Kings terminating Mike Richards contract for material breach [upd: grievance filed]

[mouser]

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/06/29/kings-dodge-buyout-terminate-contract-mike-richards

The explanation of invoking 18A-2 doesn't seem to fit the media reports so far. The simplest example being that the Kings press release states that the team terminated the contract, not the commish.

There are also procedural issues with invoking commissioner discipline to void a contract that no one has reported took place.

 

[sandysan]

Why would one be stopped from crossing the border if they have not broken any laws or been charged with anything? That's pie in the sky thinking.

The Toronto star had several exposes on people associated with a crime but never charged with ANYTHING who were refused entry ( including people who were hospitalized for temporary mental health issues and people who got into it with their eyes or who were " falsely" accused.

 

[Sens Rule]

I can't imagine the League itself would be in favor of this move. It would likely lead to copycats who want to get around the cap.

Copycats would lead to a strike. I don't think anyone wants that.

This precedent is massive. If the Kings get away with it and other GMs try similar things... No more guaranteed contracts effectively. Players would strike if this situation is copycatted by other GMs.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The PA is going to fight this tooth and nail. If the termination stands it would create a precedent that guaranteed contracts aren't as guaranteed as they appeared to be.

This was one of my first thoughts no matter what the transgression actually is--that the NHL is ok with it because 1. it's a legit issue and 2. it's a potential move towards NFL-style (non-guaranteed) contracts.

Bob Probert couldn't enter Canada for 2 years after a cocaine bust. Didn't get terminated. This does smack of talent overshadows everything in sports. Ribs and Voynov could be terminated right now for conduct unbecoming and few aside from the PA would bat an eye.

Something doesn't add up and it likely won't until the information vacuum we find ourselves in gest filled with facts

I don't disagree with your premise, but the Probert thing was in 1989. 26 years difference in the sports climate. Hell, I was watching players smoke cigarettes in public between periods later than that.

 

[htpwn]

Yes, the CBA has some steps that spell out what teams can do, perhaps prior to seeking termination of a contract. Suspension seems the obvious first step if a player is out of shape, or otherwise unable to perform, including being sent to a program IF substance abuse is an issue. (Let's not go there though as we have no idea is this is relevant in THIS case. Just spelling out the process.)

Teams have the right to suspend or seek termination without getting NHL approval. Of course, they might consult with Daly to make sure their interpretation of the CBA is the correct one. It's not known IF they talked to the league.

Lots of good points in this thread, but I think two you brought up are at the top of the list:

1) If this substance abuse issue, one would think the first course of action would be to place the player into a league-mandated rehab, as was the case with numerous other players who have fought their own demons.

2) What could Richards have possibly done where suspending him is not an option, where the Kings have determined termination is necessary. It isn't likely a criminal matter either, as the news likely would have leaked by now if the police were involved.

Whatever the case, I think the NHL really needs to tread carefully here. By allowing LA to squirm out of a bad contract in this manner, they are undermining the credibility of the league, both in the eyes of players and fans. The reasoning should be explained in full, not only Richards' transgressions, but why termination was necessary.

Also, if NHLPA files a grievance and LA ends up losing, the Kings should absolutely be hit with major cap circumvention penalties.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Also, if NHLPA files a grievance and LA ends up losing, the Kings should absolutely be hit with major cap circumvention penalties.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but the major problem here is that even with the systems arbitrator's ruling, only the commissioner can impose cap circumvention penalties as per the CBA.

So why would Bettman punish the Kings when he is taking their side? Seems kind of odd to turn around and throw a penalty at them after fighting alongside them in a grievance hearing.

Don't think it's happened before, either.

 

[MarkMM]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but the major problem here is that even with the systems arbitrator's ruling, only the commissioner can impose cap circumvention penalties as per the CBA.

So why would Bettman punish the Kings when he is taking their side? Seems kind of odd to turn around and throw a penalty at them after fighting alongside them in a grievance hearing.

Don't think it's happened before, either.

Even without a cap circumvention penalty, if LAK lose the appeal then at the least the cap hit should be put back on their books.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Even without a cap circumvention penalty, if LAK lose the appeal then at the least the cap hit should be put back on their books.

This would likely occur as the termination of Richards' contract would be reversed.

Which could cause an interesting scenario if the Kings spend to the cap in the meantime.. they'd be forced to make some moves to get back under by the start of the season.

I just don't expect any penalties, despite it being an even BIGGER cause for penalties than the Devils and Kovalchuk if ruled against.

 

[mouser]

Putting on my armchair lawyer cap:

- The Kings and NHL know there's almost a 100% probability that the PA files a grievance over this.
- The most obvious outcome of a successful PA grievance is that Richards contract is still in full force.
- The CBA doesn't provide the Kings or NHL leeway in dealing with a cap ceiling violation if the arbitrator finds in favor of Richards/PA.

If I'm the Kings, at this point I would be cautious about spending that "new money" from terminating Richards' contract on other players.

 

[2faded]

This was one of my first thoughts no matter what the transgression actually is--that the NHL is ok with it because 1. it's a legit issue and 2. it's a potential move towards NFL-style (non-guaranteed) contracts.

This is what I was thinking. The league would be behind terminating the contract just to see outcome of the grievance. What's the downside here for the NHL?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Putting on my armchair lawyer cap:

- The Kings and NHL know there's almost a 100% probability that the PA files a grievance over this.
- The most obvious outcome of a successful PA grievance is that Richards contract is still in full force.
- The CBA doesn't provide the Kings or NHL leeway in dealing with a cap ceiling violation if the arbitrator finds in favor of Richards/PA.

If I'm the Kings, at this point I would be cautious about spending that "new money" from terminating Richards' contract on other players.

I 100% agree, which is why it makes sense that it has to be an open-and-shut case for The Kings/DL otherwise why risk it? The downside that is likely is much, much greater than the upside if it's frivolous.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I 100% agree, which is why it makes sense that it has to be an open-and-shut case for The Kings/DL otherwise why risk it? The downside that is likely is much, much greater than the upside if it's frivolous.

Not really. At this point Richards is not an LA King. If the decision goes against them it is likely that the Richards situation reverts to a regular buyout, which means Richards gets paid and the Kings, at least in the short term, have slightly more cap space.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Not really. At this point Richards is not an LA King. If the decision goes against them it is likely that the Richards situation reverts to a regular buyout, which means Richards gets paid and the Kings, at least in the short term, have slightly more cap space.

Except the buyout window closes, and I'm not sure there's a provision for a later buyout even in an exceptional case (minus that arbitration out, but would be silly to RELY on that).

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Except the buyout window closes, and I'm not sure there's a provision for a later buyout even in an exceptional case (minus that arbitration out, but would be silly to RELY on that).

With Richards being a free agent though he could already be contracted to another team. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where Richards contract is restored to the Kings. In my mind the only two outcomes are Richards contracted is terminated, or Richards contract is bought out.

Any other solution would be be a hindrance to Richards signing with an NHL team which would be incredibly unfair to him. With that said Richards goose may already be cooked as teams may be scared off from him now.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

With Richards being a free agent though he could already be contracted to another team. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where Richards contract is restored to the Kings. In my mind the only two outcomes are Richards contracted is terminated, or Richards contract is bought out.

Any other solution would be be a hindrance to Richards signing with an NHL team which would be incredibly unfair to him. With that said Richards goose may already be cooked as teams may be scared off from him now.

Yep, I'm really curious to see how everyone involved sails through these uncharted waters because with the information we currently have, so many outcomes lead to situations/solutions that are not defined in writing as of yet. I agree with you on the outcomes for Richards, but depending on what the issue actually is, there could be a lot of CBA/NHL/PA gamesmanship and negotiating at play in the big picture.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

To me it seems like the PA is in a real tough spot here because they got about the strongest language they could on guaranteed contracts in the CBA. Having a whole grievance process play out here could weaken the guarantees by drawing the line lower than it was when there were no real recent precedents (least none that I can think of).

 

[Fourier]

Putting on my armchair lawyer cap:

- The Kings and NHL know there's almost a 100% probability that the PA files a grievance over this.
- The most obvious outcome of a successful PA grievance is that Richards contract is still in full force.
- The CBA doesn't provide the Kings or NHL leeway in dealing with a cap ceiling violation if the arbitrator finds in favor of Richards/PA.

If I'm the Kings, at this point I would be cautious about spending that "new money" from terminating Richards' contract on other players.

I agree 100% with your assessment. Timing is also crucial here. I am assuming that an arbitrators ruling would have to come quickly.

 

[Jeffrey93]

From Sportsnet.ca
"Midway through the opening round, the emotion changed at the team’s table. According to several sources, that was the moment the organization found out about something that occurred on or around June 17, further muddling Richards’ situation."

"In a brief filed to the NHL and the NHLPA, the team referenced Section 2(e) of the SPC, which states a player agrees “to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.â€"

Without knowing what Richards did....how can people speculate about the NHLPA fighting this or it leading away from guaranteed contracts?

If he was in a major breach of his contract for doing something ridiculous...would we still be talking about cap-circumvention?

Jumping the gun here quite a bit.

 

[KingsFan7824]

With Richards being a free agent though he could already be contracted to another team. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where Richards contract is restored to the Kings. In my mind the only two outcomes are Richards contracted is terminated, or Richards contract is bought out.

Any other solution would be be a hindrance to Richards signing with an NHL team which would be incredibly unfair to him. With that said Richards goose may already be cooked as teams may be scared off from him now.

Those are two of the possible outcomes. A third is that the contract isn't terminated or bought out, it stays on the Kings payroll for at least this season, and Richards gets all that money. More money than he would get with any new contract he would sign with another team.

The Kings weren't allowed to call up a minor league guy for a game back in November because Voynov still counted against the cap for some reason, even while suspended by the league. If this becomes a whole big thing, and it drags the league into, what is really, an unneeded legal battle with the PA if this is some minor legal technicality in regards to whatever Richards did, why do the Kings catch a break with that?

 

[deckercky]

To me it seems like the PA is in a real tough spot here because they got about the strongest language they could on guaranteed contracts in the CBA. Having a whole grievance process play out here could weaken the guarantees by drawing the line lower than it was when there were no real recent precedents (least none that I can think of).

If it's a borderline case, then the PA has to fight it to avoid having the same practical effect as a legal precedent weakening them.

 

[Pilky01]

From Sportsnet.ca
"Midway through the opening round, the emotion changed at the team’s table. According to several sources, that was the moment the organization found out about something that occurred on or around June 17, further muddling Richards’ situation."

"In a brief filed to the NHL and the NHLPA, the team referenced Section 2(e) of the SPC, which states a player agrees “to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.â€"

Without knowing what Richards did....how can people speculate about the NHLPA fighting this or it leading away from guaranteed contracts?

If he was in a major breach of his contract for doing something ridiculous...would we still be talking about cap-circumvention?

Jumping the gun here quite a bit.

I hate that article. They say everything except for what the actual reason for the termination is.

Also, I take everything published by SNET with a huge grain of salt. They are the owners' media outlet, not the players'.

 

[seanlinden]

With Richards being a free agent though he could already be contracted to another team. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where Richards contract is restored to the Kings. In my mind the only two outcomes are Richards contracted is terminated, or Richards contract is bought out.

Any other solution would be be a hindrance to Richards signing with an NHL team which would be incredibly unfair to him. With that said Richards goose may already be cooked as teams may be scared off from him now.

There's 2 issues with that outcome...

#1. The CBA explicitly provides for the timelines under which a contract can be bought out... it's now, and for the next few days, IIRC. Presumably, Lombardi cannot file buyout paperwork, as there is no more contract to buy out in his view of the facts. Either a special exemption would have to be provided by the NHL (and PA) to allow a buyout during other times, or for them to agree that they can file the paperwork as "backup" now / retroactively.

From a PA perspective, I see issues with both... one of the reason(s) why buyouts are restricted to this time period, is so that bought out players then have the opportunity to participate in the market with all other free agents for spots, as opposed to the end of the summer when that player would be stuck trying to squeeze on whatever few teams have space.

#2. As far as we know, a buyout was not the next best alternative for Dean Lombardi. Apparently, he was talking to Edmonton & Calgary about a trade. Obviously, nothing was done, but we could reasonably assume that the Kings weren't in fact prepared to buy him out, but would've kept his contract in tact and traded him.

 

[04' hockey]

Flyers should have done this with Bryz's contract

 

[cheswick]

There's 2 issues with that outcome...

#1. The CBA explicitly provides for the timelines under which a contract can be bought out... it's now, and for the next few days, IIRC. Presumably, Lombardi cannot file buyout paperwork, as there is no more contract to buy out in his view of the facts. Either a special exemption would have to be provided by the NHL (and PA) to allow a buyout during other times, or for them to agree that they can file the paperwork as "backup" now / retroactively.

From a PA perspective, I see issues with both... one of the reason(s) why buyouts are restricted to this time period, is so that bought out players then have the opportunity to participate in the market with all other free agents for spots, as opposed to the end of the summer when that player would be stuck trying to squeeze on whatever few teams have space.

#2. As far as we know, a buyout was not the next best alternative for Dean Lombardi. Apparently, he was talking to Edmonton & Calgary about a trade. Obviously, nothing was done, but we could reasonably assume that the Kings weren't in fact prepared to buy him out, but would've kept his contract in tact and traded him.

1. He's a UFA right now. So he can participate in the free agency market as if he'd be bought out. So from his perspective it would make no difference in terms of signing on with a different team (Ignoring the ramifications of questions of his character).

2. Obviously the Kings would have preferred to trade him, they are now stuck with a cap recapture penalty.

 

[Slot]

You can be stopped on a one time basis for all kinds of reasons. To be permanently banned from crossing is going to take some substance (no pun intended).

I believe that up to a 6 month ban can be given at the crossing no questions asked. Heck even being turned around at the border for forgetting your passport can lead to all sorts of complications in the future.