Chip Alexander: Scott Darling Granted Personal Leave of Absence

[Chrispy]

Is a mutual cancellation even allowable under the CBA? I remember a few years ago, Luongo basically said he wished he could rip up his contract because it was hurting the team, but there was nothing he could do about it.

I guess there's always the retirement option, but if I'm contractually owed another $8 million over the next two years, I have a hard time picturing myself walking away from that. Especially if I still love the game and retiring means I can't play for anyone else during that time.

There have been a few "mutual terminations" in recent memory, the most notable one being Patrik Berglund. But Berglund was refusing to report, not given a leave of absence.

And if the buyout occurs, the player can obviously play for another team if they want.

 

[izzy]

darling seems like an awesome dude, hopefully he can work things out

annoying when people dont understand that nhlers are still people. the shit berglund took when he left was disgusting, hopefully that doesnt happen with darling.

 

[Primetime8]

Not trying to be an ******* at all with the statement, but Darling played just bad enough to land this team Svechnikov. Hindsight is always 20/20 but if I went back in time and could somehow stop the signing, I wouldn't. Buttefly effect.

 

[DougieSmash]

Not trying to be an ******* at all with the statement, but Darling played just bad enough to land this team Svechnikov. Hindsight is always 20/20 but if I went back in time and could somehow stop the signing, I wouldn't. Buttefly effect.

Darling = franchise player in Svech. Ok, i wish, i wish, but Svech was blue chip prospect with crazy talent. I believe he could end up as a better player than Seabass.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Darling = franchise player in Svech. Ok, i wish, i wish, but Svech was blue chip prospect with crazy talent. I believe he could end up as a better player than Seabass.

I think you mis-understood his post (or maybe I misunderstand your post). He's saying that BECAUSE Darling was bad last year, it put the team in a spot to be able to win the lottery and draft Svech.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

Is a mutual cancellation even allowable under the CBA? I remember a few years ago, Luongo basically said he wished he could rip up his contract because it was hurting the team, but there was nothing he could do about it.

Yes, it's absolutely allowed. It happens like at least a few dozen times per season, typically when a player wants to play in Europe instead of in the minors. It happened with the Hurricanes and Michal Cajkovsky earlier this season, and with *33* other players so far this year: 2018–19 NHL transactions - Wikipedia

But it's highly unlikely to happen with Darling. Why would he agree to that when he can instead wait to get bought out and collect 2/3rds of his salary?

As for the Hurricanes terminating his contract uniterally, also not happening. Why would they do that when the 2/3rds buyout is option is available? Unless they have a rock solid case (which I doubt they do), they'd risk losing an appeal and over $2 million in the process.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

I’m not sure if this will end in a buyout. Obviously it’s a sensitive topic but right now he isn’t fulfilling his contractual obligations by taking personal leave during the season. Perhaps a mutual termination. Really just speculation on my part.

What part of "granted personal leave of absence" is so difficult for people here to understand? He didn't just walk away without permission. He's not breaching his contract.

 

[Ahoy there]

What part of "granted personal leave of absence" is so difficult for people here to understand? He didn't just walk away without permission. He's not breaching his contract.

Kind of, maybe, we don't know. Contract law is much more complicated than twitter reports or team statements convey. Granted, yes, means he is currently not in breach of contract while not with the Checkers. It does not, however, speak to buyouts and other clauses regarding buyouts and player responsibility. It may very well be granted under an allowance similar to what Jordan took with the tragedy to his daughter for example.

 

[Ole Gil]

Kind of, maybe, we don't know. Contract law is much more complicated than twitter reports or team statements convey. Granted, yes, means he is currently not in breach of contract while not with the Checkers. It does not, however, speak to buyouts and other clauses regarding buyouts and player responsibility. It may very well be granted under an allowance similar to what Jordan took with the tragedy to his daughter for example.

We're both men of the law. You know. We get after it. You know, we jabber jaw, we go tit for tat. We have our little differences. But at the end of the day, you win some, I win some, and there's a mutual respect left over between us.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

 

[Lempo]

Is a mutual cancellation even allowable under the CBA? I remember a few years ago, Luongo basically said he wished he could rip up his contract because it was hurting the team, but there was nothing he could do about it.

I guess there's always the retirement option, but if I'm contractually owed another $8 million over the next two years, I have a hard time picturing myself walking away from that. Especially if I still love the game and retiring means I can't play for anyone else during that time.

The termination of the SPC by its paragraph 14 (without buyout on material breach) has the precondition of the player needing to be offered on unconditional waivers to other teams before the deed. Can't bypass that. And I would guess there needs to be the actual legitimate act of the player honestly failing to fulfill the contract to pull the fourteen.

The CBA on the other hand has strict prohibition against the renegotiation of the SPC. I would argue the mutual agreement by player and team to shorten the contract to end immediately is an illegal renegotiation.

Luongo one-sidedly ripping his contract would probably have been deemed to be defection, and would seriously have hiccuped his future in NHL.

 

[Lempo]

Kind of, maybe, we don't know. Contract law is much more complicated than twitter reports or team statements convey. Granted, yes, means he is currently not in breach of contract while not with the Checkers. It does not, however, speak to buyouts and other clauses regarding buyouts and player responsibility. It may very well be granted under an allowance similar to what Jordan took with the tragedy to his daughter for example.

Yes, it may be that the team and the player lack the legal competence to agree on indefinite absences because they have contractually agreed to the NHL legal framework where such thing may be prohibited.

Using an overlong leave of absence in the purpose to rid yourself of a player for some reason (instead of using the limited CBA-mandated methods) may well be a 26.3 circumvention to the CBA.

 

[Wolfpuck]

Not trying to be an ******* at all with the statement, but Darling played just bad enough to land this team Svechnikov. Hindsight is always 20/20 but if I went back in time and could somehow stop the signing, I wouldn't. Buttefly effect.

That and him getting injured, which forced us to pick up McElhinney, were the best things he's done for this franchise.

That said, Scott seems like a super nice dude, and I hope he gets himself in a good place.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

What part of "granted personal leave of absence" is so difficult for people here to understand? He didn't just walk away without permission. He's not breaching his contract.

I know that coming around every few months and talking down to people is your thing but honestly you can lose the attitude. I never said he walked away from the team or was in breach of his contract.

I completely understand he asked for a leave but what is the team supposed to do? Deny his request and force him to stay? They basically have to let him go as it’s what he needs to do for his own health and well-being.

The bottom line is he isn’t able to fulfill his end of the contract.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I know that coming around every few months and talking down to people is your thing but honestly you can lose the attitude. I never said he walked away from the team or was in breach of his contract.

I completely understand he asked for a leave but what is the team supposed to do? Deny his request and force him to stay? They basically have to let him go as it’s what he needs to do for his own health and well-being.

The bottom line is he isn’t able to fulfill his end of the contract.

No, that isn't the bottom line at all. Who's talking down to whom here?

Maybe we should let Lempo handle the "bottom line" since he actually cites the actual agreements in question.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Yet he's still getting paid his ridiculous contract?

Bullshit

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

No, that isn't the bottom line at all. Who's talking down to whom here?

Maybe we should let Lempo handle the "bottom line" since he actually cites the actual agreements in question.

I’m not talking down to anyone.

My point this whole time has been that I don’t understand why we’d need to pay him in a buyout if he’s unable to play which is currently the case.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I’m not talking down to anyone.

My point this whole time has been that I don’t understand why we’d need to pay him in a buyout if he’s unable to play which is currently the case.

You are speculating, by your own admission. From everything I can tell, baselessly so.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

You are speculating, by your own admission. From everything I can tell, baselessly so.

We’re not allowed to wonder things?

It’s an honest question. If someone can’t fulfill their contract why should they get buyout money?

 

[Navin R Slavin]

We’re not allowed to wonder things?

It’s an honest question. If someone can’t fulfill their contract why should they get buyout money?

You are asserting something that is untrue and claiming it as your basis of argument.

You are contending that he is not fulfilling his contract. That is factually incorrect. He is not in breach of contract, because the team granted him the leave that he requested.

If you want to claim there's a meaningful difference between "can't fulfill contract" and "breach of contract" then we'd have cause to claw back about a hundred million dollars of salary over the last decade from all the players who were pitifully unable to fulfill their contracts.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

"Why should they get money that I don't feel like they're entitled to?"

Because they bargained collectively for the right to that money. Period.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

"Why should they get money that I don't feel like they're entitled to?"

Because they bargained collectively for the right to that money. Period.

I don’t think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because of poor play. I think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because he’s an alcoholic whose alcoholism is preventing him from being a functional part of the organization.

I think that’s what he’s saying.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I don’t think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because of poor play. I think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because he’s an alcoholic whose alcoholism is preventing him from being a functional part of the organization.

I think that’s what he’s saying.

There’s an NHL program for that if that’s the case and he’d still get his money as far as I know.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I don’t think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because of poor play. I think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because he’s an alcoholic whose alcoholism is preventing him from being a functional part of the organization.

I think that’s what he’s saying.

If that is, in fact, what he's saying, then he should say it, and he should bring a crew of lawyers when he does so.

 

[Lempo]

I don’t think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because of poor play. I think he’s saying Darling doesn’t deserve the money because he’s an alcoholic whose alcoholism is preventing him from being a functional part of the organization.

I think that’s what he’s saying.

I don't think he is saying that, and we really don't need to speculate on the reasons at all, because per the SPC, as a starting point player failing to render his services according to the SPC is grounds for termination.

If the failure is because a health concern, including mental health, SPC 5 says that if the player is "disabled or unable to perform his duties under this SPC" this needs to be determined by the team physician, and the situation is governed by that paragraph from then on. Do note that the player is not entitled to the benefits of the SPC if it is "a disability which is not caused by an injury sustained during the course of his employment as a hockey Player including travel with his team or on business requested by his Club".

Regarding alcohol and substance abuse, I believe there are explicit NHL/NHLPA-mandated procedures about (at first) directing the player to the rehab and (secondary) rules about termination in case the player fails to timely rehabilitate.

There may be some NHL guideline about granting personal leaves, how long they are allowed to last, and if the player is to enjoy the benefits of the SPC when on one. There probably are stipulations preventing that such leave can't last so long that is defeats the purpose of the SPC or CBA (= player plays hockey in the NHL or affiliate league according to the SPC and gets paid salary that counts against the cap as the CBA mandates).

We likely are not allowed to have Darling on the leave indefinitely. Him not being allowed to be sent to ECHL without his own approval, his return to CLT may well be the only possible allowed option at this point.