Friedman: "There's still a big possibility that San Jose has to honor Kane's contract and that Kane has to return to SJ"

[GarbageGoal]

Seems like this would be a windfall for the Oilers, a rental that got them to the WCF without the long term problems.

 

[ManByng]

Friedman on the Marek show regarding Kane and SJ

- Arbitrator has yet to rule whether or not SJ had the right to terminate Kane's long term contract
- If Arbitrator rules in favor of Kane, then Kane will return to SJ under his old contract next season.

Friedman then speculates if Edmonton would trade for that contract as he thinks Edmonton has put it as a priority to re-sign Kane this off-season.

Fyi- Kane's contract that was rightfully or wrongfully terminated by SJ would have 3 yrs left with a 7mil AAV.

Well for sure Kane ain’t going back to the Sharks so the remaining contract would likely be shifted to the Oilers in some kind of deal. Seems like a bargain if there’s only 3 years left at $7 mil/per !!

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Imagine being able to continually screw up over and over and over yet still continue to make millions and not really lose a beat?

Meanwhile in normal life a great hardworking person accidently makes a mistake and gets fired and him and his family struggle just to pay basic bills and go in debt

I'm no Evander fan. But yes, life isn't fair.

 

[Alaskanice]

If he’s reassigned, he’s never pulling a teal sweater on again. He’ll be traded along with his contract. There are teams that will do it. Good for us in any light.

 

[OmniSens]

Wow, what a shit show... You're telling me he could have won the cup and then forcefully be sent back to San Jose? None of this makes sense. This should have all been reviewed before getting shipped to Edmonton.

 

[Lays]

This is the worst case scenario for both sides. San Jose has to deal with that contract again, and Kane’s debts are tied to his old contract which is likely why he agreed with the termination considering he filed for bankruptcy

 

[jmelm]

I highly doubt that happens. The arbitrator would be giving San Jose an advantage (having Kane back as an asset to use in trade) as a punishment. It would also likely hurt Kane, who can likely get a similar contract with longer term this summer.

The arbitrators job is not to do favours for San Jose (giving them a trade asset) or to penalize Kane; or vice versa.

Their job is to establish whether SJS had sufficient cause to terminate the contract.

If it's determined that there was not sufficient cause to terminate, then both sides would need fulfill the obligation they had -- which is exactly what Friedman is referring to about the possibility that Kane goes back.

If there was sufficient cause to terminate the contract, then SJS is off the hook and Kane becomes a free agent.

I'm not sure how much middle ground there is, if any, between the two.

i see a financial settlement like Richards got with the kings

Based on the above, I don't think this is the case. The arbitrator has to determine if there was cause to terminate the contract or not.

If the arbitrator determines that the contract is valid and SJS did not have cause to terminate, the team cannot just then circumvent the cap by just having some side agreement with Kane to pay him a financial settlement. I'm sure they would love to have that option but the league would not allow that.

That being said, if the arbitrator determines that SJS did NOT have cause to terminate the contract and it has to be honoured by both SJS and Kane, Kane would still have legal cause to sue SJS for defamation and other damages and could win in court or reach a financial settlement in addition to the contract that both sides would need to fulfill (and which would not count against the salary cap).

So Kane could conceivably come out ahead if the arbitrator rules in his favour, with both the reinstatement of his previous contract AND a financial settlement for damages. And frankly that would be hilarious and a major backfire against SJS.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

But would San Jose agree to terminate it now that Kane has raised his value considerably and has a desirable contract for some team, like Edmonton for example?

eh, I would assume so. But fair point.

 

[Gecklund]

Friedman on the Marek show regarding Kane and SJ

- Arbitrator has yet to rule whether or not SJ had the right to terminate Kane's long term contract
- If Arbitrator rules in favor of Kane, then Kane will return to SJ under his old contract next season.

Friedman then speculates if Edmonton would trade for that contract as he thinks Edmonton has put it as a priority to re-sign Kane this off-season.

Fyi- Kane's contract that was rightfully or wrongfully terminated by SJ would have 3 yrs left with a 7mil AAV.

The NHL already confirmed that isn’t happening. Kane’s cap hit (7M) minus whatever his contract is at the time (say 2M just for simple math) would be the only thing coming back from SJ (so 5M in this scenario). Kane will never wear a Sharks jersey on the ice again and I’m sure both sides agree.

Also can we talk about the potential PA nightmare that would happen if Kane was forced back? There is NO WAY they are going to support forcing a player back to a team that tried to cut him. Next thing you know Sharks are going to try to cut Vlasic if it works great, if not no harm no foul really. Now the player is pissed refuses to report and great you cut him for that. There is no way anyone would let them happen.

 

[Jacob]

I mean....he looked darn good. Is he that much of an asshat that SJ balks? Or can that be worked out?

I think they polled the team and everyone to a man wanted him gone.

 

[Oddbob]

But would San Jose agree to terminate it now that Kane has raised his value considerably and has a desirable contract for some team, like Edmonton for example?

How has he raised his value exactly? He is still a major flight risk given his issues that are still present. Most teams will stay away or certainly won't give him too long a deal.

 

[Oddbob]

This is the worst case scenario for both sides. San Jose has to deal with that contract again, and Kane’s debts are tied to his old contract which is likely why he agreed with the termination considering he filed for bankruptcy

If Kane was happy about termination, why file a grievance, that makes no sense!

 

[Lays]

If Kane was happy about termination, why file a grievance, that makes no sense!

because he’s still losing out on guaranteed money

 

[TGWL]

this doesn't make sense at all. how was kane able to suit up for the oilers, if he is under contract with the sharks.

He wasn't under contract with the Sharks. He was under contract with the Oilers. If ruled the sharks illegally and wrongfully terminated that contract, it would go back.

 

[Cancuks]

So if all this happens then Kane's goals should be voided and the Oilers shouldn't win the first two rounds and the Kings and Flames should be back in the post season.

 

[Qward]

So if all this happens then Kane's goals should be voided and the Oilers shouldn't win the first two rounds and the Kings and Flames should be back in the post season.

Or the Oilers are now over the salary cap and they must reduce their next years cap by the equivalent amount as punishment.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I feel like Kane will get his money but the league will find a way to not f*** over the Sharks.

 

[hamzarocks]

Would be a display of immense ineptitude by the NHL, SJS Org, NHLPA and Kane if this happens

Both parties have moved on. Kane has put his SJS tenure behind him as have the Sharks. No relation is relevant anymore with these two parties.

Let Kane choose where he wants to play next year and let him use his right as a UFA to get a fresh deal.

 

[Bevans]

I highly doubt that happens. The arbitrator would be giving San Jose an advantage (having Kane back as an asset to use in trade) as a punishment. It would also likely hurt Kane, who can likely get a similar contract with longer term this summer.

You're getting it a little twisted by looking at it as a fan or gm, rather than as a legal dispute.

If Kane wins, he is demonstrating that his employment contract must be honored (by someone).

The trading stuff is not relevant to the legal question which is basically "was Kane wrongfully terminated?"

If Kane thinks it would hurt him to win, he will drop his grievance. But keep in mind this new contract would have to be large enough to justify the money he already lost this year by not getting 7 mil.

For example. Getting a 7x3 contract from Edmonton this summer is about 6 million dollars less than winning this grievance.

 

[Artemi Panarin]

There was a report months ago that the NHL and PA had agreed that Kane's contract will not be reinstated even if he wins the grievance. Was the report accurate? I don't know.

He should have had to waive the right to battle for his old contract after signing a new one. This whole thing seems very messy now.

 

[JKG33]

This is the worst case scenario for both sides. San Jose has to deal with that contract again, and Kane’s debts are tied to his old contract which is likely why he agreed with the termination considering he filed for bankruptcy

If Kane agreed to it, they could've mutually terminated his contract.

 

[jetsforever]

It would be incredibly hilarious if his old contract resumed

 

[mouser]

The NHL already confirmed that isn’t happening. Kane’s cap hit (7M) minus whatever his contract is at the time (say 2M just for simple math) would be the only thing coming back from SJ (so 5M in this scenario). Kane will never wear a Sharks jersey on the ice again and I’m sure both sides agree.

Also can we talk about the potential PA nightmare that would happen if Kane was forced back? There is NO WAY they are going to support forcing a player back to a team that tried to cut him. Next thing you know Sharks are going to try to cut Vlasic if it works great, if not no harm no foul really. Now the player is pissed refuses to report and great you cut him for that. There is no way anyone would let them happen.

I must have missed when the NHL confirmed this. Do you have a link source?

 

[Gecklund]

I must have missed when the NHL confirmed this. Do you have a link source?

I don’t have a link but I’m pretty sure it was in their initial talk about the arbitration.

 

[mouser]

I don’t have a link but I’m pretty sure it was in their initial talk about the arbitration.

I suspect what you read was not from the NHL.