Toggle sidebar

Mike Richards VI (UGH): The Armageddon Edition (MOD NOTE POST #1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
sinister6000 said:
Putting Richards on the 4th line ruined his chances of being traded. There's a lot of people responsible for what happened to him, and the team. I don't think the kings are going to get away with terminating his contract.
Click to expand...

how do you explain there were two teams in conversation with dean at the draft regarding trading for richards?
 
YP44 said:
my guess is the PA is getting all information together too, and have told Richards to shut up
Click to expand...

Likely, but it just seems like if it was totally baseless **** would have already hit the fan.

YP44 said:
how do you explain there were two teams in conversation with dean at the draft regarding trading for richards?
Click to expand...

Obviously the talks weren't real or serious and it was just the Oilers and Flames conspiring with Lombardi to circumvent the cap. #mainbored
 
sinister6000 said:
Putting Richards on the 4th line ruined his chances of being traded. There's a lot of people responsible for what happened to him, and the team. I don't think the kings are going to get away with terminating his contract.
Click to expand...

Richards contract commensurate to his play is what ruined his chances of being traded with his play warranting 4th line status and, eventually, AHL status.

The one most responsible for "what happened" to Mike Richards is Mike Richards. Until someone else is skating, stick handling, passing and shooting for him, he is the one ultimately responsible for his play and, if this incident is enough to have his contract terminated, Richards will be the one at fault for losing his $14MM as he broke the rules.

If he is stupid enough to do something that could jeapordize $14MM less than two weeks away from being bought-out, he deserves whatever is coming to him. Thanks for the major contributions in Years 1 and 2 along with the lucky toss in front to Gaborik in Game 1 against the Ducks last year. We'll always have that and most everyone here appreciates him for it; however, I'm a Kings fan and not a "what will Mikey do?!?!" guy so I'm absolutely thrilled if this sticks and saves the Kings the draconian buy-out penalty in favor of the recapture. Can't stress how important avoiding the Year 3 and 4 bump is for this teams window. That is so much more important than Mike Richards $14MM or the optics of this situation.

As for Mike, I believe he pocketed $8MM in actual salary last season to play worse than I did from my couch. The Kings have paid him a ton in actual dollars since he has been here and delivered him two Stanley Cup rings. Sucks that it ends this way but excuse me if I don't shed one single tear for Mike Richards and his current situation.

Mike will be just fine without this money if he was smart enough with what he has already earned. The Kings will not be just fine with the buy out penalty. As long as the Kings are not stretching the letter of contractual law to within an inch of the breaking point, I have absolutely zero problem with this course of action.
 
Bandit said:
Likely, but it just seems like if it was totally baseless **** would have already hit the fan.



Obviously the talks weren't real or serious and it was just the Oilers and Flames conspiring with Lombardi to circumvent the cap. #mainbored
Click to expand...

I agree, so IMO it has some merit to it. Enough to hold up time will tell
 
efhank said:
My point is more about the timing of the termination. Termination is very severe. If teams could just terminate over something that later on couldn't be proved, etc., but it benefited them in say the next 9 months or so, well some teams might chance that as an option. Termination should only be available when Mike is not able to attend practices and play games as his contract states. Perhaps part of the reason the Kings/NHL won't articulate why his contract was terminated is because their actual reasoning might be murky at best at this point. I don't know. Maybe to the players union they had to be specific about the termination reason as to why it constituted a breach. As time goes on here, and the investigation continues further, sure it might be easy for them to "edit" and "update" their reasoning as things become clearer. Hindsight is great. So, I'm not saying what actually happened shouldn't constitute termination. I'm saying should it actually be constituting termination now. I agree with most of your points though. In the future, maybe the CBA should specify more clearly exact reasons for termination. I doubt the players union ever would agree to rigid sort of reasons. But....
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from and it makes sense to a degree, but to me as long as the potential to overturn the termination is there if the Kings are in the wrong, I don't think it's a problem.

If the team is obviously just terminating a guys contract to unload a bad contract then, I agree, they shouldn't be able to do it. The PA should fight that tooth and nail. But whatever Richards did a couple weeks ago, no one made him do it. If the player screws up and gives the team something they can really grab onto as grounds for termination, then I don't see why the timing should matter just because it's convenient to the team. It's still the players fault. If it turns out what the Kings are trying to terminate Richards for doesn't hold up then the termination should be overturned and the Kings should probably suffer some penalty. No harm no foul against Richards contract. But if it's something criminal like a felony or really scandalous that looks bad on the team and/or the league, even if Richards would still be able to play, then I think the termination should be upheld and the PA should stick to battles that wont bring a lot of bad PR. Like if he got caught with a bag of weed or it's a misdemeanor assualt, his contract should remain. If he's been running a drug ring, shot someone, or was involved in human trafficking (again, not saying that's what he did, just examples of extremely poor behavior), then the termination should be upheld, regardless of the convenient timing for the org.

We still don't know all the facts and I know DL would like to be rid of Richards contract but I don't see him being malicious about it. I don't think he would risk the potential negative side of terminating Richards when he did without good reason. It sounded like the Kings had a decent chance of trading Richards to Edmonton or Calgary, and whatever Richards did probably would've put a stop to that even if the Kings didn't terminate his contract. Even so though, they could've bought him out. The termination still may have a recap penalty about half of what Richards buyout would be, but it's still a significant chunk of money. Is the risk worth the difference between a trade or buyout and the money saved via termination? I just don't see it. If the chances of the termination sticking are small like TSN's lawyer thinks, then DL must know that too and know there's a good chance the termination will be overturned and Dean and the Kings will look bad. Maybe I'm wrong, but Dean's always struck me as having more integrity than that.
 
MsWoof said:
James Duthie was on TSN Radio a little while ago and said 2 Kings' players asked him what was going on because they were in the dark.
Click to expand...

That's crazy. You'd think they'd all know what's up at this point.
 
U.S. EPA Confirms Mike Richards cited for allowing a tributory stream to flow into a lake in the U.S.

Streams of this type were previously unregulated until the EPA announced a change in their rules in May 2015.
 
I think there have been some probably fair questions posed but until we have a reliable source let's stay out of the guessing game. I think we all have pretty sound theories in our heads.
 
KINGS17 said:
U.S. EPA Confirms Mike Richards cited for allowing a tributory stream to flow into a lake in the U.S.

Streams of this type were previously unregulated until the EPA announced a change in their rules in May 2015.
Click to expand...

where are you reading this....
 
KINGS17 said:
U.S. EPA Confirms Mike Richards cited for allowing a tributory stream to flow into a lake in the U.S.

Streams of this type were previously unregulated until the EPA announced a change in their rules in May 2015.
Click to expand...

This made me giggle.
 
KINGS17 said:
U.S. EPA Confirms Mike Richards cited for allowing a tributory stream to flow into a lake in the U.S.

Streams of this type were previously unregulated until the EPA announced a change in their rules in May 2015.
Click to expand...

This is a joke, right? :laugh:
 
The best way to know someone is about to do something is when they tell you "I don't want to" do that thing, "...but...". "I don't want to be a jerk about this, but..."
 
KINGS17 said:
U.S. EPA Confirms Mike Richards cited for allowing a tributory stream to flow into a lake in the U.S.

Streams of this type were previously unregulated until the EPA announced a change in their rules in May 2015.
Click to expand...

Better hope that tributory stream isn't considered a navigable water under the Code of Federal Regulations. Otherwise, he's looking at life in prison.
 
HeadInjury said:
Better hope that tributory stream isn't considered a navigable water under the Code of Federal Regulations. Otherwise, he's looking at life in prison.
Click to expand...

Probably depends on how much beer he had consumed and the size of the dingy used to sail in the stream. :)
 
Pretty sure it's a joke as a quick google search only brought up this thread. But I admit I was willing to believe. The EPA would totally do something like that.
 
kingsholygrail said:
Pretty sure it's a joke as a quick google search only brought up this thread. But I admit I was willing to believe. The EPA would totally do something like that.
Click to expand...

Truly is a sad state of affairs, isn't it?

Try a Google search on EPA regulates small ponds, ditches, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom