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

[mouser]

I think the drugs themselves and the border incident itself have little to nothing to do with the contract termination. I think the termination has everything to do with the fact that neither Richards nor his Agent told the Kings that this incident happened for two weeks. There are 14-15 million reasons why team Richards would want to keep that quiet until after July 1st, and this all gets to the section of the CBA that the Kings (and the NHL) noted in their brief that they disclosed to the media:

"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."

Not disclosing a border incident so as to not jeopardize your big payday on July 1st, which also has the effect of the Kings making significant player and personnel transactions they would have otherwise not made, is probably the reason the Kings and the NHL felt this was a contract-cancelling incident. Not the drugs, or the investigation itself - as others have said, if team Richards had notified Dean & Co. immediately, there probably isn't a breach of contract here.

I'm curious why Richards would be contractually obligated to report what happened to the Kings? And on what timetable he would be obligated to report it? It seems like a legal stretch to use "we could have traded him if he didn't get into trouble" as the basis for a material breach of contract.

 

[Bandit]

I agree with you on pretty much all of your points. Regardless of whether it was a mistake or not, I think the fact that Dean chose to give Richards another chance after having a heart-to-heart in Mike's own home proves that he, as a GM, has acted in good faith. He did something not many other GM's would have done and a lot of people here have crucified him for it. I dont think for one second that all of the sudden Dean is a man scorned and out for retribution. He's proved to us all that he's too smart to make a decision of that magnitude based on 'bitterness' or whatever you want to call it. There IS more to this story than we know. There has to be. Have some faith in Lombardi, he's the best GM we've ever had

That's because a lot of people are *****. It's like everyone forgot that the one of the huge reasons Lombardi got Richards in the first place was because he knew him from his Philly days and loved him like a son. But you know... Dean Satanbardi.

 

[apadilla]

I agree with you on pretty much all of your points. Regardless of whether it was a mistake or not, I think the fact that Dean chose to give Richards another chance after having a heart-to-heart in Mike's own home proves that he, as a GM, has acted in good faith. He did something not many other GM's would have done and a lot of people here have crucified him for it. I dont think for one second that all of the sudden Dean is a man scorned and out for retribution. He's proved to us all that he's too smart to make a decision of that magnitude based on 'bitterness' or whatever you want to call it. There IS more to this story than we know. There has to be. Have some faith in Lombardi, he's the best GM we've ever had

Agreed. Dean showed Mike plenty of compassion last off-season. It didn't pay off in the way we all wanted. But, it did pay off on the bottom line. Hope we can all move on from this quickly.

 

[apadilla]

That's because a lot of people are *****. It's like everyone forgot that the one of the huge reasons Lombardi got Richards in the first place was because he knew him from his Philly days and loved him like a son. But you know... Dean Satanbardi.

Dean Satanbardi, LOL. Heard it here first. Dean is the man! As mentioned above, he's the best GM we've had (by far). I just wish he'd stop trading our 1st rounders for UFA's to be =)

 

[Reaper45]

One of the excuses for Richards mediocre/poor on ice play has always been that he brings character and leadership.

But his actions haven't really been consistent with someone of high moral character.

Some of the people that make excuses for him, are the same people that constantly crap on Dustin Brown; the guy that actually does have character, and did actually lead us to a cup.

Indeed.

 

[Fishhead]

I'm curious why Richards would be contractually obligated to report what happened to the Kings? And on what timetable he would be obligated to report it? It seems like a legal stretch to use "we could have traded him if he didn't get into trouble" as the basis for a material breach of contract.

If it's a team rule, he is obligated. I wouldn't know for certain, but I would imagine this is standard for most professional teams as the lawyers usually take care of the players. The fact that Richards didn't contact the team right away for legal advice and counsel is peculiar.

The rest we won't know until more facts come out. If Richards had a substantial amount of substance and his right to cross the border was suspended, he might be unable to submit to a physical, report to a certain place, etc. There are many possible reasons why his situation would render him unable to satisfy his contract if traded. To early to say though.

Personally, I think the Kings have established a pattern with Richards behavior. He ignores requests to stay in LA over the summer and work with trainers. He does not keep himself in professional athlete shape, he doesn't do what the Kings' trainers ask him to over the summer. He does not keep the team informed if he experiences legal trouble, and so on. This, coupled with other factors will give the Kings a strong case.

 

[KINGS17]

I'm curious why Richards would be contractually obligated to report what happened to the Kings? And on what timetable he would be obligated to report it? It seems like a legal stretch to use "we could have traded him if he didn't get into trouble" as the basis for a material breach of contract.

It does? In what universe?

That, and you failed to address any issues Richards might have in crossing the border now or in the future.

Seems like his failure to disclose his legal situation had a detrimental impact on Lombardi's ability to conduct normal hockey operations.

 

[KINGS17]

That's because a lot of people are *****. It's like everyone forgot that the one of the huge reasons Lombardi got Richards in the first place was because he knew him from his Philly days and loved him like a son. But you know... Dean Satanbardi.

Yeah, I guess I am one of the ***** ones. I simply would point out that based on the risk / reward of the situation with Richards in the summer of 2014, Dean made a poor decision based on sentiment.

It's not show friends, it's show business!

 

[Stimpythecat]

Hi everyone. Just thought I would register and post here.

I've been lurking on this site for a few years and I finally decided to join in the conversation.

I have been a Kings fan for a while and I am torn with all this. I am grateful to Mike Richards for his role in bringing 2 cups to LA. I am also grateful to Dean Lombardi for what he's done to turn the Kings into a top contender in the salary cap era.

So I'm torn.

I don't like seeing Dean Lombardi blasted for something when we don't have all the facts. In addition to the border crossing issues, Dean Lombardi may have had no choice in the matter but to terminate Richards' contract.

Is it against the rules to post a legal article from 1 1/2 years ago that may be relevant? I read a fair bit of the threads here and on the main board but I haven't seen this possibility raised yet.

Since the article is from that long ago, it obviously was not about Mike Richards but it definitely may be relevant to his situation.

 

[mouser]

It does? In what universe?

That, and you failed to address any issues Richards might have in crossing the border now or in the future.

Seems like his failure to disclose his legal situation had a detrimental impact on Lombardi's ability to conduct normal hockey operations.

What issues does Richards have crossing the border right now?

Any potential future issues would be speculative at this point, and while they might constitute a material breach in the future, that wouldn't make them a material breach today.

 

[tsanuri]

Hi everyone. Just thought I would register and post here.

I've been lurking on this site for a few years and I finally decided to join in the conversation.

I have been a Kings fan for a while and I am torn with all this. I am grateful to Mike Richards for his role in bringing 2 cups to LA. I am also grateful to Dean Lombardi for what he's done to turn the Kings into a top contender in the salary cap era.

So I'm torn.

I don't like seeing Dean Lombardi blasted for something when we don't have all the facts. In addition to the border crossing issues, Dean Lombardi may have had no choice in the matter but to terminate Richards' contract.

Is it against the rules to post a legal article from 1 1/2 years ago that may be relevant? I read a fair bit of the threads here and on the main board but I haven't seen this possibility raised yet.

Since the article is from that long ago, it obviously was not about Mike Richards but it definitely may be relevant to his situation.

As to it being ok that is just one of those things you'd have to link and find out. I would think provided it doesn't have anything that could get the site in trouble for slander or libel it would be fine.
And welcome to the forum,

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Hi everyone. Just thought I would register and post here.

I've been lurking on this site for a few years and I finally decided to join in the conversation.

I have been a Kings fan for a while and I am torn with all this. I am grateful to Mike Richards for his role in bringing 2 cups to LA. I am also grateful to Dean Lombardi for what he's done to turn the Kings into a top contender in the salary cap era.

So I'm torn.

I don't like seeing Dean Lombardi blasted for something when we don't have all the facts. In addition to the border crossing issues, Dean Lombardi may have had no choice in the matter but to terminate Richards' contract.

Is it against the rules to post a legal article from 1 1/2 years ago that may be relevant? I read a fair bit of the threads here and on the main board but I haven't seen this possibility raised yet.

Since the article is from that long ago, it obviously was not about Mike Richards but it definitely may be relevant to his situation.

Go ahead and post it.

 

[Stimpythecat]

Thank you for the welcome.

Here is the article in question.

https://kikimosleyimmigrationlaw.wo...ant-visa-revocation-and-removal-from-the-u-s/

There is what I feel is relevant discussion about halfway down. The article is about Justin Bieber but it provides statutes where Bieber could lose his work visa.

Like Richards, Bieber is a Canadian citizen on a work visa. The relevant passage is:

"When a nonimmigrant visa applicant seeks a visa to come to the U.S. to work, they apply through a U.S. embassy consular office and that visa can be revoked if the visa holder becomes ineligible to maintain the nonimmigrant visa, which can occur for a variety of reasons. There are criminal and related grounds for visa ineligibility, among other additional reasons a visa can be revoked. An excerpt from the statute containing grounds for visa revocation identifies criminal and related issues and states, “…any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance"

additional link:

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html#0-0-0-1201

The example tossed out about Lamarr Hoyt doesn't consider this issue. In addition to all the things stated by other posters, Hoyt was a US citizen. This issue simply did not apply. He wouldn't need a work visa. MLB didn't play games in Mexico at the time either.

 

[theMajor]

What issues does Richards have crossing the border right now?

we dont even know if he can or not, thats what he's saying

 

[Stimpythecat]

posted and it's awaiting moderation.

 

[bob77]

What issues does Richards have crossing the border right now?

Any potential future issues would be speculative at this point, and while they might constitute a material breach in the future, that wouldn't make them a material breach today.

Exactly. Read all my posts. We are on the same page.

 

[Kings4thecup]

The example tossed out about Lamarr Hoyt doesn't consider this issue. In addition to all the things stated by other posters, Hoyt was a US citizen. This issue simply did not apply. He wouldn't need a work visa. MLB didn't play games in Mexico at the time either.

Yes, a lot of their "examples" don't apply. They just want to see the Kings lose, so they'll argue anything to make them look bad. Haters gonna hate.....

There is so much we don't know, that there is no way to make an informed opinion. I have to trust DL knows what he's doing, and go with that.

 

[Stimpythecat]

Exactly. We don't know.

So I feel Dean Lombardi has done more than enough to earn our faith and trust. He knows what he's doing.

 

[Kings4thecup]

Exactly. We don't know.

So I feel Dean Lombardi has done more than enough to earn our faith and trust. He knows what he's doing.

Yes, and it would be against our 29th amendment rights to not trust a poster on the main board.

 

[Bandit]

Yeah, I guess I am one of the ***** ones. I simply would point out that based on the risk / reward of the situation with Richards in the summer of 2014, Dean made a poor decision based on sentiment.

It's not show friends, it's show business!

I was referring to the people that are calling Lombardi a satanist (or worse, a vegan) for terminating Richards' contract. We don't know the facts yet and those calling for Lombardi's head for being a low-life chicken-**** squid just shows they have an agenda that has **** all to do with Richards.

If you want to criticize him for not buying Richards out last Summer though, go ahead. I still contend that was a tough choice all things considered, but it's not above criticism.

 

[417th]

DL had two suitors that he could have moved MR to last Friday night. DL was unable to make either trade and called off any trade talks because of MR's pending legal situation. So MR made it impossible for his team to move him in good faith which in turn violates his contract. Add in the drugs and I think it is enough for a breach of contract.

 

[417th]

I was referring to the people that are calling Lombardi a satanist (or worse, a vegan) for terminating Richards' contract. We don't know the facts yet and those calling for Lombardi's head for being a low-life chicken-**** squid just shows they have an agenda that has **** all to do with Richards.

If you want to criticize him for not buying Richards out last Summer though, go ahead. I still contend that was a tough choice all things considered, but it's not above criticism.

Perfectly said.

 

[Chain]

I'm curious why Richards would be contractually obligated to report what happened to the Kings? And on what timetable he would be obligated to report it? It seems like a legal stretch to use "we could have traded him if he didn't get into trouble" as the basis for a material breach of contract.

He'd be contractually obligated to report it because it can:
a) interfere with the Kings decision about what to do with him.
b) It can potentially be an issue as far as his ability to work in the US.

It being the basis for a material breach of contract shouldn't be a stretch at all. Let's say the Kings did go through with that trade with Calgary or Edmonton. Everything is signed off, potentially other deals are even made on the basis of that trade happening. Then oops! Turns out Richards had an incident a few weeks ago. Let's even forget about the potential border issue of the matter. What if it was a DUI or cocaine like Stoll. That additional question of "character" might have been enough for the team that traded for him not to have made the deal, had they known before hand. Then what? They're stuck with the guy or all the trades those teams made since then revert? Then you know the potential "Did the Kings know about this legal/character issue all along but helped him hide it from us?" questions are going to come up. It sets a terrible precedent and possibly even the potential for legal headaches.

As far as the time table goes. If it were a day, fine. But 2 weeks? No. Only in Bizarro world. And not just any 2 weeks. The buyout period starts June 15 and ends June 30th and Richards had to know the buyout window and that there was a decent chance of him being bought out. We're also talking about 2 weeks during one of the most active dealing periods in the sport - during the buyout window, up to the draft, when a lot of trades are made, and prior to the start of free agency on July 1st. This is when a lot of players get traded and free agents get signed. There should be a sense of urgency to inform the team about any issue like Richards had at the border. All he had to do is pick up a phone and make a call or send a text. It's not the 1700's where he has to send mail by horse and buggy. If he or his agents haven't informed the team in 24 hours, there better be a damn good reason. This isn't a guy working at CVS, it's someone making millions of dollars and is supposed to honor the clauses in his contract. It's amazing the level of incompetence on his part you guys are trying to justify.

 

[TonySCV]

I'm curious why Richards would be contractually obligated to report what happened to the Kings? And on what timetable he would be obligated to report it?

The CBA is wonderfully (maddeningly) vague in that regard, and probably what the NHLPA will argue. Still, I can see 1-2 days or a weekend as being on the edge of acceptability. Not anywhere near 2 weeks. That reeks of a player/agent trying to hide something, or at the very least a player/agent thinking "well, if I haven't been formally arrested, I don't have to tell the Kings about it" and the Kings (and the NHL by extension) saying "wrongo, buddy".

I'm just spitballing obviously along with everyone else, but this scenario is what seems the most plausible to me of the scenarios by which the Kings would say "we want to cancel Mike's contract" and the NHL says "yep, that's a valid reason to do it".

Not to mention if trades had been made and THEN this came out? Everyone of the media knuckleheads would be saying that Dean/the Kings knew about this and tried to hide it, especially given all the other off ice shenanigans the Kings have dealt with this year.

 

[mouser]

DL had two suitors that he could have moved MR to last Friday night. DL was unable to make either trade and called off any trade talks because of MR's pending legal situation. So MR made it impossible for his team to move him in good faith which in turn violates his contract. Add in the drugs and I think it is enough for a breach of contract.

Where in the standard player contract does it say that the player has an obligation to do his best to uphold his tradeablility and trade value? There would be a hundreds or more players that would have violated that throughout NHL history.