards have reached a settlement over his contract being voided: source. Likely to be announced today.

[Locke]

This should be interesting.

[Parallex]

Can anyone tell me where a negotiated settlement like this is governed in the CBA? I mean surely it's covered somewhere?

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Locke

This should be interesting.

this.

ramifications with setting a precedent may be far reaching.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Who cares what people would hypothetically think if the Flames did this? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. People are pissed because this is precedent setting and very, very convenient. Literally no other team has done this before (on a big contract) and it seems to good to be true from the Kings POV. If Richards was still a good player, they wouldn't do this. It's not that they're against his behavior, they just want the cap flexibility. It's so obvious what the Kings motives are, but they shouldn't worry, I'm sure the NHL is in their corner because they won't want to see a big market team saddled with a disadvantage, even if they deserve it.

This is such a ridiculous line of thought, and your last sentence just exposes where you opinion comes from "NHL not caring because they want big market LA not to get screwed" or something to that matter.

I don't doubt for a second, the Kings are looking to take advantage (if you want to call it that) of what Richards did to get out of this contract because it's a bad one. The only thing that matters though is that the only reason the Kings have this option is because of the "severity of what Richards did". There is no dangerous precedence being set here. The you can get out of bad contracts if said player breaks the law and gets arrested precedence is one that likely won't come up too often, and when it does, I'm firmly on the side of the teams should they choose to execute getting away from the bad contract.

Like I said before, for me "buyer beware" applies to a players attitude, work, ethic, mindset, likeability type stuff - Evander Kane type stuff. It stops being a hockey issue when crimes start getting committed and being forced to actually pay players, and take their cap hit when that line gets crossed is something I'm completely fine with the NHL and teams working around, cause I don't think it should happen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

This is such a ridiculous line of thought, and your last sentence just exposes where you opinion comes from "NHL not caring because they want big market LA not to get screwed" or something to that matter.

I don't doubt for a second, the Kings are looking to take advantage (if you want to call it that) of what Richards did to get out of this contract because it's a bad one. The only thing that matters though is that the only reason the Kings have this option is because of the "severity of what Richards did". There is no dangerous precedence being set here. The you can get out of bad contracts if said player breaks the law and gets arrested precedence is one that likely won't come up too often, and when it does, I'm firmly on the side of the teams should they choose to execute getting away from the bad contract.

Like I said before, for me "buyer beware" applies to a players attitude, work, ethic, mindset, likeability type stuff - Evander Kane type stuff. It stops being a hockey issue when crimes start getting committed and being forced to actually pay players, and take their cap hit when that line gets crossed is something I'm completely fine with the NHL and teams working around, cause I don't think it should happen.

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).

[Poe969]

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC 43s44 seconds ago
Quick while in break: hearing LA/Richards settlement will count against cap, but lower amount spread long-term. Not sure if same as buyout.

[GioforPM]

Anyone got some pills for Mason Raymond's locker? an they overprescribe OXY for Smid's recovery? Has Engelland jaywalked lately?

[Ashasx]

Well, somehow the Kings did it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC 43s44 seconds ago
Quick while in break: hearing LA/Richards settlement will count against cap, but lower amount spread long-term. Not sure if same as buyout.

This is either circumvention, magic or straight up extortion.

Or a combination of all 3.

[Poe969]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 54s54 seconds ago
Darren Dreger Retweeted Rick Westhead
Announcement expected today. Sounds like cap impact on Kings better than buyout would have been.

[sureLoss]

Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Regarding Mike Richards-LAK settlement that's expected to be concluded today: 1. LAK will pay the cap recapture penalty for next 5 years.

Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
LAK will also face annual cap hit equal to dollars being paid out to annually to Richards and cap hit will last as long payment schedule.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Can anyone tell me where a negotiated settlement like this is governed in the CBA? I mean surely it's covered somewhere?

It certainly won't be. But when we are talking about a negotiated settlement, you can guarantee that the union and league are involved heavily. This will likely become a framework for any future case that could fit a similar scenario.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Well, somehow the Kings did it.

Yep. Well worth this effort for them as they are reducing the cap hit from buying him out. So I guess teams now have a possible out for some of these long deals. Just hope for the player to have some sort of off ice issues then self declare they have terminated the deal and smear the player enough where they have to settle with the team to save some face. Well done Lombardi.