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

[Telos]

Given how subjectively worded that part of the CBA is, hell yes.

Try to keep it quiet until pay day? Yeah, I'd say that is grounds for a termination.

That's a possible angle that Dean could take. If they can prove that Richards tried to hide his alleged arrest to get his payday, although I am not sure even that would allow them to take his $15 million away. The Kings would need a very flexible arbitrator.

 

[moosehead81]

https://twitter.com/friesensunmedia/status/616043261631660032?lang=en

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/...gated-for-bringing-oxycontin-across-us-border

The same writer at 825 pm CDT. He is a wee bit more careful in his choice of words. Quote "We have not charged Mike Richards with anything,†RCMP spokesperson Tara Seel told the Winnipeg Sun, Tuesday, not confirming whether Richards has even been questioned."

 

[KingsFan7824]

Perhaps Lombardi DIDN'T think this through. Perhaps, trade talks in the works, he heard about Richards situation, which he didn't tell the team about, and became livid. Perhaps such anger, after the Voynov and Stoll situations, provoked him to just say **** it, we're terminating the contract.

We go from speculation about what Richards could've done, to speculation about how angry Lombardi was. Just further down the rabbit hole.

Lol, I know, just thinking out loud here. I'd imagine the last year is enough to break any man, force him to start making decisions with his emotions. Just a thought.

I thought that's what he's been doing this whole time? Especially last summer. Maybe it's turned him into a cold hearted snake?

 

[kingsholygrail]

That's a possible angle that Dean could take. If they can prove that Richards tried to hide his arrest to get his payday, although I am not sure even that would allow them to take his $15 million away. The Kings would need a very flexible arbitrator.

It could be enough for the Kings to not get hit with the full buyout cap penalty and that may be all Dean wants.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Charged and arrested are two entirely separate things.

 

[Ron*]

Assuming the Oxy rumors are true, I don't see it being enough to terminate his contract. Richards has endured an extreme amount of physical abuse over his career, it shouldn't be surprising if we assume he was taking or addicted to pain killers. Yes it is serious, but even still, this would not be something he would be terminated for, even if he was driving a Mack Truck filled with them through the border. If there isn't anything more to the story, I don't see them having a leg to stand on when the NHLPA inevitably appeals.

Gonna have to disagree with you on the bolded part.

 

[MsMeow]

If the cba wording specifies that you have to inform your team if you are arrested and he didn't, I think Dean has a pretty strong case.

 

[moosehead81]

Charged and arrested are two entirely separate things.

I'm pretty sure if Mike Richards had been "arrested", Mr. Friesen would have continued to say so in his newspaper article written some 3-4 hours after his twitter statement.

 

[Telos]

Gonna have to disagree with you on the bolded part.

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but leagues have already lost trying to terminate contracts over drug trafficking, it isn't enough to justify termination:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...he-termination-of-the-mike-richards-contract/

In 1987, the San Diego Padres voided Lamarr Hoyt’s contract after he was jailed following multiple drug charges, including intent to distribute cocaine and attempting to smuggle drugs from Mexico into the U.S. This would seem to be specifically the type of conduct that would justify voiding a contract – right? Wrong. The Players Association filed a grievance and won.

 

[Ron*]

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but leagues have already lost trying to terminate contracts over drug trafficking, it isn't enough to justify termination:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...he-termination-of-the-mike-richards-contract/

4th time the charm:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/352001-today-1987-mlb-suspends-lamarr-hoyt

And we don't know the quantity in that particular case. I will continue to research it, because quantity does matter: intent to distribute charges are pretty loosely attached by local PDs.

 

[Hatter]

So yeah. Mike better have had 6000 pills and 62k in cash for this to result in termination.

I can't fathom trying to stop a player from receiving millions of dollars over a bottle of pills.

Just my opinion but this is going to get bad for the Kings I think.

 

[Ron*]

I will say this: that particular lawyer sure does cherry-pick his stories. It's kind of misleading (hell, very misleading) when you don't mention that the fourth time he was caught he was kicked out of baseball for good.

 

[Ron*]

So yeah. Mike better have had 6000 pills and 62k in cash for this to result in termination.

I can't fathom trying to stop a player from receiving millions of dollars over a bottle of pills.

Just my opinion but this is going to get bad for the Kings I think.

No one gets detained for 4 hours for having a "bottle of pills." Unless they believe they habe the next Al Capone.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but leagues have already lost trying to terminate contracts over drug trafficking, it isn't enough to justify termination:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...he-termination-of-the-mike-richards-contract/

The NFL wasn't crossing borders to play games then and the guy wasn't a foreigner playing for an American team. If Mike ends up with a passport issue, that's different than any of those other examples.

 

[Chain]

I don't know if it would. If we assume that all the facts have been revealed and this is it, then there is already precedent for this case. There have been athletes caught at the border or at airports with drugs before and as far as I can tell, none of them have had their contracts terminated. Eric Macramella said last night as one of his examples that a baseball player had been caught with drugs at the Mexican border, had his team move to terminate his contract, and the ruling fell in favor of the player to keep his money.

While these crimes are serious in nature, it has to be a very special case to warrant contract termination. As I said, unless a body was found or something, I don't see how this holds up against appeals. Unfortunately for the Kings they have recent and fresh shining examples that the NHLPA can throw back in their faces. Voynov is going to be a pretty well-cited example thrown around should this make it anywhere.

He cited a case involving a different sport CBA and a different country that took place 30 years ago.

Besides, he also said Pete Rose should never be let in the HoF so I can't take that guy seriously.

 

[Face Wash]

Charged and arrested are two entirely separate things.

Detained, arrested and did not tell his employer for 2 whole weeks - and still could (and likely will be) charged. That's bad enough. I don't care how severe the charge is (charges are). It affected the team's plans as it relates to a trade vs. a buyout and I think the Kings were right for trying this avenue. Nothing to lose.

And by the way, assuming there was going to be cap money that would be picked up by the Kings, any trade "might" have BENEFITED Richards as he might not have been bought out and could have stayed under contract and made all of his money...

Assuming he's not addicted to pain killers of course.

 

[King'sPawn]

The point is that Lombardi was trying to trade Richards before the buyout period and Richards being under criminal investigation prevents him from doing so. Thus, Lombardi can argue he was being detrimental to the team and therefore in violation of the SPC. At least that is how I see it through my layman eyes.

 

[kingsfan28]

Richards relationship aside, there's ethics questions for his agent, who I would think had to know about this. If he'd kept it quiet for a few more days, the Kings would have paid Richards a crapton of money he now may not get.

Lot of money involved here given the timing. So close to a buyout (and now so far). That's what I would be pissed about if I were Dean - the appearance of trying to keep it quiet so Richards would get a buyout.

This x 10! A player under contract has to tell his team if he's in some sort of trouble, not wait or even hide the fact that an incident occurred. The fact it happen as long as two weeks ago, and neither the agent nor Richards said a thing to Lombardi in order to get his buyout money just stinks of underhandedness . There is total grounds for termination of the contract.

 

[Telos]

4th time the charm:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/352001-today-1987-mlb-suspends-lamarr-hoyt

And we don't know the quantity in that particular case. I will continue to research it, because quantity does matter: intent to distribute charges are pretty loosely attached by local PDs.

Sure it does, but that was an exaggeration, we can probably safely assume he wasn't bring in a truck full of drugs. Either way, unless he is a secret Colombian drug lord, there isn't much in the way of drug crimes that will justify terminating his contract.

This HAS to be a slam dunk example for this to pass. There is zero chance this passes unless it is unanimous. There is no way this precedent will be allowed to stand over something as small as 'caught with painkillers at the border'. You can purge so many contracts from your books if that is the bar you are setting this at.

Dean will also have to address why Voynov has the right to his contract and to stay with the Kings over Richards, and that will be a massive hurdle against the NHLPA. These rights to players are congruent, if the Kings choose not to cite Voynov as having breached their own rules governing conduct, then saying Richards has is climbing a legal Everest.

 

[ADifferentTim]

I'm going to admit this is just speculation, but I am under the impression the ex might have someone to do with how Mike got access to Oxy, especially when the said ex has access to the drug industry, former med student and all.

 

[Winger23]

Slightly off topic, but is anyone else as concerned like I am about just who else has a drug issue? I mean these guys hang out all the time together, especially during the season. I know they are adults and are responsible for their own actions, but I think peer pressure would play a role as well? To me Stoll and Richards i could see having an alcohol problem, but would have never guessed they would have been involved in drugs of any kind.....

 

[Ron*]

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oGdQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=81kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6612,3601111&dq=&hl=en

Quite a lot of pills, and I can see the reasoning for the charge; however, it can be equally argued that since he was addicted he would go through that quantity in a fairly quick period of time.

 

[Telos]

He cited a case involving a different sport CBA and a different country that took place 30 years ago.

Besides, he also said Pete Rose should never be let in the HoF so I can't take that guy seriously.

That's the world of law. Precedent is extremely important. The sports all feed off of the same precedent. 30 years ago and different sport won't matter.

 

[santiclaws]

There is already precedent of athletes trafficking drugs though. LaMarr Hoyt was arrested for trying to bring cocaine into the US through the Mexican border, his team filed to terminate his contract and the arbitrator ordered him to be re-instated and the contract termination failed. The reasons to justify contract termination are slim. Unless something else comes to light, Richards isn't going to be serving 10 years in jail, there isn't much here to force a contract termination.

First of all, a small amount of cocaine for personal use is not "trafficking." We don't know if Richards had enough to be charged with intent to distribute. Second, Hoyt was nearly thirty years ago and the laws have changed, not to mention the fact that Hoyt's arrest would not prevent him from doing his job, unlike Richards' arrest which could prevent him from entering the U.S. Third, a prior decision by an arbitrator has no binding effect on anyone. Another arbitrator is free to make his own decision without paying any attention whatsoever to any other ruling by any other arbitrator. Fourth, Richards did not inform his employer about his arrest in an apparent attempt to ensure he got his millions. That in itself is a potential violation of the morals clause sufficient to warrant termination of his contract. Fifth, his conduct undermined his employer's attempt to trade him, thus directly affecting its interests. Sixth, the contract language in Hoyt's contract was no doubt different than the contract language in Richards' contract. Seventh, we have no idea if Richards has previously been warned/counseled etc. regarding his drug use.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure a bunch of good lawyers will think of a dozen other reasons why his contract termination should be upheld.

Is there a guarantee that an arbitrator will agree with the Kings? No. But saying that the Kings don't have a good argument to make is ludicrous.

 

[Mats26]

Detained, arrested and did not tell his employer for 2 whole weeks - and still could (and likely will be) charged. That's bad enough. I don't care how severe the charge is (charges are). It affected the team's plans as it relates to a trade vs. a buyout and I think the Kings were right for trying this avenue. Nothing to lose.

And by the way, assuming there was going to be cap money that would be picked up by the Kings, any trade "might" have BENEFITED Richards as he might not have been bought out and could have stayed under contract and made all of his money...

Assuming he's not addicted to pain killers of course.

this. In the end... Mike screwed Mike