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

[hatterson]

Kings don't gain any significant cap advantage until the 2017-18 season - when the difference between a buyout cap hit and a recapture cap hit is $1.4M. (This season they're slightly worse off ($100K less in cap) and next year, it's only a $400K add'l cap hit.)

I think it would be very hard to prove that the Kings gained a cap advantage going this route since next offseason they have to deal with Kopitar and Lucic's possible re-signings. Too many unknowns at this point.

Unless a ruling takes over 2 seasons, it'll be very hard to prove the Kings gained an advantage going this route vis-a-vis the buyout route.

His old cap hit was 5.75M, his recapture hit is 1.32M. That's a savings of 4.43M over keeping him, that's the money the Kings need to be wary of spending.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Kings don't gain any significant cap advantage until the 2017-18 season - when the difference between a buyout cap hit and a recapture cap hit is $1.4M. (This season they're slightly worse off ($100K less in cap) and next year, it's only a $400K add'l cap hit.)

I think it would be very hard to prove that the Kings gained a cap advantage going this route since next offseason they have to deal with Kopitar and Lucic's possible re-signings. Too many unknowns at this point.

Unless a ruling takes over 2 seasons, it'll be very hard to prove the Kings gained an advantage going this route vis-a-vis the buyout route.

Huh? It's absolutely a cap advantage by the numbers.

Not to mention the issue of the Kings not paying Richards a dime he is owed and having the entirety of his cap hit wiped out.

Cap recapture penalties are irrelevant here. Those are in effect because of past cap benefit, they don't take the place of a buyout.

 

[Gilligans Island]

His old cap hit was 5.75M, his recapture hit is 1.32M. That's a savings of 4.43M over keeping him, that's the money the Kings need to be wary of spending.

Huh? It's absolutely a cap advantage by the numbers.

Not to mention the issue of the Kings not paying Richards a dime he is owed and having the entirety of his cap hit wiped out.

Cap recapture penalties are irrelevant here. Those are in effect because of past cap benefit, they don't take the place of a buyout.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't put any stock in the speculation that the Kings were close to trading him to any team, especially when you read Mirtle's article that the Kings weren't offering nearly enough.

I believe buyout was the only option. If there's any truth that AEG wouldn't let Deano buy him out, then both your points are valid and puts the Kings in an even more desperate spot.

So if this goes to arb and the Kings lose, I imagine the penalty will be the buyout-related cap hit + more penalties.

 

[hatterson]

Huh? It's absolutely a cap advantage by the numbers.

Not to mention the issue of the Kings not paying Richards a dime he is owed and having the entirety of his cap hit wiped out.

Cap recapture penalties are irrelevant here. Those are in effect because of past cap benefit, they don't take the place of a buyout.

Unless I'm mistaken, they kinda do. If the Kings had bought out Richards contract with a normal course buyout they would not have owed cap recapture penalties since the buyout calculations make up for the cap benefit the team gained prior to it.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Unless I'm mistaken, they kinda do. If the Kings had bought out Richards contract with a normal course buyout they would not have owed cap recapture penalties since the buyout calculations make up for the cap benefit the team gained prior to it.

Buyout does replace cap recapture.. but not the other way around, is what I meant.

You can't use the cap recapture penalty as proof the Kings aren't circumventing the cap by avoiding the buyout, especially when the buyout amount is significantly higher after this year.

 

[tp71]

The last time Gary Bettman appeared on SNET Radio's flagship program (PTS with Bob McCown) the most hard hitting question GB was asked was "what was the best birthday gift you ever received".

[mod] The two are inextricably linked for the next decade. SNET needs to promote (and placate) the NHL just as much as the NHL itself.

I think at this point Bob knows he isn't getting much if anything out of Gary and just doesn't bother with the hard hitting questions.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

ESPN has reported that Richards is involved in a RCMP/CBS investigation. So it's the U.S. - Canada border.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that before.

 

[HockeyGuy1975]

Voynov is good at hockey and Richards isn't anymore.

Have to imagine NHLPA has a rock solid argument given the Voynov comparison.

Kings don't consider a felony charge a material breach of contract.. sort of sets a high standard for them to meet with Richards. Otherwise, they are selectively applying their rules to gain a cap advantage.

Your first comment is 100% inaccurate and nothing but hyperbole.

Your second comment is 100% irrelevant.

 

[Fugu]

ESPN has reported that Richards is involved in a RCMP/CBS investigation. So it's the U.S. - Canada border.

That would mean the Canadian side is investigating "something" discovered when he was entering Canada?

 

[Burner Account]

That would mean the Canadian side is investigating "something" discovered when he was entering Canada?

I'm not sure.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/menu-eng.html

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) ensures the security and prosperity of Canada by managing the access of people and goods to and from Canada.

 

[hatterson]

I don't think the link is dead, I think it just got truncated on the forums, this works for me:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nhl/...e-investigation-involves-mike-richards-source

 

[Slot]

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.



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.

I understand that probert was years and years ago but it was the first example that came to mind of a pro athlete that was unable to cross international borders that did not affect his ability to get a paycheque.

There are lots of players that do things or are accused of doing things that are detrimental to the image of the league that don't get terminated.

 

[LadyStanley]

IMHO one reason why Stoll copped (plead guilty) to misdemeanor drug charges (out of Vegas) was to avoid the felony he was charged with (which would impact his ability to cross borders if convicted).

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

IMHO one reason why Stoll copped (plead guilty) to misdemeanor drug charges (out of Vegas) was to avoid the felony he was charged with (which would impact his ability to cross borders if convicted).

Seems to me anybody who could trade a felony for two misdemeanors is getting a hell of a deal.

 

[Fugu]

So why is this a dead link now? Is ESPN backtracking?

I don't think the link is dead, I think it just got truncated on the forums, this works for me:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nhl/...e-investigation-involves-mike-richards-source

I fixed the link in the first post, and removed the talk about the dead link. Thanks, Hattie.

Seems to me anybody who could trade a felony for two misdemeanors is getting a hell of a deal.

Moreover, if Stoll is signed by a new team, is that team not concerned about the tarnishing of the sacred image?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Moreover, if Stoll is signed by a new team, is that team not concerned about the tarnishing of the sacred image?

Well, yeah, I think the whole issue will impact his ability to get another contract. If he gets one it will certainly be for less than it might otherwise have been. And I think the talk of him being any kind of a leader and the kind of vet you want around young players is out the window as well.

 

[Slot]

Moreover, if Stoll is signed by a new team, is that team not concerned about the tarnishing of the sacred image?

Reclamation project, rehabilitating an image is almost as much fun as tearing one down in the first place.

 

[powerstuck]

I'm not sure.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/menu-eng.html

Usually you don't get checked by US authorities when you are exiting US, or by Canadian authorities when exiting Canada. So if he was going out of US and into Canada, it was the CBSA who checked him out.

DISCLAIMER : I am not saying this is what happened to Richards.

We can speculate all we want. But weed being legal in many US states and even used as medicine is still prohibited into Canada, even in it's multiple edible forms. The basic penalty is a hearing in front of a judge (usually most cases end up being a slap on the hand) and a standard one year period during which you are prohibited entering Canada. Same goes if you forget to declare a firearm.

It's not much, but can be enough for a team that was already looking to deal out a player, simply take the shortcut.

 

[Slot]

Usually you don't get checked by US authorities when you are exiting US, or by Canadian authorities when exiting Canada. So if he was going out of US and into Canada, it was the CBSA who checked him out.

Unless there is a Blitz or they've had a tip. I've driven through US customs checks returning to Canada before.

 

[Burner Account]

Do we know where on the US/Canada border the incident occurred?

 

[cheswick]

Do we know where on the US/Canada border the incident occurred?

The ESPN story references a spokesperson for the Manitoba RCMP. So if it's an actual border crossing you would assume Emerson since it's by far the busiest in MB. Alternatively, a US flight into Winnipeg would also involve dealing with the border services. Richards is a native of Kenora Ontario, Winnipeg would be the closest major city.

Then again maybe ESPN could only contact the Manitoba RCMP and it occurred elsewhere

 

[tsanuri]

Voynov is good at hockey and Richards isn't anymore.

Have to imagine NHLPA has a rock solid argument given the Voynov comparison.

Kings don't consider a felony charge a material breach of contract.. sort of sets a high standard for them to meet with Richards. Otherwise, they are selectively applying their rules to gain a cap advantage.

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/ottawa-1200-1.321743

If you listen to this he thinks what they did won't stand but also points out that the team wouldn't succeed in terminating Voynov's contract either without a conviction.
DL obviously feels he has a case that will stand scrutiny and that he has a chance at winning, even if it's small. Where he knows that until such time as Voynov is actually convicted or a crime he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Burner Account]

The ESPN story references a spokesperson for the Manitoba RCMP. So if it's an actual border crossing you would assume Emerson since it's by far the busiest in MB. Alternatively, a US flight into Winnipeg would also involve dealing with the border services. Richards is a native of Kenora Ontario, Winnipeg would be the closest major city.

Then again maybe ESPN could only contact the Manitoba RCMP and it occurred elsewhere

I had the same train of thought. More questions than answers right now.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

1. If he believes that his contract was wrongfully terminated, then no, he's not. He can't sign a contract with another team in good faith, realizing that he believes he's under contract to the Kings.

2. Yup, which is why it may not be as simple as "Richards gets a retroactive buyout".

The bolded is illogical. He can believe he was wrongfully terminated all he wants, but he's not obligated to remain unemployed out principle. That's pure lunacy.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Usually you don't get checked by US authorities when you are exiting US, or by Canadian authorities when exiting Canada. So if he was going out of US and into Canada, it was the CBSA who checked him out.

DISCLAIMER : I am not saying this is what happened to Richards.

We can speculate all we want. But weed being legal in many US states and even used as medicine is still prohibited into Canada, even in it's multiple edible forms. The basic penalty is a hearing in front of a judge (usually most cases end up being a slap on the hand) and a standard one year period during which you are prohibited entering Canada. Same goes if you forget to declare a firearm.

It's not much, but can be enough for a team that was already looking to deal out a player, simply take the shortcut.

Those in the know have used the words "shocked" and "wowzer" to describe the issue. I don't think your speculation stands up to those descriptions.