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

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Oilers clearly don't think Kane has negative value.

As for his clearing waivers, it would appear that no other team in the league wanted him under that particular contract either. So maybe, just maybe, the Sharks actually did have grounds to terminate?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Oilers clearly don't think Kane has negative value.

As for his clearing waivers, it would appear that no other team in the league wanted him under that particular contract either. So maybe, just maybe, the Sharks actually did have grounds to terminate?

They cleary did think he had negative value at 7x3 because they passed him over multiple times

Sure at 1/7th of his contract it was worth the risk but that's irrelevant. How can someone do something bad enough to void his contract but is good to go with another team immediately.

Them signing his this summer is also totally irrelevant to how SJ got out of the contract in the first place.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.

I think you took my post out of context. I wasn't implying that there weren't, I was merely stating to the person that said the Oilers should face consequences that I felt the Sharks should (as they did), but the Oilers shouldn't

[dino7c]

The Sharks got the cheapest buyout in NHL history for a player they wouldn't even allow in the building

That is not a consequence...all because of an incident that didn't even warrant a one game suspension

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.



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.

Well, duh. That's why I said de facto precedent, meaning any team in similar circumstances will demand identical treatment from the league.

And the league and the union absolutely had to sign off on the settlement.

[Sofa GM]

This is all a scam, last year the Oilers were floundering bad when they got Kane. This is a way the league could give the Oilers an injection. The league could have stepped in then and said you can’t release him, you can suspend him with pay but can’t release him. But they knew Edmonton was the only team that would take him so they let it happen. The crap that is set up for that joke of a franchise is absolutely incredible

[DoubleK]

I don't see the problem with the settlement.

This is my understanding of the events that unfolded.

Kane lied about his vaccination status (produced fake vaccination card) and got suspended 21 games for it.

Came back from suspension, was waived and ended up with the Barracuda.

He then travelled to Vancouver while in Covid protocol in violation of League Rules.

SJ move to terminate the SPC based on a breach of that contract.

NHL investigated and found insufficient evidence to find any wrongdoing.

NHL declared Kane a free agent and he signed with Edmonton.

Kane grieves the termination while an Oiler.

If the NHL made an error it was when they declared Kane to be a free agent, not in approving this settlement. To go and punish SJ in terms of the salary cap for NHL decisions is absurd. Kane is kept whole by SJ by paying the difference between the terminated contract and the new one.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned and there isn't really anything to be mad about. Especially for a Flames fan.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.



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.



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.



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.

Wrong. Because as they say in latin, dorkus malorkus. It's funny to watch someone be so condescendingly certain that they have the only true answer to an issue that is clearly swimming in grey shades.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.



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.

Habent cons, mon frere. You apply the Collective Pactus Pactum to one part of your argument, but not the other. The CBA (CPP to us real fake lawyers) itself undermines most of your arguments.

The NHL absolutely did not wash their hands of this and leave it up to SJ vs. Kane. The moment the NHL approved SJ's termination (and no, it was not approved pending appeal, though I'm sure they anticipated an appeal), this became an NHL vs PA dispute.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Oilers clearly don't think Kane has negative value.

As for his clearing waivers, it would appear that no other team in the league wanted him under that particular contract either. So maybe, just maybe, the Sharks actually did have grounds to terminate?

This is your least logical argument yet. His value has nothing to do with the validity of their grounds to terminate.

[DoubleK]

LOL @ dorkus malorkus

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I don't see the problem with the settlement.

This is my understanding of the events that unfolded.

Kane lied about his vaccination status (produced fake vaccination card) and got suspended 21 games for it.

Came back from suspension, was waived and ended up with the Barracuda.

He then travelled to Vancouver while in Covid protocol in violation of League Rules.

SJ move to terminate the SPC based on a breach of that contract.

NHL investigated and found insufficient evidence to find any wrongdoing.

NHL declared Kane a free agent and he signed with Edmonton.

Kane grieves the termination while an Oiler.

If the NHL made an error it was when they declared Kane to be a free agent, not in approving this settlement. To go and punish SJ in terms of the salary cap for NHL decisions is absurd. Kane is kept whole by SJ by paying the difference between the terminated contract and the new one.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned and there isn't really anything to be mad about. Especially for a Flames fan.

Part of the issue was ambiguous rules in the AHL, but your two bolded sentences don't add up.

Insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant league punishment...but sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant unilateral contract termination? Ut canis non venari, as we like to say over drinks at the real fake lawyer pub.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Part of the issue was ambiguous rules in the AHL, but your two bolded sentences don't add up.

That was the order of events was it not?

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are a cold-hearted bastard!


I love it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

That was the order of events was it not?

Yes, that's correct (sorry I see my wording might have been unintentionally confrontational). It's the incongruity of those two events that doesn't make any sense here.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yes, that's correct (sorry I see my wording might have been unintentionally confrontational). It's the incongruity of those two events that doesn't make any sense here.

All good. (I don't really take your posts as confrontational).

And yes, we are in agreement.

[dino7c]

Voided a 21M contract
NHL found no evidence of wrongdoing

Lol

That's exactly the point!

Should have falsely accused Monahan of not wearing a mask on a plane or something

[jlh2640]

This whole thing is a joke.

[OldDutch]

So between this and Keith “retiring” are we getting the signal already McDavid ascension
is inbound?

Can’t wait for the reffing next playoffs.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Voided a 21M contract
NHL found no evidence of wrongdoing

The NHL found no evidence that Kane broke the league's rules.

However, no one has denied that Kane broke the freaking law, and broke it in a way that could make him ineligible to cross the border to play games.

Holy smokes. It's as if some of you had never heard that the NHL is not the only organization in the world that has rules.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Wrong. Because as they say in latin, dorkus malorkus. It's funny to watch someone be so condescendingly certain that they have the only true answer to an issue that is clearly swimming in grey shades.

It's even funnier how you don't apply that to all the people who are certain the Sharks had no grounds to terminate Kane's contract.

Or it would be, if you were not the most condescending person to appear yet in this argument – and with so little grounds, too.

Habent cons, mon frere. You apply the Collective Pactus Pactum to one part of your argument, but not the other.

Apparently you think you're being funny. It's not working.

The CBA (CPP to us real fake lawyers)

No, still not working.

itself undermines most of your arguments.

Quote it then, smart guy.

The NHL absolutely did not wash their hands of this and leave it up to SJ vs. Kane. The moment the NHL approved SJ's termination (and no, it was not approved pending appeal, though I'm sure they anticipated an appeal), this became an NHL vs PA dispute.

No, it became an NHL vs. PA dispute the moment the PA chose to appeal. And since the appeal is part of the process, the NHL damned well did approve it pending appeal.

This is your least logical argument yet. His value has nothing to do with the validity of their grounds to terminate.

His value has everything to do with the validity of their grounds. If the man was in trouble with the law, as he was, is it any wonder that no team wanted any part of that till it was resolved?

Again, some people seem to think the NHL is the only body in the world that has rules.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The NHL found no evidence that Kane broke the league's rules.

However, no one has denied that Kane broke the freaking law, and broke it in a way that could make him ineligible to cross the border to play games.

Holy smokes. It's as if some of you had never heard that the NHL is not the only organization in the world that has rules.

I hear Lucic got a speeding ticket...Flames should void his contract and save 5M

Sorry entering your own country unvaccinated is a ridiculous reason to void a 21M contract