For LTIR, yes. A player on LTIR is considered a rostered player for the purpose of cap calculation, therefore his entire hit applies and then there is an exemption for the AAV of replacement players. For an SABH excusal or a suspension (with league consideration and approval), Kane is considered non-rostered and therefore his cap hit would be calculated based on the number of days he spends on the roster, similar to a midseason acquisition or two way contract player. Likewise, any replacement players using his cap space would have to be paid little enough to leave cap room for his addition later in the season.
- Sandus

Where are you getting this information? Genuine question, because everything I have read says the NHL and NHLPA made a deal where if a team has a player suspended long term for legal reasons, it works the exact same way as if the player was on LTIR, in the Voynov incident.

Additionally, it's speculation as to when Blackhawks would get that cap relief. Kings didn't until Voynov had been formally charged, and at that point had already missed the 24 days/10 games required for LTIR. There is a chance Blackhawks will not get any cap relief for Kane until he has missed 10 games/24 days; because unlike injuries there is no clear timeline of when a player is likely to return.

So let me put on my Pollyanna persona and let's discuss "the best case", first disclaiming that this bit of optimistic crystal balling is predicated on that Kane doesn't end up playing RW on the local prison team.

Let's say that by the time the legal aspects of this case are behind us, and Kane spends some time in some type of personality modification indoctrination camp, Santa has already made his rounds and and the calendar has turned a new leaf, not unlike Kane at that point. So essentially half the season is gone before Kane comes off LTIR and his AAV starts counting again. What that means in terms of the Cap is that Stan has ~$5M more in the kitty that wouldn't have been there had Kane been active to start the season. That surplus would have been used to re-sign Kruger and really to not HAVE to move Bickell or Versteeg or anyone unless it makes sense to do so at the time - effectively the gun was removed from Stan's head because Kane's AAV was reduced by half for this season. This will mean that Versteeg will be gone when his contract expires after this season and Bickell will have only 1 year to go when the buyout window opens again next June.

What this would also mean from a positive spin perspective is that someone (TT or Panarin or Dano or ??) would have spent the time Kane was out playing "his minutes" on the 2nd line and the 1st PP unit. Now, the results in the standings would probably suffer with that downgrade, but it gives that player or those players valuable experience that will be fruitful when Kane returns. In other words - the Hawks will assuredly not win as many games with Kane out but as long as they don't dig too deep of a hole for themselves in the standings, they should be a stronger team heading into the playoffs than they would have been if TT/Panarin/Dano had gotten the reduced minutes if Kane had been in the lineup.

I see the possibility that much like last season when Kane was out of the lineup due to an unfortunate injury, this could again result in a positive situation for the Hawks in the long run.

C'mon ... are ya with me?
- EbonyRaptor

All possible and with all the new faces having 13 out first 24 games on the road is good thing imo. I think better that way than play a bunch of home games the opening two months. Also, Bowman may have surplus $$ at the deadline.

Al you are much more interesting than me. I might give being you a whirl!
- Marlowe

I'd be careful...

That's not how I understand LTIR.

If Kane is on LTIR, his cap hit still counts against the Hawks. They are allowed to go over the cap by the amount of his cap hit for the duration of his stay on LTIR. Anything that isn't used is lost. There is no banking of cap hit from LTIR.

The day that Kane was activated from LTIR, they would have to be cap compliant with their current roster (no pro rating) assuming they were over the cap while he was on LTIR.
- NewToHockey

Agree on LTIR but don't think a suspended Kane would have the same status.

I dont think it has anything to do with how serious the alleged crime may or may not have been.

I do agree that as this drags on Kane will most likely sit out, not sure about the details involving the cap if that happens, but its bound to be the case if they keep taking their time to solve this mystery.

I think the DA is taking his sweet time and doing his due diligence exploring all avenues until they find irrefutable evidence to press criminal charges simply because of the high profile nature of the case. The last thing they want to do is put charges on someone famous like that if there is even the slightest chance he may be found innocent in court.
- SimpleJack

Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.

And, I'm not sure how credible this is but I heard she turned down $6,000,000. So that doesn't exactly bode well for Kane.

Where are you getting this information? Genuine question, because everything I have read says the NHL and NHLPA made a deal where if a team has a player suspended long term for legal reasons, it works the exact same way as if the player was on LTIR, in the Voynov incident.

Additionally, it's speculation as to when Blackhawks would get that cap relief. Kings didn't until Voynov had been formally charged, and at that point had already missed the 24 days/10 games required for LTIR. There is a chance Blackhawks will not get any cap relief for Kane until he has missed 10 games/24 days; because unlike injuries there is no clear timeline of when a player is likely to return.
- Antilles

What if the NHL suspends Kane but he isn't charged with a crime? Which is possible.
I wouldn't draw an absolute comparison with Voynov.

Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.

And, I'm not sure how credible this is but I heard she turned down $6,000,000. So that doesn't exactly bode well for Kane.
- Wetbandit1

Someone who turns down $6 mill is likely doing so for one of two reason...They know this is a slam dunk and after the verdict they can sue in civil court.

Or the money doesn't matter and it is more about seeking justice for the offender.

The worse case scenario for Kane is the latter but everyone knows he has the money if sued.

In your example the difference is this goes nowhere unless the alleged victim wants to go to trial....And that could take longer to decide, it's different than the crimes the knucklehead you described committed.

Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.

And, I'm not sure how credible this is but I heard she turned down $6,000,000. So that doesn't exactly bode well for Kane.
- Wetbandit1

Is there anything approaching a creditable source for that?

What if the NHL suspends Kane but he isn't charged with a crime? Which is possible.
I wouldn't draw an absolute comparison with Voynov.
- Al

Him being suspended but not charged is exactly what I am talking about though. Voynov was suspended prior to being charged. The Kings did not get cap relief until Voynov was charged. At which point Kings got salary relief exactly as if Voynov was placed on LTIR. There was also a chance of Voynov not being charged when he was suspended.

The league obviously could do things differently with Kane than they did with Voynov. But I'm not sure why they would. All it does is open the league up to the perception of playing favorites. A policy of "Under felony investigation, suspended; charged thus unlikely to be quickly cleared up, team gets cap relief same as LTIR" seems simple enough, and applying it to everyone stops the controversy they already deal with for Department of Player Safety suspensions from spreading to stuff that is national news.

Him being suspended but not charged is exactly what I am talking about though. Voynov was suspended prior to being charged. The Kings did not get cap relief until Voynov was charged. At which point Kings got salary relief exactly as if Voynov was placed on LTIR. There was also a chance of Voynov not being charged when he was suspended.

The league obviously could do things differently with Kane than they did with Voynov. But I'm not sure why they would. All it does is open the league up to the perception of playing favorites. A policy of "Under felony investigation, suspended; charged thus unlikely to be quickly cleared up, team gets cap relief same as LTIR" seems simple enough, and applying it to everyone stops the controversy they already deal with for Department of Player Safety suspensions from spreading to stuff that is national news.
- Antilles

I thought the Kings suspended Voynov...But I could be wrong.

I think the biggest point is Bettman can do what he wants pretty much...Unless the League and PA etches something in stone for cases like this...Which may happen sooner than later.

Is there anything approaching a creditable source for that?
- StLBravesFan

Of course he does .... But he can't divulge it.

Is there anything approaching a creditable source for that?
- StLBravesFan

there are no sources...unfortunately we will have to let this one play out..

I thought the Kings suspended Voynov...But I could be wrong.

I think the biggest point is Bettman can do what he wants pretty much...Unless the League and PA etches something in stone for cases like this...Which may happen sooner than later.
- Al

The NHL suspended Voynov. The Kings months later suspended him as well. The former is what is related to his legal situation. The latter is because he injured himself in an off-ice incident.

Bettman, in fact, cannot do what he wants, because he has to follow the CBA. He has to get NHLPA approval to give teams cap relief in areas not specifically allowed by the CBA. The reason the NHLPA cares is that Kane still gets paid while suspended. And his pay still counts towards the 50% of revenue players receive. If the Blackhawks get cap relief, they are then paying more money to players, but the amount players get total doesn't increase, it's still 50% of revenue. Any time a team gets cap relief, they are really just splitting up the same size pie between the players more ways, making each player's share smaller (by lowering the amount each player get's back from what they pay into escrow over each year). So the NHLPA wants to avoid teams getting cap relief wherever reasonable.

NHLPA made a deal with the NHL to let Kings have cap relief when Voynov was charged (but not when he was just suspended). There is a chance the deal was for this to be allowed in the future as well. If not, Bettman really has no power to grant cap relief without their approval. He isn't allowed to except in ways specified by the CBA, and this situation isn't.

Meaning - they can't go trial without a grand jury?
- StLBravesFan

In many type cases, the prosecutors must get a grand jury to see there is enough evidence to edict the person.

I know it happened to me.
Friends were making a shading drug deal with the Illinois Bureau of Investigation. They were being netted, set up, videoed and basically packaged for a conviction.
The starting point came through a snitch who knew them through me. They IBI basically pulled me in...I had other plans for the day, meeting my girllfriend for lunch and told the snitch that I didn't need to be a part of their deal.
But....he and an undercover agent showed up at the girlfriends job, hung out and waited until she had to go to back to work and basically coerced me into being part of this meeting in a restaurant. I never heard andy of the topic of the deal as i was talking to the snitch as the undercover was talking to the guy they were gonna actually get stuff from. It was at a restaurant that was made famous later as a place they videoed judges and payoffs in the greylord cases.
I went to my night job each night for the next four days, and during that 4th night I guess they made the deal and got cracked. A few hours later I was arrested for conspiracy because I knew it was going to happen. (and sure even though I didn't know the particulars or relly wasn't part of the endaevor, I WAS basically told my the law enforcement side THROUGH my snitch friend this was happening...I kept saying, why are you telling me? I dont care or want to be any part of this.
There were no drugs in my possession and never discussed any particulars of the transaction like this gonna cost this etc.
There was garnd jury hearing... I was in court with a top lawyer next to me, but the IBI was able to get me edicted by the grand jury even though i wasn't there. In my case did the grand jury error on the side of caution that i was some possible behind the scenes kingpin, and nowling let the crime happen?
Maybe.
So I think a grand jury can sometimes indict on the side of "caution"...let the jury decide....

Another reason for me to stay away from here?

People commenting on a six million dollar payoff?
And I am incorrect to think I don't need to drop down anymore rabbit holes tonight?

Where are you getting this information? Genuine question, because everything I have read says the NHL and NHLPA made a deal where if a team has a player suspended long term for legal reasons, it works the exact same way as if the player was on LTIR, in the Voynov incident.

Additionally, it's speculation as to when Blackhawks would get that cap relief. Kings didn't until Voynov had been formally charged, and at that point had already missed the 24 days/10 games required for LTIR. There is a chance Blackhawks will not get any cap relief for Kane until he has missed 10 games/24 days; because unlike injuries there is no clear timeline of when a player is likely to return.
- Antilles

Sorry for late reply. The LTIR info is from the CBA (I believe it's like section 50, but I can't recall off the top of my head). The SABH stuff actually comes from the wording of the SABH, which hasn't been amended since the last lockout. The suspension could go either way depending on a variety of factors, the least of which is how it is categorized (a personal leave of absence, for instance, would fall under the days missed rule). Regardless of how it does, the league needs approve any type of cap relief from an inactive player that isn't specifically stipulated, and it would be up to them how such relief is calculated during the player's absence and if he were to return.

There is no language in any NHL document regarding suspensions for legal matters, only the discretionary suspensions for inappropriate conduct.

Someone who turns down $6 mill is likely doing so for one of two reason...They know this is a slam dunk and after the verdict they can sue in civil court.

Or the money doesn't matter and it is more about seeking justice for the offender.

The worse case scenario for Kane is the latter but everyone knows he has the money if sued.

In your example the difference is this goes nowhere unless the alleged victim wants to go to trial....And that could take longer to decide, it's different than the crimes the knucklehead you described committed.
- Al

I agree on all points except the last one. It doesn't matter if she wants to press charges or not. At least in NY the DA can press charges themselves without the victim because of something to do with public safety. Obviously he'd want her onboard, and would subpoena her as a material witness if she was unwilling. Although everything points to her wanting to go forward.

And StLBravesFan, you're right, the only way it's 100% credible is if the settlement document were released/leaked, but knowing Cambria as not an idiot there never was a doc if indeed an offer was made. And just word of offering money makes Kane look bad, so it could be a ploy to poison any potential jury against him should it come to that, but I doubt it. This thing has layers within layers within layers.

2 weeks to camp....

1. no kruger signing
2. hawks over the cap
3. 29 and 23 still here
4. 88 situation is a disaster


tick...tick...tick...ka ka ka BOOM

The NHL suspended Voynov. The Kings months later suspended him as well. The former is what is related to his legal situation. The latter is because he injured himself in an off-ice incident.

Bettman, in fact, cannot do what he wants, because he has to follow the CBA. He has to get NHLPA approval to give teams cap relief in areas not specifically allowed by the CBA. The reason the NHLPA cares is that Kane still gets paid while suspended. And his pay still counts towards the 50% of revenue players receive. If the Blackhawks get cap relief, they are then paying more money to players, but the amount players get total doesn't increase, it's still 50% of revenue. Any time a team gets cap relief, they are really just splitting up the same size pie between the players more ways, making each player's share smaller (by lowering the amount each player get's back from what they pay into escrow over each year). So the NHLPA wants to avoid teams getting cap relief wherever reasonable.

NHLPA made a deal with the NHL to let Kings have cap relief when Voynov was charged (but not when he was just suspended). There is a chance the deal was for this to be allowed in the future as well. If not, Bettman really has no power to grant cap relief without their approval. He isn't allowed to except in ways specified by the CBA, and this situation isn't.
- Antilles

Maybe saying Bettman can do whatever he wants was to an extreme but he has a great deal of leeway. Bettman has the power to suspend Kane whether he is charged or not...And as you say the "deal" between the NHLPA and the NHL as with Voynov most likely will not be the last. The PA in many ways is only as strong as the League and it makes sense they get together and not hurt each other. To allow the team to suspend Voynov after he was already suspended by the NHL kind of smells to me.

I never made a hard stand concerning cap relief what I do believe and have said from the beginning is Kane will be suspended whether charged or not.

I will also say if somehow this whole thing blows away within the next 2 weeks I still think Kane will be gone for at least 2 months.

I agree on all points except the last one. It doesn't matter if she wants to press charges or not. At least in NY the DA can press charges themselves without the victim because of something to do with public safety. Obviously he'd want her onboard, and would subpoena her as a material witness if she was unwilling. Although everything points to her wanting to go forward.

And StLBravesFan, you're right, the only way it's 100% credible is if the settlement document were released/leaked, but knowing Cambria as not an idiot there never was a doc if indeed an offer was made. And just word of offering money makes Kane look bad, so it could be a ploy to poison any potential jury against him should it come to that, but I doubt it. This thing has layers within layers within layers.
- Wetbandit1

At least in NY the DA can press charges themselves without the victim because of something to do with public safety.

Highly unlikely to ever happen because it wouldn't be public safety that would be in jeopardy but the alleged victim could suffer serious consequences. I strongly doubt they would force her do anything...The numbers indicate almost all rape cases never go to trial....The DA won't force her to go trial but she may very well do so on her own.

For LTIR, yes. A player on LTIR is considered a rostered player for the purpose of cap calculation, therefore his entire hit applies and then there is an exemption for the AAV of replacement players. For an SABH excusal or a suspension (with league consideration and approval), Kane is considered non-rostered and therefore his cap hit would be calculated based on the number of days he spends on the roster, similar to a midseason acquisition or two way contract player. Likewise, any replacement players using his cap space would have to be paid little enough to leave cap room for his addition later in the season.
- Sandus

That's the way I understand it too. In other words, if Kane misses half the season, like in my Pollyanna example above, then half of his AAV isn't going to count against the Cap and there that cap space is available to be used for other players. A player's AAV is broken down to be a daily cost spread across all the days of the regular season so if the number of days in the regular season is 190 (basically 6 months), then Kanes $10.5M AAV is divided by 190, so his daily cap hit is $55,263 therefore that amount ($55,263) is charged against the Hawks Cap for every day Kane is on the 23 man roster - AND - it is not charged to the Hawks Cap on the days he's not on the roster. So if Kane misses the firs 90 days of the season, then his daily AAV ($55,263) will not be charged to the Hawks cap. If he comes back around the first of the year and is on the roster for the last 100 days of the season, then his daily AAV will be charged to the Hawks Cap ($55,263 x 100 days = $5,626,300). Therefore the Hawks will have cap space to use elsewhere.

Did the new CBA change things or are teams still allowed to be 10% over the cap until the day the season starts? Kruger's salary isn't going to be $7M+.
- NewToHockey

My understanding is that there is a break between the two events. First, teams need to get below the cap by opening day. Then, after the season starts, teams can add additional salary if someone is on LTIR. That's why the Blackhawks can't just sign Kruger now and use the possible Kane-related salary cap relief to stay under the cap.

That's the way I understand it too. In other words, if Kane misses half the season, like in my Pollyanna example above, then half of his AAV isn't going to count against the Cap and there that cap space is available to be used for other players. A player's AAV is broken down to be a daily cost spread across all the days of the regular season so if the number of days in the regular season is 190 (basically 6 months), then Kanes $10.5M AAV is divided by 190, so his daily cap hit is $55,263 therefore that amount ($55,263) is charged against the Hawks Cap for every day Kane is on the 23 man roster - AND - it is not charged to the Hawks Cap on the days he's not on the roster. So if Kane misses the firs 90 days of the season, then his daily AAV ($55,263) will not be charged to the Hawks cap. If he comes back around the first of the year and is on the roster for the last 100 days of the season, then his daily AAV will be charged to the Hawks Cap ($55,263 x 100 days = $5,626,300). Therefore the Hawks will have cap space to use elsewhere.
- EbonyRaptor

Honestly, it really depends why he's missing it. If it's due to an injury, then he still accumulates those days because players on injured reserve are still considered rostered players, just inactive ones with a cap exception. If for whatever reason he is non-rostered, since he makes in excess of $1 million, his number only prorates for specific circumstances, such as SABH participation or bereavement or some other league-approved exception (time away due to grand jury hearing?). It all depends how the league categorizes his absence.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13576886/nhl-chicago-blackhawks-daniel-carcillo-day-stanley-cup-tribute-steve-montador

Not sure if this made its way in here. Very good read.
- Pecafan Fan

Thanks for posting Peca...as mentioned really great read. Happy for what Carcillo is doing...love the side story about the Twitter account for Gelinas...hilarious.

Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.


- Wetbandit1

And, I'm not sure how credible this is but I heard she turned down $6,000,000. So that doesn't exactly bode well for Kane.[

/quote]

If that is the case, then she is the biggest idiot on the planet.

If this case goes to trial, and they can get a conviction, and that's a BIG if, he will most likely get some deal of probation, say five years. Rich people like Kane do not go to jail for these types of cases, especially on the first offense. She will not find that kind of justice in the criminal case.

From that point on in a civil suit, no jury on this planet, unless it is her family and friends, will award that sum.

At the end of the day, she will be kicking herself for turning down that amount.

And I want you all to a few things in mind:

1) If the DA's evidence was that strong, there would be no grand jury, no matter how high of profile this case is. They would have indicted him and we would be waiting for the court date to be announced.

2) If there is a "new" witness, and for he or she to matter, if he/she was not in the room, then it will be nothing more than speculation, just like the other people in the house at the time of the alleged crime.

3) If her claim was that he "overpowered" her, there would be evidence on her body - either on her neck or her wrists. I have worked for lawyers on cases like this - the evidence of force is pretty obvious. The areas a rapist holds a woman down are very susceptible to irritation and/or bruising. These types of marks usually are what make the case a slam dunk. We have not heard anything about these types of markings on her.

4) There were conflicting reports earlier in this case about whether or not she was the woman that wanted to return to his house. If she lied about this, it will be very damaging to her case without specific evidence. The only chance she has in a case without hard evidence is her credibility. If she lied about such a trivial point in this investigation, it will be very hard for her or her attorney to convince a jury that she is telling the truth.

I am not sure one way or the other about this case - they are very tricky. In the end, I suspect all that we will learn from this case is only two people will ever know what really happened in that room, the accuser and Patrick Kane.

Source?
- Ogilthorpe2

You're asking for a source for Mexico Hawk's comment about a new witness coming forwar

I asked too, if this was a new witness, or the woman (a friend of the accuser) who we've known all along was in the house.

I have not seen a response.

ABC News Chicago is reporting the case could go to the grand jury next week - meaning the GJ begins hearing testimony then, and their investigation and deliberations could take several weeks:

http://abc7chicago.com/sp...nd-jury-next-week/970916/

The article also says: prosecutors could file charges without a grand jury indictment, although going to the grand jury would carry more weight, and that they aren't supposed to go to a GJ unless they are convinced that they have enough evidence to get an indictment.

So - the "fact" that all felonies in NY state require a grand jury proceeding seems to be not a "fact".

It also seems that reports of a "new witness" aren't true.

Lots of mis-information being reported here.