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

[The Cobra]

If Kane had signed with the Flames and had led them to a win over the Oilers, dollars to donuts this thread would not exist.

Instead we'd be heavily criticising the Oilers for the similar thread on their boards.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Sharks had his cap hit -AHL buried amount for about half the year.

And the Oilers signing him has no bearing on how much SJ did or did not save last year or moving forward.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

The precedent was already set with Mike Richard’s . This case doesn’t set any more precedent

A team can apply to terminate a contract and the league can approve

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The precedent was already set with Mike Richard’s . This case doesn’t set any more precedent

A team can apply to terminate a contract and the league can approve

The league can always approve a termination - that's not in question. They can also set the cap implications. This is a bad decision.

You seem to think people are questioning jurisdiction and not the merits of the decision.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

As it wasn't a league ruling, an arbitrator's ruling, or a court case, it does not set any precedent. It was a settlement.

I'd expect a lawyer to know that.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The league can always approve a termination - that's not in question. They can also set the cap implications.

No, they cannot. The cap implications are dictated by the CBA. If a player's contract is terminated with cause, the salary he is not being paid does not and cannot count against the cap.

This is a bad decision.

Again, it isn't a decision, it's a settlement.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

As it wasn't a league ruling, an arbitrator's ruling, or a court case, it does not set any precedent. It was a settlement.

I'd expect a lawyer to know that.



No, they cannot. The cap implications are dictated by the CBA. If a player's contract is terminated with cause, the salary he is not being paid does not and cannot count against the cap.



Again, it isn't a decision, it's a settlement.

They set the cap implication by agreeing to the settlement. They needed League OK.

And a public settlement where the whole league knows the outcome is indeed a de facto precedent.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They set the cap implication by agreeing to the settlement. They needed League OK.

What choice did they have? The parties to the dispute agreed to settle. They decided how much Kane is to receive. The CBA dictates that any money paid to a player shall count against the team's cap.

The league didn't OK this; the league accepted a fait accompli.

And a public settlement where the whole league knows the outcome is indeed a de facto precedent.

It isn't a de jure precedent, which is what matters in future cases. And the NHL is not a party to the settlement, and therefore is not bound by it in future cases.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

As it wasn't a league ruling, an arbitrator's ruling, or a court case, it does not set any precedent. It was a settlement.

I'd expect a lawyer to know that.



No, they cannot. The cap implications are dictated by the CBA. If a player's contract is terminated with cause, the salary he is not being paid does not and cannot count against the cap.



Again, it isn't a decision, it's a settlement.

A decision to settle...

1. SJ terminates without cause (no doubt after consultation with the league)
2. League approves
3. Kane/PA appeals
4. League agrees to settle

2&4 are both league 'decisions'.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A decision to settle...

1. SJ terminates without cause (no doubt after consultation with the league)

Wrong. SJ terminated with cause. They stated the cause at the time. Whether you agree with the cause or not is irrelevant to the case.

2. League approves

The league approved pending appeal, which they were legally bound to do, since San Jose did in fact have a prima facie case for termination.

3. Kane/PA appeals
4. League agrees to settle

Wrong. Kane and the Sharks have agreed to settle. The NHL was not a party to the dispute, and it never reached the arbitrator, so there was nothing for the league to agree to.

2&4 are both league 'decisions'.

No, 2 & 4 are the league formally registering the decisions made by the actual parties in the case. The league could not have chosen to do otherwise.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

... a fait accompli.

... a de jure precedent...

Originally Posted by Jay Random

... a prima facie ...

Man's over here showing true dedication to the effort of trying to out-lawyer a lawyer.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If Kane had signed with the Flames and had led them to a win over the Oilers, dollars to donuts this thread would not exist.

Instead we'd be heavily criticising the Oilers for the similar thread on their boards.

People on here thought it was absolute BS before he went to the Oilers.

A 7M player they didn't want and couldn't move has his entire contract voided for breaching covid protocol. By the letter of the law a lot of guys breached protocol. They weren't supposed to visit eachothers hotel rooms at one point.

What if he didn't light it up with McDavid and get a long term contact this season? All parties in involved are pretty damn fortunate here.

Last season was just a freebie all around

[getbak]

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

No it wouldn't. Cap space is just a number that guides teams towards how much they can pay, but at the end of the day, the real money paid to the players (and the players' share of HRR) are what is important.

Applying a cap penalty to the Sharks would impact their own cap space for the term of the penalty, which would likely harm one or two players who wouldn't get paid as much by the Sharks, but for all the other players in the league, it would slightly reduce the number of slices the HRR pie gets cut into.

[getbak]

Seravalli is reporting that the cap penalty will be entirely retroactively applied against last season (where the Sharks had a lot of unused cap), and there will be no cap penalty going forward: https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/sharks-...e-cap-penalty/

So, essentially no cap impact for the Sharts at all. That's some BS.

[FlamesAddiction]

The $2.5 million being awarded to Kane seems reasonable as those were the material losses that he could easily prove.

The lack of a cap penalty for one of either the Sharks or Oilers is dumb.

[Enoch Root]

Not sure why the Oilers should be subject to a cap penalty - they signed a free agent. Any other team could have done the same

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not sure why the Oilers should be subject to a cap penalty - they signed a free agent. Any other team could have done the same

Someone should get it and the Oilers are benefiting from it the most. A player is getting paid an additional $2.5 million in the future and no one getting hit by the cap for it. The money is going to a player playing for the Oilers, so I could see a case for why they should get hit with the cap for it.

[getbak]

He was supposed to have a $7 million cap hit for 3 more seasons. Instead, he'll have a $5.125 million hit over that time.

The Sharks should have a $1.875 million hit to make up the difference.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Someone should get it and the Oilers are benefiting from it the most. A player is getting paid an additional $2.5 million in the future and no one getting hit by the cap for it. The money is going to a player playing for the Oilers, so I could see a case for why they should get hit with the cap for it.

The Sharks had a contract with him. They got out of it. There should be some consequences.

The Oilers signed a free agent.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Sharks had a contract with him. They got out of it. There should be some consequences.

There are consequences. They lost the player for nothing to another team, and every dollar they are paying to him is being counted against their cap.

Seems to me that some people think the league should just be able to make up punishments as it goes along. It doesn't work that way.

[dino7c]

Kane had negative value with his contract...losing him for nothing is not a punishment it's a massive win. This player cleared waivers multiple times.

Kane did something bad enough to warrant voiding his contract yet was allowed to play almost immediately.

It's mind boggling some defend this.

Nobody was penalized in the end