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

[Trolfoli]

Part of me feels bad if Richards loses out on $15m that the Kings were on the hook for, but then part of me looks at the fact that MR made about that much the past two seasons while contributing basically nothing on the ice.

I think we'll see a settlement, but no idea how that would work out with the cap, likely why the Kings don't look like they are going to spend close to the cap until this is resolved.

If/When Voynov comes back and filling out the roster the Kings have about 1M left. They have not left space open for Richards contract. It could get interesting if the NHLPA wins the appeal. Can the Kings then buyout the contract instead or are they limited to buying out contracts during the approved window? Does the CBA say anything about allowing a buyout in the case of an overturned contract termination?

 

[regulate]

If/When Voynov comes back and filling out the roster the Kings have about 1M left. They have not left space open for Richards contract. It could get interesting if the NHLPA wins the appeal. Can the Kings then buyout the contract instead or are they limited to buying out contracts during the approved window? Does the CBA say anything about allowing a buyout in the case of an overturned contract termination?

The buyout window has past, and I doubt it addresses this issue specifically, so you may be right, it could get very interesting.

 

[bob77]

If/When Voynov comes back and filling out the roster the Kings have about 1M left. They have not left space open for Richards contract. It could get interesting if the NHLPA wins the appeal. Can the Kings then buyout the contract instead or are they limited to buying out contracts during the approved window? Does the CBA say anything about allowing a buyout in the case of an overturned contract termination?

No the CBA doesn't. The bigger thing you are missing if the Kings don't win the arbitration is Mike's right to still play hockey under his contract if he so chooses. The buyout gives him 2/3. Playing gives him all his money. I believe the Kings would have to wait until next year to buy him out. His full cap hit would stand this year. They could send him to the minors and all but about $900k would go against the cap. So, to put it simply, the termination will need to stand in all liklihood. Also, I'm not sure, but the idea of settlements I don't think are in play here. This is about administering the CBA correctly. Mike is not going to be filing a lawsuit. The Kings probay would not be considered negligent anyway. This is all about whether any of what has happened is "material" breach. And I highlight material, because that one word is very important in interpreting correctly whether Mike has materially breached his contract. Read some examples of material breach on Google related to contracts and labor law. You'll start to get an idea of why it's going to have to be something serious in Mikes case, and it would appear to have to involve his ability to show up and be able to practice and play games. The notion that now we can't trade him based on your own reasons does not appear to be a material breach on Mike's part. The notion that he didn't notify the team doesn't appear to be a material breach. If it has already been determined somehow that Mike won't be able to show up and play because of this matter, then it's a material breach. Also of note, the buyout had a window. There is no such window for termination. If and when the Kings have grounds for termination, then they can do that whenever it arises. Termination now leads to not having a cap hit for the entire season. Whereas something like termination half way through the season would lead to a cap hit up until that point. So, as things transpire, it could be the progression of the Richards ordeal will lead to a point where he has materially breached his contract. Has it already reached that point? I don't know! That the $22 M question.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

No the CBA doesn't. The bigger thing you are missing if the Kings don't win the arbitration is Mike's right to still play hockey under his contract if he so chooses. The buyout gives him 2/3. Playing gives him all his money. I believe the Kings would have to wait until next year to buy him out.

its linked in this thread, but Elliot Friedman thinks at worst, the kings owe Richards the buyout money

 

[bob77]

its linked in this thread, but Elliot Friedman thinks at worst, the kings owe Richards the buyout money

I think if the Kings lose arbitration, it might not be about exactly what the Kings and Mike Richards could work out. There is the issue of the CBA, the rules of the cap, the future prospect of a team using termination as a way to get out of a contract, etc. Not all of this is about Mike Richards. Mike would probably gladly accept the "settlement" of say around $22M and just go his merry way as being terminated, but to the PA, this might become a way for teams to circumvent the CBA, and in the future, have an impact on current players that might end up being terminated when in fact they want to play and earn their contract. It will all be interesting to say the least. Of course, we'll never know how any of this would have played out if indeed Mike did in fact materially breach his contract, and such a ruling stands.

 

[The Tikkanen]

its linked in this thread, but Elliot Friedman thinks at worst, the kings owe Richards the buyout money

I think no matter what some sort of legal precedent will be set. If the Kings lose the arbitration I think it's best for Richards and the Kings to part ways, both parties would agree to it and a settlement as far as dollars would be reached and Richards would never play for the Kings again.

 

[Fishhead]

I think if the Kings lose arbitration, it might not be about exactly what the Kings and Mike Richards could work out. There is the issue of the CBA, the rules of the cap, the future prospect of a team using termination as a way to get out of a contract, etc. Not all of this is about Mike Richards. Mike would probably gladly accept the "settlement" of say around $22M and just go his merry way as being terminated, but to the PA, this might become a way for teams to circumvent the CBA, and in the future, have an impact on current players that might end up being terminated when in fact they want to play and earn their contract. It will all be interesting to say the least. Of course, we'll never know how any of this would have played out if indeed Mike did in fact materially breach his contract, and such a ruling stands.

The CBA doesn't have any specific information on the cap and terminations, so it's going to be more along the lines of did he or did he not honor the spirit of his contract and to what extent. That may release the team of their cap for that player, but maybe not all the salary.

As for cap circumvention, why would the PA even bring that up? All they care about is the player getting his money. The best possible outcome as far as the PA is concerned is Richards getting money equal to or more than his buyout, and his salary not counting against the cap so it can be spent on a different union member. Any way to get more dollars in the system will be just fine by them.

I doubt they will worry too much about termination of contracts in the future, it will be a very rare occurence and very difficult to pull off (as it should be). The player will have to do something pretty bad just for a GM to consider it. And if the player still likely gets a chunk of money anyways in spite of their stupidity, they really aren't going to fight it.

I expect this will all be amended into the CBA.

 

[Herby]

I also don't think we will see many terminations in the future. There are always going to be bad contracts, but Richards contract was historically bad and the Kings thought the potential legal battle would be worth it to get rid of the worst contract in the league.

 

[Chain]

Feels like we're going to be dealing with Richards and his contract until 2050.

At least the cap will be like $150 million by then.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I also don't think we will see many terminations in the future. There are always going to be bad contracts, but Richards contract was historically bad and the Kings thought the potential legal battle would be worth it to get rid of the worst contract in the league.

Regardless of what happens here I agree. The lawyers on the main board seem to think that (even though no one publicly knows exactly WHAT happened yet) if Richards is terminated than every team is going to be rushing to terminate their bad contracts. I could see this setting a precedent one way or another but there's no way every team has a situation like this. At worst you're talking about a handful of guys around the league. What I hope it DOESNT turn into right now is a labor feud about guaranteed contracts at this point.

 

[moosehead81]

Regardless of what happens here I agree. The lawyers on the main board seem to think that (even though no one publicly knows exactly WHAT happened yet) if Richards is terminated than every team is going to be rushing to terminate their bad contracts. I could see this setting a precedent one way or another but there's no way every team has a situation like this. At worst you're talking about a handful of guys around the league. What I hope it DOESNT turn into right now is a labor feud about guaranteed contracts at this point.

Well, depending on what Richards may or may not have done, there are a few players whose contracts teams wish they could terminate. We could start a list.

I sometimes wonder if this whole thing was taken out of Lombardi's hands by "upper management"; that Dean Lombardi was simply willing to put Richards on waivers for the purposes of a buy-out on Saturday, the 27th, after exhausting trade options at the draft table the day before and making Richards a free agent after the 24 hour waiver period, taking the cap hit penalties and moving on with life. I mean Lombardi doesn't seem to be the "hateful" type (the reality is that the player and horrible contract he knowingly got in a trade did help win 2 Stanley Cups in 4 years) but if he was told to take any measure available to get rid of the player, the buy-out cost and the cap hit, termination may have been his only option.

Of course, this all changes if Richards actually did something that created a material breach of contract but, given the rumors and information out there so far, I have issues with imagining what that could possibly be.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Well, depending on what Richards may or may not have done, there are a few players whose contracts teams wish they could terminate. We could start a list.

I sometimes wonder if this whole thing was taken out of Lombardi's hands by "upper management"; that Dean Lombardi was simply willing to put Richards on waivers for the purposes of a buy-out on Saturday, the 27th, after exhausting trade options at the draft table the day before and making Richards a free agent after the 24 hour waiver period, taking the cap hit penalties and moving on with life. I mean Lombardi doesn't seem to be the "hateful" type (the reality is that the player and horrible contract he knowingly got in a trade did help win 2 Stanley Cups in 4 years) but if he was told to take any measure available to get rid of the player, the buy-out cost and the cap hit, termination may have been his only option.

Of course, this all changes if Richards actually did something that created a material breach of contract but, given the rumors and information out there so far, I have issues with imagining what that could possibly be.

A whole lot of assuming going on here

 

[onlyalad]

I think Richards issue is more than a few pills at the border.
There has to be something bigger. The amount, how they were hidden ( false names/forgery) .
Other people invovled.
If it was just he had 10 pills and they made him fill out paperwork and took the pills then Kings will look foolish

 

[moosehead81]

A whole lot of assuming going on here

Yes; pages and pages of it- on this board and other sites.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Yes; pages and pages of it- on this board and other sites.

Let's go over what we know is true or false

Well, depending on what Richards may or may not have done, there are a few players whose contracts teams wish they could terminate. We could start a list.

I sometimes wonder if this whole thing was taken out of Lombardi's hands by "upper management"; that Dean Lombardi was simply willing to put Richards on waivers for the purposes of a buy-out on Saturday, the 27th, after exhausting trade options at the draft table the day before and making Richards a free agent after the 24 hour waiver period, taking the cap hit penalties and moving on with life.

We know the bolded portion is untrue. DL was talking to Edmonton and Calgary about trading Richards + to their team and they would buy him out before he learned about the Richards "incident". DL also let the NHL know after informing Edmonton and Calagry
We also know that the italicized part is untrue. A player has to be put on waivers before their contract is terminated, waivers aren't just for buyouts.

As far as upper management getting involved, if a GM can cut a buyout penalty timeframe in half and save $3 mil in 2 of the years, said GM would be an idiot to not try it.

I mean Lombardi doesn't seem to be the "hateful" type (the reality is that the player and horrible contract he knowingly got in a trade did help win 2 Stanley Cups in 4 years) but if he was told to take any measure available to get rid of the player, the buy-out cost and the cap hit, termination may have been his only option.

Of course, this all changes if Richards actually did something that created a material breach of contract but, given the rumors and information out there so far, I have issues with imagining what that could possibly be.

There is a link to the Marek and Wyneski podcast from yesterday afternoon, listen to the part that was referenced. One of them claims to "be in the know" and said the Richards incident is much much more than just he pills

 

[KINGS17]

Regardless of what happens here I agree. The lawyers on the main board seem to think that (even though no one publicly knows exactly WHAT happened yet) if Richards is terminated than every team is going to be rushing to terminate their bad contracts. I could see this setting a precedent one way or another but there's no way every team has a situation like this. At worst you're talking about a handful of guys around the league. What I hope it DOESNT turn into right now is a labor feud about guaranteed contracts at this point.

This is why the elimination of guaranteed contracts is going to be Item 1 on the owner's list of issues for the next CBA.

Mike Richards will be Exhibit A for their point of view. The only way Richards doesn't become Exhibit A is if there is a lot more to it than the pills, and the NHLPA declines to file a grievance on his behalf.

Either that or the max length of contracts will be drastically reduced. I still think the owners are going to want to cut a player that isn't performing on the ice for whatever reason. The NFL model is coming to the NHL.

 

[Ron*]

If/When Voynov comes back and filling out the roster the Kings have about 1M left. They have not left space open for Richards contract. It could get interesting if the NHLPA wins the appeal. Can the Kings then buyout the contract instead or are they limited to buying out contracts during the approved window? Does the CBA say anything about allowing a buyout in the case of an overturned contract termination?

Not correct as to the first part. We have $3.3 MM cap space with Voynov on the blue line. Check out the Sticky above for more information.

 

[Ron*]

I think Richards issue is more than a few pills at the border.
There has to be something bigger. The amount, how they were hidden ( false names/forgery) .
Other people invovled.
If it was just he had 10 pills and they made him fill out paperwork and took the pills then Kings will look foolish

Who said he had pills?

Do you really think, even for a second, that the Kings would terminate his $22 MM contract for the scenario you just laid out?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[JeanBlanc]

Anyone else on the trip?

Just wondering whether there's been any reporting on who was on the trip across the border with Richards? I can't be the first one to wonder this. Was there anything reported when it was just people rolling their eyes on him leaving town instead of training in El Segundo?

 

[moosehead81]

Let's go over what we know is true or false


We know the bolded portion is untrue. DL was talking to Edmonton and Calgary about trading Richards + to their team and they would buy him out before he learned about the Richards "incident". DL also let the NHL know after informing Edmonton and Calagry
We also know that the italicized part is untrue. A player has to be put on waivers before their contract is terminated, waivers aren't just for buyouts.

As far as upper management getting involved, if a GM can cut a buyout penalty timeframe in half and save $3 mil in 2 of the years, said GM would be an idiot to not try it.



There is a link to the Marek and Wyneski podcast from yesterday afternoon, listen to the part that was referenced. One of them claims to "be in the know" and said the Richards incident is much much more than just he pills

My bad- the term "exhausting" implies there were no trade options left; should have used the term "investigating". Yes a player to be terminated needs to clear waivers but even the media thought Richards was going to be bought out when he was initially placed on waivers; the Kings could have placed the player on waivers with the understanding that it was going to buy him out and only decided during the 24 hour waiver period that it would terminate his contract.

And I did listen to your suggested podcast of Marek vs Wyshynski which was June 29th, 24 hours after the news of the termination was released. I wouldn't believe today a word that was said by either of them on the 29th. The alleged border incident/oxycontin issue came out almost a day later so referencing that podcast as a legitimate source is simply bogus. Also Don Meehan (mentioned in the podcast) is not Mike Richards' agent- his agent is Pat Morris.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

My bad- the term "exhausting" implies there were no trade options left; should have used the term "investigating". Yes a player to be terminated needs to clear waivers but even the media thought Richards was going to be bought out when he was initially placed on waivers; the Kings could have placed the player on waivers with the understanding that it was going to buy him out and only decided during the 24 hour waiver period that it would terminate his contract.

And I did listen to your suggested podcast of Marek vs Wyshynski which was June 29th, 24 hours after the news of the termination was released. I wouldn't believe today a word that was said by either of them on the 29th. The alleged border incident/oxycontin issue came out almost a day later so referencing that podcast as a legitimate source is simply bogus. Also Don Meehan (mentioned in the podcast) is not Mike Richards' agent- his agent is Pat Morris.

the suggested podcast was the 7/3 edition 27:15 in

 

[moosehead81]

the suggested podcast was the 7/3 edition 27:15 in

One of the two says "lot more to it than guy gets stopped at border"; not sure who, think it was a replacement for Jeff Marek. No mention of pills at all; that's all you have to go on?

 

[Thrice]

This is why the elimination of guaranteed contracts is going to be Item 1 on the owner's list of issues for the next CBA.

Mike Richards will be Exhibit A for their point of view. The only way Richards doesn't become Exhibit A is if there is a lot more to it than the pills, and the NHLPA declines to file a grievance on his behalf.

Either that or the max length of contracts will be drastically reduced. I still think the owners are going to want to cut a player that isn't performing on the ice for whatever reason. The NFL model is coming to the NHL.

I'm not sure how having non-guaranteed contracts cuts cost. The players are still guaranteed 50% of all HRR. How does going to the NFL model save the owners money? In the NFL model, owners are still on the hook for a signing bonus if the player is cut. So they cut the player, pay him out and then have to replace him on the roster.

Where do the savings come in?

 

[tsanuri]

This is why the elimination of guaranteed contracts is going to be Item 1 on the owner's list of issues for the next CBA.

Mike Richards will be Exhibit A for their point of view. The only way Richards doesn't become Exhibit A is if there is a lot more to it than the pills, and the NHLPA declines to file a grievance on his behalf.

Either that or the max length of contracts will be drastically reduced. I still think the owners are going to want to cut a player that isn't performing on the ice for whatever reason. The NFL model is coming to the NHL.

Be ready for a multi year lockout if you think that is going to happen.
The NFL is the only league that doesn't have guaranteed contracts.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

One of the two says "lot more to it than guy gets stopped at border"; not sure who, think it was a replacement for Jeff Marek. No mention of pills at all; that's all you have to go on?

He knows more than anyone on HF