Sportsnet: Marleau only wants to play in SJ, will require direct trade or trade to team who buys him out.

[Sota Popinski]

Yes, it does. I don't think you understand what a breach of contract is. It terminates the entire contract. The Leafs can't take a cap hit if the contract is null. Just as there was no cap recapture penalty for the termination of Mike Richard's contract even though that goes all the way to 2020.

Terminating a contract is not the same as a player retiring.

Datsyuk didn't report. What happened then?

 

[mouser]

Yes, it does. I don't think you understand what a breach of contract is. It terminates the entire contract. The Leafs can't take a cap hit if the contract is null. Just as there was no cap recapture penalty for the termination of Mike Richard's contract even though that goes all the way to 2020.

Terminating a contract is not the same as a player retiring.

Uhm, there was a Cap Recapture Penalty for terminating Mike Richard's contract though.

 

[KirbyDots]

I don't think it's going to happen either. It's the best case scenerio for the Leafs. He wants to play in Toronto or SJ. It's a counterpoint to people saying he won't report because he wants to be in SJ. If the Leafs did terminate his contract due to that, I'm sure the NHL would not allow him to sign with any team this year. Otherwise, it's a loophole for any team to get a free buyout.

I'm tired of all this. Leafs aren't going to wish Marleau's contract away. He's not going to give up millions of dollars and a chance to play another year in the twilight of his career. Bite the bullet and trade him to a team that will buy him out, it'll cost you something, worth it to keep your core players. Or don't, just stop with the delusions.

 

[howkie]

Datsyuk didn't report. What happened then?

He got traded to Coyotes and they took the full caphit

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He got traded to Coyotes and they took the full caphit

And if him not reporting to Detroit anymore had an avenue for them to get off without having to make a move, they likely would've pursued it for that sort of cap space. It's grasping at straws to think that Toronto can unilaterally terminate this contract for failure to report. They have one option with Marleau that makes any sense. Trade him. Whatever needs to be added to make that happen, trade him.

 

[Divine]

It doesn't matter on a 35+ contract. First of all, Marleau would not be the first person to ever not report and none of them prior have resulted in a breach of contract sort of situation. Secondly, the Mike Richards situation is not comparable for this. Third, even if the first two were false, it still doesn't matter because that contract is not null when two of the years have already taken place. It's a 35+ contract. The cap hit stays no matter what happens. You can't get out of that. The best they can do is either trade it somewhere or retain up to 50% when they do. There is no mechanism for them to escape scot-free out of this contract.

The difference is the other players that didn't report had value. The team didn't want to null their contract and make them a UFA. Name a player that's held out that the team didn't want to get assets for?

Winnipeg didn't want to give Trouba away for nothing. Tampa Bay wanted assets for Drouin. Who else is there?

Datsyuk didn't report. What happened then?

Datsyuk retired from the NHL.

Uhm, there was a Cap Recapture Penalty for terminating Mike Richard's contract though.

What was it?

I'm tired of all this. Leafs aren't going to wish Marleau's contract away. He's not going to give up millions of dollars and a chance to play another year in the twilight of his career. Bite the bullet and trade him to a team that will buy him out, it'll cost you something, worth it to keep your core players. Or don't, just stop with the delusions.

View attachment 238849

Stop reading it then. Neither of us think it's going to happen. This is a response to the Marleau won't report and the Leafs are held captive narrative.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The difference is the other players that didn't report had value. The team didn't want to null their contract and make them a UFA. Name a player that's held out that the team didn't want to get assets for?



Datsyuk retired from the NHL.



What was it?



Stop reading it then. Neither of us think it's going to happen. This is a response to the Marleau won't report and the Leafs are held captive narrative.

Maxim Kondratiev would be one. Vladimir Malakhov would be another. Pavel Datsyuk as well. Datsyuk didn't actually retire from the NHL. He let his contract run out but wasn't going to report then retired. With Richards, there was a cap recapture penalty and termination fees associated with that settlement. But that wasn't an issue predicated on a refusal to report so it's not relevant to this scenario.

 

[Divine]

Maxim Kondratiev would be one. Vladimir Malakhov would be another. Pavel Datsyuk as well. Datsyuk didn't actually retire from the NHL. He let his contract run out but wasn't going to report then retired. With Richards, there was a cap recapture penalty and termination fees associated with that settlement. But that wasn't an issue predicated on a refusal to report so it's not relevant to this scenario.

I've never even heard of the first two. What happened? The player refused to report and then what?

Actually, according to wikipedia:

Kondratyev returned to Anaheim to play for the Ducks in the 07–08 season. In November 2007, he was reassigned to the club's AHL affiliate Portland Pirates, but was suspended by the club after failing to report to Portland.

They suspended him = no cap hit.

On December 19, 2005, reports surfaced that Malakhov, who joined the Devils for the second time, had unexpectedly retired from the NHL. However, shortly after the story broke, his agent claimed that Malakhov had not retired and was taking a leave of absence "to deal with some internal, personal and medical issues." This claim was disputed by Lou Lamoriello, Devils CEO, president, general manager, and interim head coach. Lamoriello rejected the request for a leave of absence and treated Malakhov's absence as a retirement. This marked the end of Malakhov's pro career.

NJ claimed he retired, not failed to report. In this case, the player wanted to come back.

Pavel Datsyuk retired from the NHL, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Datsyuk not ruling out NHL return: report

Datsyuk announced his retirement from the NHL on June 18, 2016, after playing 953 games, to return to his native Russia. His NHL contract had one season remaining with an average annual value of $7.5 million, and he was traded to the Arizona Coyotes on June 24, 2016. He would be an unrestricted free agent in the NHL.

He played the 2015-2016 season, and then announced his retirement on June 18? What do you mean he failed to report. At what point did he not report? The season ended in April and he retired in June.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I've never even heard of the first two. What happened? The player refused to report and then what?

Pavel Datsyuk retired from the NHL, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Datsyuk not ruling out NHL return: report



He played the 2015-2016 season, and then announced his retirement on June 18? What do you mean he failed to report. At what point did he not report? The season ended in April and he retired in June.

Both of those first two went back to Russia and weren't reporting. Their cap hits were still there. All they can do is suspend the player without pay but the cap hit remains.

Pavel Datsyuk retired after the trade to Arizona so it didn't matter that he wasn't going to report because he retired...the cap hit remained and was going to remain. But if Detroit had the option to get out of the deal before he retired by using the mechanism in which you're referring they certainly could've without having to deal him away to Arizona, right?

 

[Divine]

Both of those first two went back to Russia and weren't reporting. Their cap hits were still there. All they can do is suspend the player without pay but the cap hit remains.

Pavel Datsyuk retired after the trade to Arizona so it didn't matter that he wasn't going to report because he retired...the cap hit remained and was going to remain. But if Detroit had the option to get out of the deal before he retired by using the mechanism in which you're referring they certainly could've without having to deal him away to Arizona, right?

According to Wikipedia, one player retired and the other failed to report. The team never choose to terminate his contract, maybe because he had no cap hit? My understanding is he was in the minors, what was his cap hit? If it's under 750K or whatever it is, it wouldn't count against the cap anyway.

Also, no. Pavel Datsyuk was traded on June 24th, he retired on June 18th. You're misremembering what happened. Detroit traded him after he retired because they got hit with the 35+ cap hit.

In regards to contract terminations:

Report: Kings will be paying Mike Richards settlement until 2031-32 - TheHockeyNews

When the settlement was first announced, Friedman reported that other teams were “screaming bloody murder” about the Kings being able to terminate Richards’ contract and not have to pay a long-term buyout. However, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told Friedman that had the issue gone to arbitration — and the NHLPA had filed a grievance on Richards’ behalf — Los Angeles could have very well won the case.

Had that happened, the Kings would have had no additional cap penalty at all. In a sense, this settlement is the middle ground. Richards remains on the Kings’ books, but at a cut-rate from what a normal buyout would have cost the club. And as Friedman aptly points out, Richards could have been the one with the most to lose. Had he lost his case, he could have walked away with nothing.

The Kings had settled with the NHLPA, the Kings had a case where they would suffer 0 penalty but ended up settling.

 

[IslesNorway]

A 35+ contract won't go away. It's there to make sure that players don't "retire" of "fail to report" thus helping their teams out of a tricky situation. You sign a 35+ player you're on the hook for the length of the contract whatever you do.

 

[MMC]

 

[IslesNorway]

Marleau will be traded on July 2nd once his bonus is paid out

 

[Sota Popinski]

He got traded to Coyotes and they took the full caphit

Why didn't the wings just terminate his contract? It's that easy right?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

According to Wikipedia, one player retired and the other failed to report. The team never choose to terminate his contract, maybe because he had no cap hit? My understanding is he was in the minors, what was his cap hit? If it's under 750K or whatever it is, it wouldn't count against the cap anyway.

Also, no. Pavel Datsyuk was traded on June 24th, he retired on June 18th. You're misremembering what happened. Detroit traded him after he retired because they got hit with the 35+ cap hit.

The team never chose to terminate the contract because it was never an option. lol

Datsyuk announced his retirement before he actually filed the paperwork to officially retire as a courtesy to Detroit.

Malakhov took a leave of absence and his cap hit was there and traded to San Jose well after he refused to report. Again, if the option to terminate for refusing to report was there, Lamoriello would've done it because he disputed the leave of absence, treated it as a retirement, and eventually dealt him to San Jose. If there was ever a time to terminate a contract for refusing to report, it was then but it wasn't done...because it's not an option.

 

[Divine]

A 35+ contract won't go away. It's there to make sure that players don't "retire" of "fail to report" thus helping their teams out of a tricky situation. You sign a 35+ player you're on the hook for the length of the contract whatever you do.

I agree. I don't think it will happen. But, let's say hypothetical Marleau says he will only play in SJ and doesn't even report to the team. Is that not a breach of contract?

If the Isles sign a 35 year old player to a 4 year contract worth 7M a season, and over the summer he decided he's not going to report. Are the Isles stuck with a 7M cap hit for the following 4 years? It seems to be grounds to terminate a contract.

 

[mouser]

What was it?

$1.32m/year for 5 seasons. ($6.6m total)

You can see the details on the CF page. Look for "Recapture Penalty":
Mike Richards - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

 

[Divine]

The team never chose to terminate the contract because it was never an option. lol

Datsyuk announced his retirement before he actually filed the paperwork to officially retire as a courtesy to Detroit.

Malakhov took a leave of absence and his cap hit was there and traded to San Jose well after he refused to report. Again, if the option to terminate for refusing to report was there, Lamoriello would've done it because he disputed the leave of absence, treated it as a retirement, and eventually dealt him to San Jose. If there was ever a time to terminate a contract for refusing to report, it was then but it wasn't done...because it's not an option.

So everyone knew Datsyuk was retiring. Where did he fail to report? I see no indication of failure to report. I just see a player retiring. Marleau can retire also.

Also, why would Lou dispute it? There was no cap penalty to NJ for retirement. Why would you dispute something that has no bearing on your team either way?

 

[Divine]

$1.32m/year for 5 seasons. ($6.6m total)

You can see the details on the CF page. Look for "Recapture Penalty":
Mike Richards - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

From what I understand the Kings and Richards settled on a lesser cap recapture penalty before arbitration. Initially, there was no penalty and the NHLPA filed a grievance - the case never went to an arbitrator as the teams settled.

Again, I will reiterate the possibility of Marleau not reporting is basically non-existent, but let's say he does. Why do the Leafs not try to terminate his contract? They have literally nothing to lose, worst case scenario they end up back where they started. It's not like losing would cost them double the cap hit. In the Kings case, they settled on a lesser recapture penalty.

 

[mouser]

I could see another team willing to eat the 2nd 50% on Marleau. I.e. Toronto retains 50% then flips him to the Sens or another team that retain 50% and send him to SJ.

I think it's going to be extremely difficult to find two other to both eat 50% though, hence why it likely would need to be the Leafs eating the first 50%.

 

[Sota Popinski]

So everyone knew Datsyuk was retiring. Where did he fail to report? I see no indication of failure to report. I just see a player retiring. Marleau can retire also.

Also, why would Lou dispute it? There was no cap penalty to NJ for retirement. Why would you dispute something that has no bearing on your team either way?

Why would you dispute something you clearly are uneducated about?

 

[mouser]

From what I understand the Kings and Richards settled on a lesser cap recapture penalty before arbitration.

No. The Kings and Richards agreed to a $10.5m termination settlement which was applied to the Kings cap in addition to the recapture penalty. The recapture penalty part was non-negotiable.

 

[greasysnapper]

So everyone knew Datsyuk was retiring. Where did he fail to report? I see no indication of failure to report. I just see a player retiring. Marleau can retire also.

Also, why would Lou dispute it? There was no cap penalty to NJ for retirement. Why would you dispute something that has no bearing on your team either way?

You realize as a 35+ contract his cap hit will count regardless if he retires right?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So everyone knew Datsyuk was retiring. Where did he fail to report? I see no indication of failure to report. I just see a player retiring. Marleau can retire also.

Also, why would Lou dispute it? There was no cap penalty to NJ for retirement. Why would you dispute something that has no bearing on your team either way?

So then how do you expect to get Marleau to refuse to report if he retires? Once he retires, Toronto is on the hook for his cap hit and can't move it.

Because the cap hit was still there for Malakhov after he bounced just like if Marleau retires now or before he has to report, the cap hit is still on the books for Toronto.

 

[Divine]

No. The Kings and Richards agreed to a $10.5m termination settlement which was applied to the Kings cap in addition to the recapture penalty. The recapture penalty part was non-negotiable.

Then explain this:

Report: Kings will be paying Mike Richards settlement until 2031-32 - TheHockeyNews

In a sense, this settlement is the middle ground. Richards remains on the Kings’ books, but at a cut-rate from what a normal buyout would have cost the club.