Any word on Lecavalier in LA?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

How they got out of Richards contract is absolutely mind blowing. Barely a cap penalty at all. A special situation created specifically for them.

Yah, but it wasn't violating the CBA as far as I know?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yah, but it wasn't violating the CBA as far as I know?

If it wasn't, pretty much every team should be using the same scenario to get out of bloated contracts. I would be willing to bet that almost every player has done something that could be interpreted as "going against team rules" to void their contract in the same way.

I will personally volunteer to try and catch Wideman jaywalking on camera. Any one want to take Raymond on?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

How they got out of Richards contract is absolutely mind blowing. Barely a cap penalty at all. A special situation created specifically for them.

$6.6 million in recapture penalties; $10.5 million termination settlement, which counts against the cap in yearly instalments until 2031–32. That's $17.1 million against the cap. Without the termination, Richards' contract would have been $5.75 million for five years, or $28.75 million total. The Kings are on the hook for just about 60 percent. I don't see how that can be called ‘barely a cap penalty at all’.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$6.6 million in recapture penalties; $10.5 million termination settlement, which counts against the cap in yearly instalments until 2031–32. That's $17.1 million against the cap. Without the termination, Richards' contract would have been $5.75 million for five years, or $28.75 million total. The Kings are on the hook for just about 60 percent. I don't see how that can be called ‘barely a cap penalty at all’.

Yes, that is barely a cap penalty at all.

That fact that the cap penalty per season drops by almost $5 million is enough for me to say that alone.

But why does this special situation even exist for the benefit of the Kings alone? It should be either all or nothing. If Richards was in violation of his contract, then they should be on the hook for nothing. If he wasn't then they should be responsible for his entire buyout penalty.

The recapture penalties would have been incurred regardless. Richards' settlement is only a 250k penalty per season.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yah, but it wasn't violating the CBA as far as I know?

Call it whatever you want, but them getting out of Mike Richards contract because of charges that were eventually stayed is complete and total bull ####.

They went on to add Lucic, Schenn, Versteeg and Lecavalier all with retained salary because of the cap space they created by sleazing their way out of a contract they utilized to win two Stanley Cups, the minute that contract started to hold them back.

I blame the NHL more than I blame the Kings for letting them get away with it. It's typical NHL horse crap.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$6.6 million in recapture penalties; $10.5 million termination settlement, which counts against the cap in yearly instalments until 2031–32. That's $17.1 million against the cap. Without the termination, Richards' contract would have been $5.75 million for five years, or $28.75 million total. The Kings are on the hook for just about 60 percent. I don't see how that can be called ‘barely a cap penalty at all’.

Yeah, well I'm sure we'd all love to cut a few players' salaries almost in half and then spread the cap hit out over the next 15 years.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

That's a cap penalty of around 500k a season. Yes, that is barely a cap penalty at all.

$17.1 million is a hell of a lot more than $500k per season. It is, in fact, over $1 million per season on the average, with the bulk of it in the first five years.

That fact that the cap penalty per season drops by almost $5 million is enough for me to say that alone.

But it doesn't. For instance, the cap penalty for next season is $2.57 million.

But why does this special situation even exist for the benefit of the Kings alone?

It doesn't. Any team can terminate a contract if it has grounds – and if it is sure the termination will stand up in court. The Kings are merely the first team to try it.

It should be either all or nothing. If Richards was in violation of his contract, then they should be on the hook for nothing. If he wasn't then they should be responsible for his entire buyout penalty.

Legal disputes are seldom all or nothing. In this case, the NHL approved the termination of the contract, which wiped Richards' contract off the books (except the recapture penalty, because the contract was front-loaded). The NHLPA filed a grievance, demanding (in effect) that the Richards case be treated as a normal buyout. The parties settled out of court for the terms that you see, rather than take their business into court where anything could happen.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, well I'm sure we'd all love to cut a few players' salaries almost in half and then spread the cap hit out over the next 15 years.

Yeah, right. I'd love to see how CP would talk about paying cap hits on Wideman and Raymond 15 years from now.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yeah, right. I'd love to see how CP would talk about paying cap hits on Wideman and Raymond 15 years from now.

Didnt the Islanders just finish paying Yashin?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$17.1 million is a hell of a lot more than $500k per season. It is, in fact, over $1 million per season on the average, with the bulk of it in the first five years.



But it doesn't. For instance, the cap penalty for next season is $2.57 million.



It doesn't. Any team can terminate a contract if it has grounds – and if it is sure the termination will stand up in court. The Kings are merely the first team to try it.



Legal disputes are seldom all or nothing. In this case, the NHL approved the termination of the contract, which wiped Richards' contract off the books (except the recapture penalty, because the contract was front-loaded). The NHLPA filed a grievance, demanding (in effect) that the Richards case be treated as a normal buyout. The parties settled out of court for the terms that you see, rather than take their business into court where anything could happen.

Edited my original post. Richards' recapture penalty would have been incurred regardless of what happened with his settlement, buyout or not.

The comparison should be the settlement cap hit versus his buyout cap hit.

It's not even close.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

Didnt the Islanders just finish paying Yashin?

Yup. For eight solid years, their team was handicapped by having to spend cash and cap room on a player who was no longer in the league. And they were roundly ridiculed for it.

Now imagine doing that for 15 years. Still wanna volunteer?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$17.1 million is a hell of a lot more than $500k per season. It is, in fact, over $1 million per season on the average, with the bulk of it in the first five years.



But it doesn't. For instance, the cap penalty for next season is $2.57 million.



It doesn't. Any team can terminate a contract if it has grounds – and if it is sure the termination will stand up in court. The Kings are merely the first team to try it.



Legal disputes are seldom all or nothing. In this case, the NHL approved the termination of the contract, which wiped Richards' contract off the books (except the recapture penalty, because the contract was front-loaded). The NHLPA filed a grievance, demanding (in effect) that the Richards case be treated as a normal buyout. The parties settled out of court for the terms that you see, rather than take their business into court where anything could happen.

The cap penalty for the next 4 seasons is $1.57 according to CapFriendly.

$1.32 recapture + $250k for the buy out settlement.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yup. For eight solid years, their team was handicapped by having to spend cash and cap room on a player who was no longer in the league. And they were roundly ridiculed for it.

Now imagine doing that for 15 years. Still wanna volunteer?

I've gotta admit it still makes me laugh. They made the playoffs with Yashin and DiPietro still on the payroll a few years back.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Edited my original post. Richards' recapture penalty would have been incurred regardless of what happened with his settlement, buyout or not.

The comparison should be the settlement cap hit versus his buyout cap hit.

It's not even close.

The comparison I'm making is the settlement cap hit versus the cap hit for keeping his contract in effect – since he did not retire and has since been playing for another team.

But if you want to play that way, his buyout cap hit would have been $19,166,667 spread over ten years, plus $6,600,000 in recapture penalties. That's a saving of about 10 percent of the cap hit compared to keeping the contract in effect. With the settlement, they save 40 percent instead of 10. But they are still on the hook for the other 60 percent, which makes it nonsensical to claim that they are not taking any significant cap hit. Where I come from, 60 percent of anything is a significant percentage.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The cap penalty for the next 4 seasons is $1.57 according to CapFriendly.

$1.32 recapture + $250k for the buy out settlement.

My bad. Was looking at the 2015-16 column by mistake.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yup. For eight solid years, their team was handicapped by having to spend cash and cap room on a player who was no longer in the league. And they were roundly ridiculed for it.

Now imagine doing that for 15 years. Still wanna volunteer?

The Yashin deal was ridiculed as soon as it was made, whether he was still playing or not.

Either way, it's not great, but it's arguably better than the alternative. it depends on how it affects your team now and in the future. If you can't improve your team with a up and coming core (like the flames) because you are hindered by bloated short term contracts, or it prevents you from keeping good young players, then yes, I would absolutely do it.

If you felt your team could ride out the contract without significant opportunity costs then no, probably not. Wideman, Stajan and Raymond are pretty short term, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

In short, LA wouldn't have tried to do it if they felt they could have ridden out Richards' contract without the legalese dancing they had to do. Having a 5+ mil player on their roster that was useless (to them) would have significantly hindered their chances at putting together any decent depth for the playoffs. But a player making under a million, whether on your team or not, is probably not a hindrance of any significance in most situations.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If it wasn't, pretty much every team should be using the same scenario to get out of bloated contracts. I would be willing to bet that almost every player has done something that could be interpreted as "going against team rules" to void their contract in the same way.

I will personally volunteer to try and catch Wideman jaywalking on camera. Any one want to take Raymond on?

The Richards argument was never about breaching team rules. It was about a "material breach" of his contract. Basically, that he created a situation whereby it became impossible for him to fulfill his end of the deal. And there is no possible way you could ever argue "jaywalking" could constitute a material breach of his contract. What the Kings did was shady as all hell, and the league was foolish for allowing them to do it before the legal situation resolved itself. But there is no way in hell the NHL allows that to become the norm, because the NHLPA would go to war on it. As it is, I believe the only reason the NHLPA didn't do just that in this case is that Richards didn't want it. 99% of players would, however.

[landshark]

Didn't the PA fight for Richards? What happened there?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by landshark

Didn't the PA fight for Richards? What happened there?

Richards chose to settle and get some of the money still owed to him.

If he went to arbitration there was a risk that arbitrator would side with the Kings and he would get $0 of the money left on the contract. From what I recall the arbitrator could only choose between two options. 1. side with the Kings where Richards would get nothing. 2. side with Richards/NHLPA and re-instate the contract.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yup. For eight solid years, their team was handicapped by having to spend cash and cap room on a player who was no longer in the league. And they were roundly ridiculed for it.

Now imagine doing that for 15 years. Still wanna volunteer?

I'll volunteer in a heartbeat if it meant we were able to win 2 cups while the contract was a great deal. I'd also volunteer to take the Kings settlement over paying Richards the rest of his contract.