I haven't seen an NHL contract, I am just speculating (and I think quite plausibly) that there is some sort of section that allows a team to fire a player without monetary penalty if the player engages in any clearly stated forms of F|_|ckery
- MikeOxbyg

NHLPA would have to agree. Mass murder may qualify. Domestic violence probably will not. Unions are far less concerned about perception than owners. That is clearly demonstrated by the industries they have destroyed (with assistance by incompetent owners) over the last 3 decades in the US.... Not to mention the public education system (which teacher's unions pretty much have destroyed on their own). I think NYPS currently has at least 10 pedophiles still being paid on leave - protected by the union.

I must be remembering wrong. I thought both Carter and Richards signed new deals with NTC included and then were both traded right before NTC kicked in.
- thebutlerdunnit

Maybe Richards refused the trade and waivers is DLs response?

It's on the Kings.
- jmatchett383

That's what I thought

Colin Miller blasts a 105.5 in the hardest shot and wins the fastest skater event in the AHL all stars with a 13.808 = It's too bad we don't have a need for any of that kind of stuff like that up in the big show.
- MikeOxbyg

I must be remembering wrong. I thought both Carter and Richards signed new deals with NTC included and then were both traded right before NTC kicked in.
- thebutlerdunnit

A NTC doesn't kick in until a player's Free agency years, either by age 27 or 7 Accrued Seasons. It was negotiated into the contract, but couldn't start until then. The Flyers traded Richards before the NTC kicked in. When Richards was traded, the clause was voided out of the contract.

NHLPA would have to agree. Mass murder may qualify. Domestic violence probably will not. Unions are far less concerned about perception than owners. That is clearly demonstrated by the industries they have destroyed (with assistance by incompetent owners) over the last 3 decades in the US.... Not to mention the public education system (which teacher's unions pretty much have destroyed on their own). I think NYPS currently has at least 10 pedophiles still being paid on leave - protected by the union.


- tredbrta

I am sure there is a loophole in the contract for these matters, especially when deportation is on the line.

I am sure there is a loophole in the contract for these matters, especially when deportation is on the line.
- MikeOxbyg

Exhibit 1 of the CBA is a Standard Player Contract. Every player signs this, and there are a lot of things in there that a player agrees to when he signs an NHL SPC.

Below is an example.


(e) 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.

Exhibit 1 of the CBA is a Standard Player Contract. Every player signs this, and there are a lot of things in there that a player agrees to when he signs an NHL SPC.

Below is an example.


(e) 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.
- MJL

Any lawyer worth his salt could take that section to the NHLPA and say "Conduct unbecoming, we reserve the right to terminate the contract and not have to pay any further on it"

Here are the Recapture amounts for Mike Richards. The Kings only have to account for the seasons since they acquired Richards, since the new CBA wasn't in effect at the time that Philadelphia signed the contract. Richards' cap hit is $5.75M per season, his salary for each of the years (and cap benefit) since 2011-12 are as follows:

Year: Salary - Cap Hit = Cap Benefit
2011-12: $6.6M - $5.75M = $850k
2012-13: $8.4M - $5.75M = $2.65M
2013-14: $7.6M - $5.75M = $1.85M
2014-15: $7M - $5.75M = $1.25M
2015-16: $6M - $5.75M = $250k
2016-17: $5.5M - $5.75M = -$250k
2017-18: $4.5M - $5.75M = -$1.25M
2018-19: $3M - $5.75M = -$2.75M
2019-20: $3M - $5.75M = -$2.75M

So if you take the cumulative cap benefit and divide it by the years remaining on Richards contract, that is the amount that the Kings would get hit with every season until 2020 if Richards decides to retire early. The year applies if he retires before or during the season listed.

Contract Year:
2014-15: $850k + $2.65M + $1.85M = $5.35M / 6 years remaining = $891,667
2015-16: $5.35M + $1.25M = $6.6M / 5 years reamaining = $1.32M
2016-17: $6.6M + $250k = $6.85M / 4 years remaining = $1.713M
2017-18: $6.85M - $250k = $6.6M / 3 years remaining = $2.2M
2018-19: $6.6M - $1.25M = $5.35M / 2 years remaining = $2.675M
2019-20: $5.35M - $2.75M = $2.6M / 1 year remeaining = $2.6M

Edit....Correction to buyout amounts. The buyout amount actually varies based on the amount of "cap savings" you get every season. Here are the cap hits for Mike Richards by season if he gets bought out this offseason.



Jason, feel free to include these numbers in your blog if you so desire.

Any lawyer worth his salt could take that section to the NHLPA and say "Conduct unbecoming, we reserve the right to terminate the contract and not have to pay any further on it"
- MikeOxbyg

Technically, the NHL can terminate his contract whenever they want to citing the morals clause. It's not up to the Kings. However, the question is whether or not it would stand up to a legal challenge, since the NHLPA would undoubtedly sue. If they find that the contract was terminated unfairly or prematurely, the league could be hit with some pretty serious financial penalties.

Technically, the NHL can terminate his contract whenever they want to citing the morals clause. It's not up to the Kings. However, the question is whether or not it would stand up to a legal challenge, since the NHLPA would undoubtedly sue. If they find that the contract was terminated unfairly or prematurely, the league could be hit with some pretty serious financial penalties.
- tkecanuck341

if Voynov is convicted, it's a slam dunk that the contract will be terminated in my opinion.

if Voynov is convicted, it's a slam dunk that the contract will be terminated in my opinion.
- MJL

Absolutely. The same goes if his visa status is revoked. Outside of that, I think it is highly unlikely that his contract his voided.

Absolutely. The same goes if his visa status is revoked. Outside of that, I think it is highly unlikely that his contract his voided.
- tkecanuck341

I was basing that on a conviction and saying that it might be a slight cushion with the richards situation

There is one other possible outcome of the Richards situation. It's a stretch, because Richards would have to be willing to walk away from the millions left on his contract. If the Kings decide to demote Richards to the AHL, Richards could refuse to report, the Kings could suspend him, and they could mutually agree to terminate the contract, according to paragraph 14 of the SPC. Doubt it will happen, but it's a possibility.

There is one other possible outcome of the Richards situation. It's a stretch, because Richards would have to be willing to walk away from the millions left on his contract. If the Kings decide to demote Richards to the AHL, Richards could refuse to report, the Kings could suspend him, and they could mutually agree to terminate the contract, according to paragraph 14 of the SPC. Doubt it will happen, but it's a possibility.
- MJL

He would then be in an Ilya Kovalchuk situation, and would likely never be able to return to the NHL. I doubt he will want to go out that way, especially since there are still teams that would pay for his services.

He would then be in an Ilya Kovalchuk situation, and would likely never be able to return to the NHL. I doubt he will want to go out that way, especially since there are still teams that would pay for his services.
- tkecanuck341

I believe the player would immediately become a UFA and is free to sign with another team. The Kovalchuk situation is different because it wasn't a mutual termination situation. Kovalchuk retired from the NHL and defected to the KHL, which is why Cap recapture penalties kicked in for NJ.

I believe the player would immediately become a UFA and is free to sign with another team. The Kovalchuk situation is different because it wasn't a mutual termination situation. Kovalchuk retired from the NHL and defected to the KHL, which is why Cap recapture penalties kicked in for NJ.
- MJL

Not a chance. Contracts in the NHL are guaranteed. There is no opt-out clause for either side, even if both sides agree. Luongo tried to do it a few years ago during the whole Schneider debacle, and he was quoted as saying, “My contract sucks. Unfortunately, it’s a big factor in trading me and it’s probably why I’m still here. I’d scrap it if I could right now.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcs...luongo-my-contract-sucks/

He talked to the NHLPA about the possibility of voiding his contract so he could sign somewhere else, but they essentially put the kebosh on it right away.

kings need to clear room for pearson and tofoli next year, i would rather keep them as top line wingers then pay a guy 5+ for a 4th line roll. richards is still a decent player, i see a trade going down where la takes back a smaller crap salary maybe. anything less then the 4 mil dead hit will help

Not a chance. Contracts in the NHL are guaranteed. There is no opt-out clause for either side, even if both sides agree. Luongo tried to do it a few years ago during the whole Schneider debacle, and he was quoted as saying, “My contract sucks. Unfortunately, it’s a big factor in trading me and it’s probably why I’m still here. I’d scrap it if I could right now.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcs...luongo-my-contract-sucks/

He talked to the NHLPA about the possibility of voiding his contract so he could sign somewhere else, but they essentially put the kebosh on it right away.
- tkecanuck341

NHL contracts guaranteed have zero to do with it. Read paragraph 14 of Exhibit 1, of the CBA.

It's MUTUAL termination, not one side, meaning both sides have to agree to it, and there has to be a trigger, such as a player being demoted to the AHL, and refusing to report, violating his contract.

http://www.startribune.co...acyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

http://fireandice.northje...-in-switzerland-1.1152545

You'll notice in both articles, it states that after the mutual termination, the player is free to sign with another NHL team.

Again, it's MUTUAL termination. In the article you posted, the Canucks weren't willing to walk away from Luongo as a trade asset.

kings need to clear room for pearson and tofoli next year, i would rather keep them as top line wingers then pay a guy 5+ for a 4th line roll. richards is still a decent player, i see a trade going down where la takes back a smaller crap salary maybe. anything less then the 4 mil dead hit will help
- btzturbo

If Richards clears waivers tonight, and a deal can't be done prior to the trade deadline. Richards will get sent down to Manchester, then called back up for the post season when the salary cap doesn't apply. They'll try to trade him again around the draft. If a deal can't be done then, they'll buy out his contract.

If they do have to buy out Richards, that will give them an extra $4.5M of cap space next season to sign Toffoli and Pearson, in addition to whatever the cap increase will be. They'll then have the entirety of the cap increase is for 2016-17 to resign Kopitar. Things will be tight in 2018-19 and 2019-20, as nearly $4¼ million of Richards cap-hit will be on the books for those two seasons.

NHL contracts guaranteed have zero to do with it. Read paragraph 14 of Exhibit 1, of the CBA.

It's MUTUAL termination, not one side, meaning both sides have to agree to it, and there has to be a trigger, such as a player being demoted to the AHL, and refusing to report, violating his contract.

http://www.startribune.co...acyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

http://fireandice.northje...-in-switzerland-1.1152545

You'll notice in both articles, it states that after the mutual termination, the player is free to sign with another NHL team.

Again, it's MUTUAL termination. In the article you posted, the Canucks weren't willing to walk away from Luongo as a trade asset.
- MJL

Even if it is technically allowed under the SPC (I don't necessarily agree that section 14 applies in this situation), there's no way that this happens without the NHL filing a circumvention claim against the Kings and/or Richards. Read section 26.13 (c) of the CBA. In both of the cases you cited, the players were in the final year of their contracts, and releasing them had little to no effect on the cap situation of their respective teams (not to mention that Sykora's case didn't even happen under the current CBA). Richards' contract situation has a large financial impact on the cap situation of the Kings and the league for the better part of a decade.

While it may or may not be circumvention in this specific case, the league won't let them set the precedent where both sides can just agree walk away from the contract, allowing the player to immediately sign elsewhere and the club to get immediate cap relief. It will open the door to abuse in future contracts.

Even if it is technically allowed under the SPC (I don't necessarily agree that section 14 applies in this situation), there's no way that this happens without the NHL filing a circumvention claim against the Kings and/or Richards. Read section 26.13 (c) of the CBA. In both of the cases you cited, the players were in the final year of their contracts, and releasing them had little to no effect on the cap situation of their respective teams (not to mention that Sykora's case didn't even happen under the current CBA). Richards' contract situation has a large financial impact on the cap situation of the Kings and the league for the better part of a decade.

While it may or may not be circumvention in this specific case, the league won't let them set the precedent where both sides can just agree walk away from the contract, allowing the player to immediately sign elsewhere and the club to get immediate cap relief. It will open the door to abuse in future contracts.
- tkecanuck341

The NHL has to approve the mutual termination, and there has to be just cause. As I said previously, the trigger has to be there, such as a player violating his contract by not reporting to the AHL when assigned, and both parties, the team, and the player mutually agree to terminate. In the final year of the deal, doesn't matter. The biggest reason why it is unlikely to happen is not because of circumvention, it's because Richards is unlikely to walk away from that money. The Kings may also feel they can trade him at some point and possibly recoup some assets. Any likely trade of Richards at this point is likely to be a retained salary transaction.

Did you ever read paragraph 14 of Exhibit 1? It's a shame capggeek isn't still around, because they had a section on this if their FAQ.

The NHL has to approve the mutual termination, and there has to be just cause. As I said previously, the trigger has to be there, such as a player violating his contract by not reporting to the AHL when assigned, and both parties, the team, and the player mutually agree to terminate. In the final year of the deal, doesn't matter. The biggest reason why it is unlikely to happen is not because of circumvention, it's because Richards is unlikely to walk away from that money. The Kings may also feel they can trade him at some point and possibly recoup some assets. Any likely trade of Richards at this point is likely to be a retained salary transaction.

Did you ever read paragraph 14 of Exhibit 1? It's a shame capggeek isn't still around, because they had a section on this if their FAQ.
- MJL

I did read paragraph 14. Page 318. I have a shortcut to the CBA on my desktop, and I refer to it often. It does say that the club may void a contract if a player violates the terms, but it says nothing about mutual agreement. If anything, I think that if the league suspects collusion, they wouldn't approve the termination.

There was a situation a few years back with Erik Ersberg, the Kings' backup goaltender, who was made expendable after Quick began playing well. There wasn't really any room for him in Manchester, and Ersberg was always a good sport about it. Everyone knew that the situation was "mutual", but they still had to play it up as Ersberg leaving in a huff because they feared retaliation from the league.

http://lakingsinsider.com.../ersberg-cleared-waivers/

I did read paragraph 14. Page 318. I have a shortcut to the CBA on my desktop, and I refer to it often. It does say that the club may void a contract if a player violates the terms, but it says nothing about mutual agreement. If anything, I think that if the league suspects collusion, they wouldn't approve the termination.
- tkecanuck341

I agree, and certainly a deal like Richards is going to be under far heavier scrutiny by the League then a low cap hit deal in the final year. It's not likely to happen, but it is a possible scenario. It has to be legitimate, and not engineered to circumvent.