Player Discussion Evander Kane - What's the verdict?

[harpoon]

I agree.

I think the most likely outcome is that Kane receives 6-9 mill (2-3 mill per year) in settlement. San Jose doesnt have to retain anything against the cap and Kane can sign a 5-6M contract with another team to offset the money he would if he won and his contract was reinstated.

That works out too well for SJ. Why should they have no cap penalty? They voided the contract without reasonable grounds. COVID protocols were (and a year later continue to be) an absolute shit show. Whatever Kane did to try to circumvent the ‘rules’ was at worst a fine. That’s not grounds for termination. They had a locker room problem and tried to ‘solve’ it by terminating the squeaky wheel with the COVID passport stuff being nothing but a convenient and flimsy excuse. That’s bullshit, and the NHLPA rightly filed a grievance. The NHL cannot afford to start letting teams terminate contracts willy nilly for whatever they deem to be reasonable grounds. This is a cap league, and should the arbitration go against SJ, they should absolutely be facing a cap penalty similar to what the buy out of the contract would have been. Anything less in not acceptable. Fans (not to mention owners and GMs) of other Pacific teams should be outraged if that happens.

 

[fuswald]

You dont get a fine for breaking a contract. Fines are for breaking rules.

San Jose is in the right if Kane indeed did break even the tiniest silliest clause.
Of course the NHL doest use the law for decisions they use internal made up laws.

Th league is taking its time because of backlash and bad media that will come. Timing is important. This timing thing will limit offers Kane may get but the league is not trying to punish they are limiting bad media.

 

[McDoused]

That works out too well for SJ. Why should they have no cap penalty? They voided the contract without reasonable grounds. COVID protocols were (and a year later continue to be) an absolute shit show. Whatever Kane did to try to circumvent the ‘rules’ was at worst a fine. That’s not grounds for termination. They had a locker room problem and tried to ‘solve’ it by terminating the squeaky wheel with the COVID passport stuff being nothing but a convenient and flimsy excuse. That’s bullshit, and the NHLPA rightly filed a grievance. The NHL cannot afford to start letting teams terminate contracts willy nilly for whatever they deem to be reasonable grounds. This is a cap league, and should the arbitration go against SJ, they should absolutely be facing a cap penalty similar to what the buy out of the contract would have been. Anything less in not acceptable. Fans (not to mention owners and GMs) of other Pacific teams should be outraged if that happens.

You are 100% right. It sounds like a settlement would still result in a cap penalty for San Jose. It also sounds like the arbitrator has 2 options. They either decide it was terminated with cause and Kane hits free agency like normal or he wasn't as the contract is re-instated.

If Kane wins and the contract is re-instated due to a wrongful termination it would put San Jose over the cap. I don't think the sharks want to be in that position. Things could get very ugly as they don't want him and Kane doesn't want to be there. In theory, the Sharks could try and be sneaky and "welcome" Kane back knowing very well that he will refuse to report. I don't think they want to deal with all of that headache so they would likely find a trade. In this case they could trade his 7M x 3 year contract to a team like Edmonton (keep in mind Kane would get his NTC back). They would have to retain something (maybe 2M a season).

This may actually be a better move for the sharks than reaching a settlement, depending on what Kane is asking for. Even though Kane would essentially make more money by settling and then signing another contract. The magic number here would whatever the sharks think they would have to retain, would it not? In this example, the Sharks probably wouldn't settle in paying out anything more than 6M of the 23M he is owed because they can just take that contract and retain.

I don't see why the Sharks would want to settle for like 15M of the 23M and be on the hook for 5M for the next 3 seasons when they could just trade his contract and retain 2M a season. Right?

 

[WaitingForUser]

You are 100% right. It sounds like a settlement would still result in a cap penalty for San Jose. It also sounds like the arbitrator has 2 options. They either decide it was terminated with cause and Kane hits free agency like normal or he wasn't as the contract is re-instated.

If Kane wins and the contract is re-instated due to a wrongful termination it would put San Jose over the cap. I don't think the sharks want to be in that position. Things could get very ugly as they don't want him and Kane doesn't want to be there. In theory, the Sharks could try and be sneaky and "welcome" Kane back knowing very well that he will refuse to report. I don't think they want to deal with all of that headache so they would likely find a trade. In this case they could trade his 7M x 3 year contract to a team like Edmonton (keep in mind Kane would get his NTC back). They would have to retain something (maybe 2M a season).

This may actually be a better move for the sharks than reaching a settlement, depending on what Kane is asking for. Even though Kane would essentially make more money by settling and then signing another contract. The magic number here would whatever the sharks think they would have to retain, would it not? In this example, the Sharks probably wouldn't settle in paying out anything more than 6M of the 23M he is owed because they can just take that contract and retain.

I don't see why the Sharks would want to settle for like 15M of the 23M and be on the hook for 5M for the next 3 seasons when they could just trade his contract and retain 2M a season. Right?

I have a strong feeling the arbiter rules in Kanes favor but the league makes the cap hit disappear when the sharks are forced to pay his remaining salary. I mean this is a large market California team we are talking about and we al know the special treatment those teams get all the time.

 

[Fourier]

I have a strong feeling the arbiter rules in Kanes favor but the league makes the cap hit disappear when the sharks are forced to pay his remaining salary. I mean this is a large market California team we are talking about and we al know the special treatment those teams get all the time.

Or Kane signs with someone else and the League hits the Oilers with the cap penalty after the Flames complain to Bettman!

 

[MessierII]

You are 100% right. It sounds like a settlement would still result in a cap penalty for San Jose. It also sounds like the arbitrator has 2 options. They either decide it was terminated with cause and Kane hits free agency like normal or he wasn't as the contract is re-instated.

If Kane wins and the contract is re-instated due to a wrongful termination it would put San Jose over the cap. I don't think the sharks want to be in that position. Things could get very ugly as they don't want him and Kane doesn't want to be there. In theory, the Sharks could try and be sneaky and "welcome" Kane back knowing very well that he will refuse to report. I don't think they want to deal with all of that headache so they would likely find a trade. In this case they could trade his 7M x 3 year contract to a team like Edmonton (keep in mind Kane would get his NTC back). They would have to retain something (maybe 2M a season).

This may actually be a better move for the sharks than reaching a settlement, depending on what Kane is asking for. Even though Kane would essentially make more money by settling and then signing another contract. The magic number here would whatever the sharks think they would have to retain, would it not? In this example, the Sharks probably wouldn't settle in paying out anything more than 6M of the 23M he is owed because they can just take that contract and retain.

I don't see why the Sharks would want to settle for like 15M of the 23M and be on the hook for 5M for the next 3 seasons when they could just trade his contract and retain 2M a season. Right?

Generally when there’s a settlement the money would be paid out over the long term. Like 15-20 years long.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

The more I think about it the most this scenario makes the most sense:

Oilers sign Kane 3x$6.75m
Oilers and Sharks work out a theoretical trade in the event Kane wins his arbitration case.

Kane still gets his money and plays for the team he's chosen. (He actually gets an extra $1.25m from Oilers if he loses his case).

 

[Faelko]

The more I think about it the most this scenario makes the most sense:

Oilers sign Kane 3x$6.75m
Oilers and Sharks work out a theoretical trade in the event Kane wins his arbitration case.

Kane still gets his money and plays for the team he's chosen. (He actually gets an extra $1.25m from Oilers if he loses his case).

The league is likely pushing the Sharks to get this settled. I think we’ll see a trade with Retention.

And since the NHL is run by morons, they probably don’t make the Sharks take the cap hit…

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

The league is likely pushing the Sharks to get this settled. I think we’ll see a trade with Retention.

And since the NHL is run by morons, they probably don’t make the Sharks take the cap hit…

What I don't understand is wouldn't it be in Jane's best interest to drop his arb case if he knows he can make equal or more on the open market?

 

[Fourier]

What I don't understand is wouldn't it be in Jane's best interest to drop his arb case if he knows he can make equal or more on the open market?

It's not so clear that this is the case. He is owed $19M over the next three years. There may be teams that will pay that but they might not be where he wants to be. If he wins the arbitration he may be able to better dictate where he plays. He has a three team list that he can be traded to. It may be easier to get one of those teams to bite if SJ is paying part of the freight. A lot of teams would be able to fit him in at 50%.

 

[McHelpus]

The league is likely pushing the Sharks to get this settled. I think we’ll see a trade with Retention.

And since the NHL is run by morons, they probably don’t make the Sharks take the cap hit…

I feel like they will figure out some sort of penalty for the oilers because we signed Kane. League will make up a rule, "if he last signed with the Oilers then the Oilers must take his original contract while giving San Jose compensation."

 

[Garbo Man]

I feel like they will figure out some sort of penalty for the oilers because we signed Kane. League will make up a rule, "if he last signed with the Oilers then the Oilers must take his original contract while giving San Jose compensation."

"San Jose will receive the Edmonton Oilers 3rd Round Pick as compensation" - The NHL

 

[Oilhawks]

"San Jose will receive the Edmonton Oilers 3rd Round Pick as compensation" - The NHL

More like their next 3 first round picks

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

It's not so clear that this is the case. He is owed $19M over the next three years. There may be teams that will pay that but they might not be where he wants to be. If he wins the arbitration he may be able to better dictate where he plays. He has a three team list that he can be traded to. It may be easier to get one of those teams to bite if SJ is paying part of the freight. A lot of teams would be able to fit him in at 50%.

I get what you're saying but if the arbitrator isn't available until after free agency he has every opportunity to sign with a team of his choice for the money he'd otherwise win in the re-instated contract or more. Seems like the easiest option at that point.

 

[oilers'72]

I get what you're saying but if the arbitrator isn't available until after free agency he has every opportunity to sign with a team of his choice for the money he'd otherwise win in the re-instated contract or more. Seems like the easiest option at that point.

The league said that he can't sign a contract until the arbitrator rules.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

NHL arbitration head scratcher...

Player gets his contract voided. After snail's pace league investigation able to sign and play with a new team. Arbitration initiated in season and then delayed until end of player's post season. But now said player is likely required to sit through beginning of free agency before arbitration is decided because league has not booked time with arbitrator who is not available in June. Whenever arbitration is completed, said player's can expect one of the following results:

A) Player Loses Arbitration - no contract and lost earnings of $21 MILLION dollars.
B) Player Wins Arbitration - rights revert back to team that voided your contract and have 3 year remaining term of voided contract reinstated.

Hard to see the player 'win' in this situation. Add the NHL likely letting this arbitration lag past the start of free agency and clouding the player's future earning ability and the optics of this situation appears punitive. San Jose who initiated the action is in a no lose situation while Kane stands to lose $21 million dollars in worse case scenario. Seems crazy to me that the Sharks do not forfeit the player's contract rights and required to pay the money owed should they lose in arbitration.

For those interested, here's the Arbitrator's CV (which includes broad industry work and sports industries Major League Baseball (fired from) and NFL: http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0225/120225_b5.pdf

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

The league said that he can't sign a contract until the arbitrator rules.

That's my question. Can Kane's agent and the NHLPA just drop the case and sign a bigger contract. I get filing for arb at the beginning of the process because nobody would have given him that money, but a lot has changed since.

 

[DaGap]

My question with the Kane deal is what about the creditors that secure the loan against his contract

 

[MessierII]

That's my question. Can Kane's agent and the NHLPA just drop the case and sign a bigger contract. I get filing for arb at the beginning of the process because nobody would have given him that money, but a lot has changed since.

He feels it was unjust and they owe him. I think it’s fair.

 

[jukon]

What should happen:

SJ is forced to reinstate the contract and buy him out. SJ gets penalized by the league.

What will happen:

SJ gets off Scott free, Kane signs a new contract somewhere else, NHL invents a reason to penalize the Oilers.

 

[fuswald]

The more to contract termination story, whatever the league decides sets a president. Other teams can use it as a means to terminate.

San Jose MUST come out loosing in this or there will be terminations all over the league.

NHL wants hiring and buyouts by their rules.

 

[joestevens29]

That's my question. Can Kane's agent and the NHLPA just drop the case and sign a bigger contract. I get filing for arb at the beginning of the process because nobody would have given him that money, but a lot has changed since.

This was kind of mentioned on one of the shows at lunch.

Along with he and the Sharks can work on a settlement. Although I don't know how that really works as the NHL itself really needs to be apart of this. If the player and team come to an agreement the league would have to have a say on how the money works cap wise. One would think that in itself could be a major hold up for the Sharks.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

The more to contract termination story, whatever the league decides sets a president. Other teams can use it as a means to terminate.

San Jose MUST come out loosing in this or there will be terminations all over the league.

NHL wants hiring and buyouts by their rules.

If a contract deserves to be terminated there is no reason it shouldn't.

 

[joestevens29]

The more to contract termination story, whatever the league decides sets a president. Other teams can use it as a means to terminate.

San Jose MUST come out loosing in this or there will be terminations all over the league.

NHL wants hiring and buyouts by their rules.

The one thing I've learned over the years with the NHL is there is no precedent.

Especially with this current situation. There are some many factors involved that I doubt this will ever be a case that sets precedent. And when you consider the main cause that they are using is covid protocol violation I don't know that we ever see a case like this again.

 

[soothsayer]

I would love to hear someone with legal expertise in areas like this provide insight into the potential legal options, if any, a player would have against the NHL for recovering damages in a situation like this.