Confirmed with Link: Nichushkin back in assistance program; suspended a minimum of six months

[Chiarelli]

The drug use was fine until it wasn't. AKA it had severe negative affects to the team at a crucial time (twice).

 

[Avsfan1921]

Personally I can't wait for the riot that ensues when he scores the OT winner against us for the Lightning while signed to league minimum.

It’s cute you think he could get 4 rounds without failing a test…

 

[Boulder Avalanche]

It does matter to teams. If a player is a POS, but it can be hidden... they are more likely to keep that player over one that has public issues.

If the player has issues it is better it is not known by the public but if it is teams can over look it if the results are present. Look at Ben Roethlisberger who had worse public allegations. How many people would honestly be mad if Val was among the reasons the Avs won another Cup? Outside noise is just that and can be overlooked if the players inside the room are fine. The impact of him again screwing a playoff run is more concerning than his negative PR for the organization.

 

[henchman21]

If the player has issues it is better it is not known by the public but if it is teams can over look it if the results are present. Look at Ben Roethlisberger who had worse public allegations. How many people would honestly be mad if Val was among the reasons the Avs won another Cup? Outside noise is just that and can be overlooked if the players inside the room are fine. The impact of him again screwing a playoff run is more concerning than his negative PR for the organization.

Some people will most certainly overlook it, and teams frequently will keep players around that are headaches because of what they can do. There is also a limit as to what teams are willing to tolerate as well. In this case, we have both... a PR mess of a player that is outside distraction and a player who has causes issues in the room.

The Avs work hard to cultivate an image of a clean, good hockey team that values character. You hear it all the time from the org on how much they value character and work. It is always one of their top things they trumpet. When the reality is, they are the same as everybody else... they just aren't blatant about not caring like Carolina and want everybody to believe the Avs are above that (which they aren't).

 

[EdAVSfan]

It would be one thing if Val was a PR nightmare that didn’t affect his on-ice play/availability.

The reality though is that the negative PR has come with 3 instances of on-ice unavailability. And in 2 of those 3 instances, the most important time of the year.

He’s no longer reliable or trustworthy.

Rock and a hard spot for the Avs because there’s no question they’re better off with Val in the lineup at a 6.125M cap hit than they are with 3-4 mil in cap space and no Val.

No matter the decision, the Avs, and us fans lose.

 

[ANewHope]

The NHL would have their own Ja Morant!

I remember saying this last time but Morant is another level. Strangely enough I do think the strip club was located in Denver when he was pulling out that gun on Instagram live.

I actually still don't think the PR is that bad. Whatever happened in Seattle was cleared by Colorado, Seattle police, and the NHL. Even if they all conspired to cover it up the general public likely won't care because he didn't get charged with anything.

I think at this point it just looks like substance abuse. If Nuke ever got clean he'd be fine to resume his career. Doesn't seem like he has interest in doing that tho.

 

[ANewHope]

Avs can't take a cap penalty. Seems like the best thing to do is just wait Nuke out. He'll likely get strike 4 and you can just terminate. Better than dealing with a 2m cap hit.

Deal with Nuke staying clean for 6 months when it actually happens.

 

[EdAVSfan]

Avs can't take a cap penalty. Seems like the best thing to do is just wait Nuke out. He'll likely get strike 4 and you can just terminate. Better than dealing with a 2m cap hit.

Deal with Nuke staying clean for 6 months when it actually happens.

I’m confused. We don’t, technically, have the right to terminate under stage 3.
Does stage 4 give us the right to terminate?

 

[RockLobster]

Avs can't take a cap penalty. Seems like the best thing to do is just wait Nuke out. He'll likely get strike 4 and you can just terminate. Better than dealing with a 2m cap hit.

Deal with Nuke staying clean for 6 months when it actually happens.

If the Avs can't terminate right now because he's in Stage 3 and under an automatic suspension, why would they be able to terminate if Nichushkin reached Stage 4 and in an automatic suspension?

 

[henchman21]

I think people are confused on the termination. Any grounds that violate the SPC are valid for termination and the Avs can do that. The issue crops up when the NHLPA files a grievance and the termination has to hold up through that process. Which even in cases where it is clearly warranted, there has been settlements. That is what the Avs would have to do. They can terminate Day 1 upon his return, but the ability for it it hold up is the primary question. Odds are high it would end in a settlement.

Stage 3 involves an application for reinstatement where if everything is on the up and up, itis all but guaranteed. Stage 4 a player still applies for reinstatement, it just isn't guaranteed. Of note, Stage 4 does not mean that the application will be denied either. It isn't a guaranteed voiding of the contract. Just a possibility of the contract being voided.

 

[dahrougem2]

F*** Val Nichushkin.

 

[LOFIN]

I think people are confused on the termination. Any grounds that violate the SPC are valid for termination and the Avs can do that. The issue crops up when the NHLPA files a grievance and the termination has to hold up through that process. Which even in cases where it is clearly warranted, there has been settlements. That is what the Avs would have to do. They can terminate Day 1 upon his return, but the ability for it it hold up is the primary question. Odds are high it would end in a settlement.

I mean this just irritates the f*** out of me.

"Yeah, you can cross-check the oponent in the head, you can totally do that. The issue is you get a penalty for it".

If a termination leads to a grievance, that leads to a settlement, it's by definition an illegal termination. If the Avs have the grounds to terminate the deal, that means there would be no grievance because there would be no case at all and thus it would only waste time and resources, because no party would even take a look at the case.

So no, the Avs don't have a valid reason to terminate a deal. If they had, it would've been done already. How long did Arizona wait on Galchenyuk?

 

[RockLobster]

I think people are confused on the termination. Any grounds that violate the SPC are valid for termination and the Avs can do that. The issue crops up when the NHLPA files a grievance and the termination has to hold up through that process. Which even in cases where it is clearly warranted, there has been settlements. That is what the Avs would have to do. They can terminate Day 1 upon his return, but the ability for it it hold up is the primary question. Odds are high it would end in a settlement.

Stage 3 involves an application for reinstatement where if everything is on the up and up, itis all but guaranteed. Stage 4 a player still applies for reinstatement, it just isn't guaranteed. Of note, Stage 4 does not mean that the application will be denied either. It isn't a guaranteed voiding of the contract. Just a possibility of the contract being voided.

I believe part of the reason people are confused comes from the National Talking Heads (Friedman, Lebrun, et al) who, when discussing this, are leading with "they do not have grounds to terminate". What they seem to be meaning is they do not/cannot terminate right now since he's suspended, but rather they have to wait until he's reinstated.

They seem to be leaving out that last part and it's leading people (of which I would have been one) to believe they straight up cannot terminate.

 

[wayninja]

The drug use was fine until it wasn't. AKA it had severe negative affects to the team at a crucial time (twice).

This. Few care about "pr issues" or if a guy is a POS off the ice. Once it starts impacting the others guys chances of actually winning at key times, they start caring a lot.

Once can be forgiven, maybe, but 3 times? Nah, you'd have to be insane to trust nuke, on the ice.

 

[RockLobster]

I mean this just irritates the f*** out of me.

"Yeah, you can cross-check the oponent in the head, you can totally do that. The issue is you get a penalty for it".

If a termination leads to a grievance, that leads to a settlement, it's by definition an illegal termination. If the Avs have the grounds to terminate the deal, that means there would be no grievance because there would be no case at all and thus it would only waste time and resources, because no party would even take a look at the case.

Unions will always fight terminations, no matter what, that's part of their job.

As Henchy has theorized many times, the reason a settlement comes up is because an NHL club (in this case the Avs) would want to minimize the risk as much as possible. They may well believe that they have the grounds for a full termination w/ no penalty, but they still have to have that hold up all through the process. They may not want to take the risk that it backfires on them and now they have the cap hit for a normal buyout on their books.

The solution?

Negotiate a settlement that helps them minimize that risk.

 

[LOFIN]

Unions will always fight terminations, no matter what, that's part of their job.

No they don't, if there is actually a very valid reason to terminate the contract. This is the case with every union. If I go to the work tomorrow and purposefully destroy stuff, assault my co-workers, get arrested and then fired, take a wild f***ing guess what my union would do if I asked them for legal help to fight the contract termination? Nothing.

All this said, I do agree with @henchman21 that a settlement will likely be reached. And the NHL will actually accommodate this.

 

[Pokecheque]

I remember saying this last time but Morant is another level. Strangely enough I do think the strip club was located in Denver when he was pulling out that gun on Instagram live.

I actually still don't think the PR is that bad. Whatever happened in Seattle was cleared by Colorado, Seattle police, and the NHL. Even if they all conspired to cover it up the general public likely won't care because he didn't get charged with anything.

I think at this point it just looks like substance abuse. If Nuke ever got clean he'd be fine to resume his career. Doesn't seem like he has interest in doing that tho.

It was Shotgun Willie's so yeah it was Denver (technically Glendale but whatever).

And no the PR is a f***ing nightmare. If it had happened during the regular season, that would be a headache, but a couple good runs in the playoffs and I think people would overlook it. But no, not just one, but TWICE he's outright sabotaged the team right smack dab in the postseason. Fans and likely players are simply not going to forgive that. You can't paper over it.

No they don't, if there is actually a very valid reason to terminate the contract. This is the case with every union. If I go to the work tomorrow and purposefully destroy stuff, assault my co-workers, get arrested and then fired, take a wild f***ing guess what my union would do if I asked them for legal help to fight the contract termination? Nothing.

There's limits, yes, but that's not what happened here. The PA will fight. In no way, shape, or form do they want any sort of precedent set where NHL teams can just wiggle out of contracts. Corey Perry has flat out said he did not want to fight the termination of his contract by the Hawks and they're STILL contesting it (I'm guessing it'll result in some sort of settlement).

 

[RockLobster]

No they don't, if there is actually a very valid reason to terminate the contract. This is the case with every union. If I go to the work tomorrow and purposefully destroy stuff, assault my co-workers, get arrested and then fired, take a wild f***ing guess what my union would do if I asked them for legal help to fight the contract termination? Nothing.

Then you have a shitty union.

One of their purposes is to fight terminations and not just roll over and allow companies/business to terminate w/o grievance.

If the NHLPA did this, despite the belief that it may be warranted, they're opening a pandora's box that shouldn't be opened. All unions should fight the termination of a contract to ensure that companies have adequate evidence to support said termination.

Let's use your example: If you did that, but your company had no evidence, you're saying your Union won't fight it? If so, then I'm right back to calling them a shitty union.

I mean Mike Richards got caught trying to transport shit across international borders, the NHLPA still stuck up for their member and eventually a settlement was reached among all parties.

 

[henchman21]

No they don't, if there is actually a very valid reason to terminate the contract. This is the case with every union. If I go to the work tomorrow and purposefully destroy stuff, assault my co-workers, get arrested and then fired, take a wild f***ing guess what my union would do if I asked them for legal help to fight the contract termination? Nothing.

Evander Kane broke Covid protocols that the NHLPA and NHL agreed to and put into a binding agreement. The Sharks terminated the contract and still had to settle.

Corey Perry made unwanted sexual advances on a member of the media, and even when charges were not filed, his contract was terminated and the Hawks still had to settle.

Mike Richards was caught at the border with drugs. The Kings terminated the contract. The Kings had to settle.

This is just how the process works in the NHL. Plenty of evidence for how it goes at this point.

I believe part of the reason people are confused comes from the National Talking Heads (Friedman, Lebrun, et al) who, when discussing this, are leading with "they do not have grounds to terminate". What they seem to be meaning is they do not/cannot terminate right now since he's suspended, but rather they have to wait until he's reinstated.

They seem to be leaving out that last part and it's leading people (of which I would have been one) to believe they straight up cannot terminate.

Probably... the fact is that contracts have been terminated for less or very close to this instance. It can be done, whether it holds up or not is a different question. And really we know by the past instances, that it would be grieved and that a settlement would come out of it.

 

[MacKaRant]

Corey Perry made unwanted sexual advances on a member of the media, and even when charges were not filed, his contract was terminated and the Hawks still had to settle.

Connor Bedard's mom is a member of the media?

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

If there is a settlement, how does it impact the salary cap ?

 

[RockLobster]

If there is a settlement, how does it impact the salary cap ?

The Avs would have a cap hit, spread out over a period of years. We do not know any more beyond that. Henchy has offered up he believes it'll end up in the neighborhood of around 2M on the cap, but he also states that's just a guess right now.

 

[henchman21]

If there is a settlement, how does it impact the salary cap ?

Depends... Perry and Richards impacted the Cap. I don't believe Kane did. I'd say the odds are high it would have some impact.

 

[EdAVSfan]

I just don’t get why the Avs would be concerned from losing a termination. They have legit grounds based on what an SPC requires.

(e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards ofhonesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to thebest interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.

He consumed illegal drugs under his own volition while already under watch of the NHL for previously violating their rules.

b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other mannermaterially breach this SPC.

Again, his own actions, by already being in stage 2, which are against the rules, rendered him unable to render his services, because he broke the nhl’s rules and is now in stage 3.

So I’m not understanding why mediation is required and why the Avs would take a penalty cap hit. They have legitimate grounds.
What could Nike’s defense possibly be that would justify his contract not being terminated?

I understand both parties wanting to settle to avoid a long drawn out battle. But for the Avs, a cap hit penalty is quite debilitating.

 

[henchman21]

So I’m not understanding why mediation is required and why the Avs would take a penalty cap hit. They have legitimate grounds.
What could Nike’s defense possibly be that would justify his contract not being terminated?

I understand both parties wanting to settle to avoid a long drawn out battle. But for the Avs, a cap hit penalty is quite debilitating.

Because the NHLPA will fight every instance of voiding a contract and they should for their membership. Which leads to it going to mediation per the CBA to stay out of the courts. It can be pushed all the way, but neither the NHL nor NHLPA want to be a part of setting a bad precedent. So they settle to keep the risk low and find something that works for all parties.