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

[Roof-Daddy]

This is absolute horse sh)t

Sharks got out from a terrible contract and the oilers got to add a player mid season who went on to score at a 40 goal pace at a bargain bin discount and who should have never been available in the first place.

He scored FIVE ####ing goals against the Flames in the playoffs last year.

Every Flame fan should be livid. Two division rivals both benefitting from the rubber rules this league enforces.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Kane value is 5+million . The oilers just paid that

If SJ traded him to the oilers and retained 1.5 million it’s the exact same situation

Kane has had the market show he wasn’t worth zero . Monahan has the market show he was worth less then zero (or flames were unwilling to eat any salary which SJ has from the punishment )

The problem is Kane had very little value last year and was able to rebuild it risk free to SJ. It would be more like if Monahan bounces back and Montreal has to give us back the 1st rounder because Monmy ends up not being worthless

That’s the only issue I have - last years situation is basically just ignored like it didn’t happen .

Not sure what could be done - guess they could take his last year SJ cap and enforce it over the next 4 years to SJ spews out plus the spread between Oilers and SJ contracts or something

[MrMike]

Ha, Kane could have taken pretty much any other deal for any other team and San Jose would have eaten the rest. Now he’s stuck in Edmonton, that seems like punishment enough.

[EVERLAST]

Oh NHL and NHLPA never change. Just keep shuffling those deck chairs, putting on the horse blinders and ignoring the FACT that this guy ISNT good for the league in any way shape or form .

But I guess it is Edmonton....and its uncanny how high one can stack s h I t.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Kane value is 5+million . The oilers just paid that

If SJ traded him to the oilers and retained 1.5 million it’s the exact same situation

Kane has had the market show he wasn’t worth zero . Monahan has the market show he was worth less then zero (or flames were unwilling to eat any salary which SJ has from the punishment )

The problem is Kane had very little value last year and was able to rebuild it risk free to SJ. It would be more like if Monahan bounces back and Montreal has to give us back the 1st rounder because Monmy ends up not being worthless

That’s the only issue I have - last years situation is basically just ignored like it didn’t happen .

Not sure what could be done - guess they could take his last year SJ cap and enforce it over the next 4 years to SJ spews out plus the spread between Oilers and SJ contracts or something

He wasn't traded to the Oilers. They wrongfully terminated Kane's contract and got away with it. You are also missing the part where Kane got a half season tryout with the Oilers prior to the Oilers offering him any long term deal. He doesn't get that contract without the tryout and the Oilers don't make a trade in your scenario given the uncertainty of Kane being a fit. You are ignoring what actually happened and simplifying things.

[MrMike]

It’s a settlement where everyone is happy, including the league for having this over quietly. Not sure what else you can really do here. Seems pretty fair across the board for me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Kane value is 5+million . The oilers just paid that

If SJ traded him to the oilers and retained 1.5 million it’s the exact same situation

Kane has had the market show he wasn’t worth zero . Monahan has the market show he was worth less then zero (or flames were unwilling to eat any salary which SJ has from the punishment )

The problem is Kane had very little value last year and was able to rebuild it risk free to SJ. It would be more like if Monahan bounces back and Montreal has to give us back the 1st rounder because Monmy ends up not being worthless

That’s the only issue I have - last years situation is basically just ignored like it didn’t happen .

Not sure what could be done - guess they could take his last year SJ cap and enforce it over the next 4 years to SJ spews out plus the spread between Oilers and SJ contracts or something

The issue is escaping cap without any meaningful repercussions. and if Kane did something worthy of being terminated without meaningful compensation, he shouldn't get to play anywhere. It is a recipe for CBA avoidance, just as much as anything TB/Vegas did.

[D as in David]

I'm having trouble finding the logic behind this. Kane's subsequent contract with the Oilers has no connection to the termination of his Shark's contract. Are all buyouts now going to be retroactively impacted by whatever new contracts the bought out player signs?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He wasn't traded to the Oilers. They wrongfully terminated Kane's contract and got away with it.

Wrong. They had a perfect right to terminate Kane's contract, and they haven't admitted otherwise. They are settling out of court to make him go away instead of having this thing drag on.

Businesses settle nuisance lawsuits all the time, even when they believe they have no legitimate liability, if it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

There is no ‘joke’ here. This is business.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by MrMike

It’s a settlement where everyone is happy, including the league for having this over quietly. Not sure what else you can really do here. Seems pretty fair across the board for me.

Oilers got a year of Kane at league min when he had a 7M contract

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He wasn't traded to the Oilers. They wrongfully terminated Kane's contract and got away with it. You are also missing the part where Kane got a half season tryout with the Oilers prior to the Oilers offering him any long term deal. He doesn't get that contract without the tryout and the Oilers don't make a trade in your scenario given the uncertainty of Kane being a fit. You are ignoring what actually happened and simplifying things.

You are missing the part that the termination was allowed by the league. It was appealed by Kane

So the options at this point are:

1. The arbitrator rules that SJ was no allowed to terminate the contract. He is put back on SJ for 3 (doubt 4) more years at $7 million

2. The arbitrator rules they were allowed and nothing changes

If #1 happens, SJ immediately trades Kane to the Oilers with 1.25 retained.

Kane gets an extra 3.75 that he was fighting for, and SJ looses 1.25 a year in cap.

Instead Kane and SJ decided to meet in the middle of the 1.25 so he gets some money and they don't retain as much.

The arbitrators decision had to be #1 or #2. The arbitrator can not start making up random punishments.

The league 'dropped' the ball when they let him play last year while the 'case' was pending. This allowed Kane to rebuild his value.

The decision today is completely fair for what going to be arbitrated.

The league and NHLPA decided last year he could play while awaiting settlement/arbitration. And legally they had to.

You can be mad at that decision last year.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Wrong. They had a perfect right to terminate Kane's contract, and they haven't admitted otherwise. They are settling out of court to make him go away instead of having this thing drag on.

Businesses settle nuisance lawsuits all the time, even when they believe they have no legitimate liability, if it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

There is no ‘joke’ here. This is business.

Well no kidding they haven't.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The issue is escaping cap without any meaningful repercussions. and if Kane did something worthy of being terminated without meaningful compensation, he shouldn't get to play anywhere. It is a recipe for CBA avoidance, just as much as anything TB/Vegas did.

He did and the league approved it. The player was appealing!

Why is everyone acting like the league was appealing the contract termination. The league said it was justifyable grounds.

Not any team can just choose to "terminate" a contract. And if a contract is terminated, after the punishment (suspension) you can't block that player for earning a living.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You are missing the part that the termination was allowed by the league. It was appealed by Kane

So the options at this point are:

1. The arbitrator rules that SJ was no allowed to terminate the contract. He is put back on SJ for 3 (doubt 4) more years at $7 million

2. The arbitrator rules they were allowed and nothing changes

If #1 happens, SJ immediately trades Kane to the Oilers with 1.25 retained.

Kane gets an extra 3.75 that he was fighting for, and SJ looses 1.25 a year in cap.

Instead Kane and SJ decided to meet in the middle of the 1.25 so he gets some money and they don't retain as much.

The arbitrators decision had to be #1 or #2. The arbitrator can not start making up random punishments.

The league 'dropped' the ball when they let him play last year while the 'case' was pending. This allowed Kane to rebuild his value.

The decision today is completely fair for what going to be arbitrated.

The league and NHLPA decided last year he could play while awaiting settlement/arbitration. And legally they had to.

You can be mad at that decision last year.

Isn't that the point here? That's what led us to this sweep under the rug conclusion. You can say that the decision today is fair and that may be true but overall what transpired last year was not fair. It wasn't fair to any team that lost to the Oilers while Kane was in the lineup and it's not fair to teams that the Sharks got out of Kane's contract with a slap on the wrist. Anytime one of the golden franchises attempts to get out of contracts the league always seems to let it happen.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He wasn't traded to the Oilers. They wrongfully terminated Kane's contract and got away with it. You are also missing the part where Kane got a half season tryout with the Oilers prior to the Oilers offering him any long term deal. He doesn't get that contract without the tryout and the Oilers don't make a trade in your scenario given the uncertainty of Kane being a fit. You are ignoring what actually happened and simplifying things.

The case was settled. There is no finding that the contract was wrongfully terminated.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I'm having trouble finding the logic behind this. Kane's subsequent contract with the Oilers has no connection to the termination of his Shark's contract. Are all buyouts now going to be retroactively impacted by whatever new contracts the bought out player signs?

It's the measure of damages suffered by Kane for the termination.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

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

Pfft, you think the league follows precedents? Like the many precedents for what constitutes a clear and distinct kicking motion.

Originally Posted by 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

False, but most players are probably too dumb to understand why.

It was especially false with annual linkage, but it's still false to within the new longer-term 50/50 linkage.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You are missing the part that the termination was allowed by the league. It was appealed by Kane

So the options at this point are:

1. The arbitrator rules that SJ was no allowed to terminate the contract. He is put back on SJ for 3 (doubt 4) more years at $7 million

2. The arbitrator rules they were allowed and nothing changes

If #1 happens, SJ immediately trades Kane to the Oilers with 1.25 retained.

Kane gets an extra 3.75 that he was fighting for, and SJ looses 1.25 a year in cap.

Instead Kane and SJ decided to meet in the middle of the 1.25 so he gets some money and they don't retain as much.

The arbitrators decision had to be #1 or #2. The arbitrator can not start making up random punishments.

The league 'dropped' the ball when they let him play last year while the 'case' was pending. This allowed Kane to rebuild his value.

The decision today is completely fair for what going to be arbitrated.

The league and NHLPA decided last year he could play while awaiting settlement/arbitration. And legally they had to.

You can be mad at that decision last year.

The arbitrator was never going to put Kane back on the Sharks. The likely remedy would have been applying the terms of a buyout, but hard to say which date they'd make it retroactive to - the most favourable ruling for Kane would be full salary last season and buyout this off-season.

There's really no reason for any of the Oilers stuff to come into play, aside from the fact that Kane's actions warranted no additional disciplline before he was eligible to play in the league again. Which seems quite contrary to the notion that his supposed contract breach warranted unilateral contract termination.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

It sounds like Kane is going to be made whole financially out of all of this and there's a bit of a cap implication for the Sharks for the next three years. But, they seemed to have ignored last year from a cap perspective. Kane's cap was just over $2M with the Oilers when it should have been $7M with the Sharks. Looks like the Sharks got a bonus ~$5M in cap last year. If the Sharks were competitive, that would have been a big deal.

[Enoch Root]

A cap penalty does not reduce the total amount that the players receive. They will receive 50% of HRR, regardless. The cap penalty would reduce the amount of escrow withheld (assuming that total salaries were greater than 50%, which they pretty much always are). So, for each player individually, it is actually beneficial.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

He did and the league approved it. The player was appealing!

Why is everyone acting like the league was appealing the contract termination. The league said it was justifyable grounds.

Not any team can just choose to "terminate" a contract. And if a contract is terminated, after the punishment (suspension) you can't block that player for earning a living.

I'm aware of who was doing what. The outcome is the same - it screws the other teams and sets a precedent.