[Rumour] Evander Kane and Sharks reach settlement on contract termination

[Erick Estrada]

I kind of don't understand why the Sharks would pay any money if it was deemed that Kane was in breach of his contract. Either he breached the terms of the contract and they are allowed to terminate him or he did not breach the terms of his contract. This grey area stuff is BS as if they wrongly voided the contract they should be penalized with the full cap hit. It's bad enough LTIR has made a mockery of the salary cap and stuff like this is BS.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://twitter.com/user/status/1570814084731510789

that's that, then.

I'm sure the Sharks are satisfied. They somehow got away with conveniently terminating a contract that they wanted to rid themselves of. NHLPA doesn't care because their player gets all his money owed. Seems like the NHL doesn't care either but if I was a GM or owner of another team I would certainly be interested about this blueprint of being able to get out of bad contracts without salary cap ramifications.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So the Sharks will only get a $1.5MM penalty for the next three years?

I don't understand how they get out of this contract, and that's the only penalty they receive.

Sometimes this league is just an absolute joke.

In the law... even if you're on the right side of a lawsuit, you have the responsibility (expectation) to mitigate your losses, and if you don't, than that loss is yours if the judge or jury (or in this case - the arbitrator) deem that you could have mitigated them. Kane getting a contract in Edmonton was him doing just that - and that releases San Jose from those losses. Now... there could be punitive damages added on, but those are separate from Kane's losses from them terminating the contract.

So the league following the law is not an absolute joke.... are we expecting that San Jose somehow be on the hook for a greater amount than they are legally responsible for... they signed Kane to 7 million, and Kane is worth 5.125 million according to the market and is getting paid that - they should have to make that difference up on their cap space (because they overpaid him from his market value), but they could have also retained that same amount and trade Kane to Edmonton and we should be in the exact same situation. So I think it's fair. I think last year Kane was suspended and Edmonton paid a prorated amount equal to 7 million (not sure it that's right - I suspect) - and San Jose should be on the hook for any difference (timing included) to Kane and any dollar amount exceeding the cap that year should be added to this year (I think there was none)... I do think Kane had to wait a period of time between when his suspension ended and his Edmonton contract started and if that 2,108,696 didn't cover those losses, San Jose needs to cover that and any other expense Kane suffered from San Jose cancelling his contract (expenses dealing with getting the contract in Edmonton for example - flights, etc.)- and I'm assuming his suspension was WITHOUT pay, because if it was with pay, San Jose needs to cover that suspension period as well.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Because Monny didn't kick his puppy.

But to play your game, if they did terminate his contract, and Monny received another contract this year, presumably for about $1M, the Flames would be hit with a "penalty" (and cap hit) for the difference.

The cancer that SJ got rid of was a highly sought after player.

And Kane didn't breach his contract. So why did the Sharks have a right to terminate it?

[powderjunkie]

It should simply be what the buyout would have been.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sure the Sharks are satisfied. They somehow got away with conveniently terminating a contract that they wanted to rid themselves of. NHLPA doesn't care because their player gets all his money owed. Seems like the NHL doesn't care either but if I was a GM or owner of another team I would certainly be interested about this blueprint of being able to get out of bad contracts without salary cap ramifications.

But there is salary cap ramifications... the difference between the two contracts (his 5.125 million Edmonton contract and his 7 million San Jose cancelled one) will be recaptured on San Jose Cap for all the future years spanning that 7 million dollar contract.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It should simply be what the buyout would have been.

Why.... it's not a buyout... it's basically a transfer of the contract with 1.875 being retained by San Jose.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Lol no he wasn't...he cleared waivers multiple times. nobody wanted the guy, he was in the AHL. Somehow the Sharks get out of the terrible cap hit and the Oilers got him for league min last season which is also BS.

Because he had completed the 3 highest performing years of his 7 year contract. Nobody wanted him as a 30 yo with 4x7M remaining. Coming off a career high in both goals/pts per game he was now worth 4x5.125M (which is hilarious and still too much)

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

In the law... even if you're on the right side of a lawsuit, you have the responsibility (expectation) to mitigate your losses, and if you don't, than that loss is yours if the judge or jury (or in this case - the arbitrator) deem that you could have mitigated them. Kane getting a contract in Edmonton was him doing just that - and that releases San Jose from those losses. Now... there could be punitive damages added on, but those are separate from Kane's losses from them terminating the contract.

So the league following the law is not an absolute joke.... are we expecting that San Jose somehow be on the hook for a greater amount than they are legally responsible for... they signed Kane to 7 million, and Kane is worth 5.125 million according to the market and is getting paid that - they should have to make that difference up on their cap space (because they overpaid him from his market value), but they could have also retained that same amount and trade Kane to Edmonton and we should be in the exact same situation. So I think it's fair. I think last year Kane was suspended and Edmonton paid a prorated amount equal to 7 million (not sure it that's right - I suspect) - and San Jose should be on the hook for any difference (timing included) to Kane and any dollar amount exceeding the cap that year should be added to this year (I think there was none)... I do think Kane had to wait a period of time between when his suspension ended and his Edmonton contract started and if that 2,108,696 didn't cover those losses, San Jose needs to cover that and any other expense Kane suffered from San Jose cancelling his contract (expenses dealing with getting the contract in Edmonton for example - flights, etc.)- and I'm assuming his suspension was WITHOUT pay, because if it was with pay, San Jose needs to cover that suspension period as well.

Here simply is why I don't like it:

1. The Sharks got out of his contract last season, even with this settlement, and face no penalty for the cap saved. The Oilers then got to sign him for league minimum. This settlement is to address the next three seasons.

2. Under the original contract, Kane's cap hit was $21 million total for the next three seasons. However, his actual salary is only $19 million. The cap penalty for the Sharks is only based on the difference in actual cash to be paid between his new and original contract, not what his cap hit would have been. That's not cool.

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://twitter.com/user/status/1570814084731510789

that's that, then.

Spoiler!

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Here simply is why I don't like it:

1. The Sharks got out of his contract last season, even with this settlement, and face no penalty for the cap saved. The Oilers then got to sign him for league minimum. This settlement is to address the next three seasons

Yep. Precedent has been set: if you don't like a contract now, terminate it and worry about it later.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So the Sharks will only get a $1.5MM penalty for the next three years?

I don't understand how they get out of this contract, and that's the only penalty they receive.

Sometimes this league is just an absolute joke.

In any industry you can terminate a contract for certain types of behaviour. Are employers expected to maintain employment with employees, no matter how they behave?

The Oil clearly would have taken on Kane at his current contract with the Oilers (probably higher, as Kane likely took a discount due to the whole hoopla), so I don't see it as being some major unfairness.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by blankall

In any industry you can terminate a contract for certain types of behaviour. Are employers expected to maintain employment with employees, no matter how they behave?

The Oil clearly would have taken on Kane at his current contract with the Oilers (probably higher, as Kane likely took a discount due to the whole hoopla), so I don't see it as being some major unfairness.

As I noted above, this settlement only addressed the 2022-2025 seasons, not the 21/22 season. No repercussions for invalidly terminating a contract.

And then the penalty itself is based only on actual cash out the door, not Kane's original cap hit. That simply makes no sense.

[Icon]

I'm just glad the league didn't somehow make the Sharks pay for a portion of Kane's new deal with the Oilers, or more importantly part of his cap hit. Would have been really weird, but wouldn't be abnormal for the league to find a way to work things in the Oilers favour.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

But there is salary cap ramifications... the difference between the two contracts (his 5.125 million Edmonton contract and his 7 million San Jose cancelled one) will be recaptured on San Jose Cap for all the future years spanning that 7 million dollar contract.

Surely you must realize that those are ramifications the Sharks or any other team would gladly take. They were able to rid themselves of a player they didn't want and 3/4 of his salary cap hit for free. It cost the Flames a 1st round pick to rid themselves of a single year of Monahan's cap hit. How is this fair?

[Jason14h]

The players association wouldn’t ever go for a cap penalty / dead cap as it reduces the actual amount of $$ the sum of all players earn

No one would go for paying Kane “twice” with both teams having cap hits

Kane wasn’t kicked out of the league so he’s still getting paid and having a cap hit

Similar to LTIR abuse - the players and owners have no real issue with it . Just the fans who think sports is best “punishing” teams vs creating an equal opportunity to dress a competitive lineup

The NHL cap already has the dumbest rules in all of sports in regards to letting
Teams keep talent and building dynasties . Nothing I enjoy more them a successful well run team needing to dump their players to terribly run teams because they had too much success

Luxury taxes and ability to resign players over the cap would make NHL much more interesting , increase the $ spent on players (if rich teams are willing to go over the cap and pay taxes to keep their team intact) and create more of a top heavy competitive environment which leads to more interest in rivalries and pressure to compete with the best

I like when dynasty’s get beaten by someone better or get too old . I don’t like when they have to trade all their depth for picks because they can’t use their extra revenue to go over the cap and keep their own players

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by blankall

In any industry you can terminate a contract for certain types of behaviour. Are employers expected to maintain employment with employees, no matter how they behave?

The Oil clearly would have taken on Kane at his current contract with the Oilers (probably higher, as Kane likely took a discount due to the whole hoopla), so I don't see it as being some major unfairness.

Remember we are talking guaranteed contracts here. Companies can only terminate if the employee is in breach of their contract. It's clear that the Sharks wrongfully terminated Kane as his contract (signed prior to the pandemic) did not have the specific COVID protocols in its language they used as their reason to terminate.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Surely you must realize that those are ramifications the Sharks or any other team would gladly take. They were able to rid themselves of a player they didn't want and 3/4 of his salary cap hit for free. It cost the Flames a 1st round pick to rid themselves of a single year of Monahan's cap hit. How is this fair?

I guess the only unfair part was Kane could play last year and rebuild his value while it was being figured out

If Monahan had value we wouldn’t have to include a 1st. If Kane had no
Value and was unsigned SJ “may” be on the hook for it
All this year

[1_Flames_Fan]

##### the Sharks and ##### Evander Kane.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I guess the only unfair part was Kane could play last year and rebuild his value while it was being figured out

If Monahan had value we wouldn’t have to include a 1st. If Kane had no
Value and was unsigned SJ “may” be on the hook for it
All this year

Value of the player has nothing to do with it. One team had to pay the cost of a 1st round pick to rid themselves of a cap hit they didn't desire. The other wrongly terminated the contract of a player and contract they didn't desire and got served a slap on the wrist cap hit and a few million dollars. A 1st round pick is worth far, far more than what the Sharks had to give up to get rid of Kane.