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

[13pacheco31]

Who is this guy and why should anyone listen to him?

 

[Divine]

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

Yes, that's the point. Why not just retire instead of fail to report?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Then explain this:

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

What does this have to do with Marleau? Richards' termination didn't come about because of a refusal to report.

 

[Divine]

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.

I don't expect Marleau to fail to report if he retires. I'm saying if he doesn't retire and fails to report this will be a situation. He can clearly retire but it appears he wants to play in SJ (retiring would prevent him from doing so).

If he retires, the Leafs would have to try and dump his cap hit on another team like Detroit did.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Then explain this:

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

Apples and oranges ?

 

[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.

That makes sense. Marleau doesn't have a recapture penalty though. So let's say he fails to report and gets his contract terminated somehow, would it not be in the realm of possibility to eliminate or reduce the cap hit?

 

[mouser]

Then explain this:

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

There's nothing in there that refutes what I said. The termination settlement amount was $10.5m paid out on a schedule through 3031-32.

The article even notes that the recapture penalty is still applied:

As Richards’ contract was terminated so early in a long-term deal, the Kings will still be responsible for a cap recapture penalty of $1.57 million over the next five seasons, with an additional $1.55 million to be paid out in 2015-16.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Sharks aren’t paying anything for Marleau even at 25%.

 

[Divine]

There's nothing in there that refutes what I said. The termination settlement amount was $10.5m paid out on a schedule through 3031-32.

The article even notes that the recapture penalty is still applied:

I understand that, but they got a reduced rate on the buyout. The article clearly states if they won their case, there would be no cap penalty whatsoever (maybe notwithstanding the cap recapture but that's unclear). However, they decided to settle at a reduced buyout instead of pursue that avenue.

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.

 

[Liferleafer]

Sharks aren’t paying anything for Marleau even at 25%.

The Leafs also aren't trading for Subban….

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't expect Marleau to fail to report if he retires. I'm saying if he doesn't retire and fails to report this will be a situation. He can clearly retire but it appears he wants to play in SJ (retiring would prevent him from doing so).

If he retires, the Leafs would have to try and dump his cap hit on another team like Detroit did.

No it won't because they don't have an option to terminate his contract for refusing to report.

 

[mouser]

That makes sense. Marleau doesn't have a recapture penalty though. So let's say he fails to report and gets his contract terminated somehow, would it not be in the realm of possibility to eliminate or reduce the cap hit?

The CBA doesn't clearly breakdown whether the ability to suspend a player without pay for not reporting trumps the age 35+ rule. In a similar fashion the CBA doesn't clarify how the interaction between buyout and the 35+ rule interact either, but we know from experience that the age 35+ rule takes precedence over the buyout rule.

If we didn't have any real world examples I'd wonder how the suspension/age 35+ would interact. However we do have an example with Vladimir Malakhov which appears to demonstrate that the age 35+ rule took precedence when the player failed to report. I'd have to assume that's still the current NHL precedent.

 

[Divine]

No it won't because they don't have an option to terminate his contract for refusing to report.

Why not? If you sign a player to a contract, and he decides not to report - that is obviously a material breach of contract.

I don't understand if you know something I don't, or you're just assuming things. That's like saying a team can sign a player to a contract and then refuse to pay him because he's playing poorly with no repercussions.

 

[Divine]

The CBA doesn't clearly breakdown whether the ability to suspend a player without pay for not reporting trumps the age 35+ rule. In a similar fashion the CBA doesn't clarify how the interaction between buyout and the 35+ rule interact either, but we know from experience that the age 35+ rule takes precedence over the buyout rule.

If we didn't have any real world examples I'd wonder how the suspension/age 35+ would interact. However we do have an example with Vladimir Malakhov which appears to demonstrate that the age 35+ rule took precedence when the player failed to report. I'd have to assume that's still the current NHL precedent.

Enlighten me on the Vladimir Malakhov situation, I don't see any failure to report. All I find is that on Wikipedia it states:

Vladimir Malakhov (ice hockey) - Wikipedia

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.

Over here it appears the player wanted to report, but the team said he retired. It doesn't seem like there's a precedent on failure to report - unless we're talking about something else?

 

[Kegsey]

Sharks aren’t paying anything for Marleau even at 25%.

Unless DW can convince Dorion to take some bad contracts.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Why not? If you sign a player to a contract, and he decides not to report - that is obviously a material breach of contract.

I don't understand if you know something I don't, or you're just assuming things. That's like saying a team can sign a player to a contract and then refuse to pay him because he's playing poorly with no repercussions.

And if that were the case, any of the times it has occurred in the past, they would've proceeded down the route you spoke of if it were legitimately available. It's not.

The Vladimir Malakhov situation is precisely the relevant thing. Malakhov took a leave of absence from New Jersey. Lou rejected the official leave of absence request but Malakhov didn't return. He treating it like a retirement doesn't mean the league did. The league didn't. His cap hit was still on the books for the 2005-06 season. His cap hit was traded to San Jose along with a conditional 1st round pick that ended up being a 2007 1st for Jim Fahey and Alex Korolyuk. This is precisely the situation in which a GM, had it been an option available to them, to terminate a contract for refusing to report. He instead dealt a 1st to move his cap hit for a #7 and a player that was in Russia.

There is no precedence to suggest that a refusal to report is grounds for a termination. It's never happened before and all the refusal to report situations in the past has never resulted in a contract termination.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Enlighten me on the Vladimir Malakhov situation, I don't see any failure to report. All I find is that on Wikipedia it states:

Vladimir Malakhov (ice hockey) - Wikipedia



Over here it appears the player wanted to report, but the team said he retired. It doesn't seem like there's a precedent on failure to report - unless we're talking about something else?

And the Devils had to pay a high price (1st-round pick that became David Perron) to get rid of his contract in October 2006...

 

[Divine]

And if that were the case, any of the times it has occurred in the past, they would've proceeded down the route you spoke of if it were legitimately available. It's not.

The Vladimir Malakhov situation is precisely the relevant thing. Malakhov took a leave of absence from New Jersey. Lou rejected the official leave of absence request but Malakhov didn't return. He treating it like a retirement doesn't mean the league did. The league didn't. His cap hit was still on the books for the 2005-06 season. His cap hit was traded to San Jose along with a conditional 1st round pick that ended up being a 2007 1st for Jim Fahey and Alex Korolyuk. This is precisely the situation in which a GM, had it been an option available to them, to terminate a contract for refusing to report. He instead dealt a 1st to move his cap hit for a #7 and a player that was in Russia.

There is no precedence to suggest that a refusal to report is grounds for a termination. It's never happened before and all the refusal to report situations in the past has never resulted in a contract termination.

Which doesn't make sense to me, because why would Lou not treat it as a leave of absence and actually have the player back? Why take the cap hit penalty when the player is arguing that he wanted to come back?

Honestly, maybe the NHL works differently than every other facet of life - but when you apply the same situation to different fields, you can easily see the breach of contract and how unreasonable it sounds.

Imagine you were an employer, you signed a construction worker to a 1-year contract to do some construction on your building. The contractor then comes out and says I'm not going to do the work. Would you still be entitled to pay him? The answer is no.

Another scenario is you hire that same contractor, and he doesn't report, however, the money you were supposed to pay him comes out of your budget in finding his replacement. Is that fair and reasonable? No.

I'll digress on this topic because unless Marleau comes out and says, "I refuse to play for any team this year but San Jose," this won't be an issue. However, if he does do that - I don't see why the Leafs should be forced to pay him to not show up.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Which doesn't make sense to me, because why would Lou not treat it as a leave of absence and actually have the player back? Why take the cap hit penalty when the player is arguing that he wanted to come back?

Honestly, maybe the NHL works differently than every other facet of life - but when you apply the same situation to different fields, you can easily see the breach of contract.

Imagine you were an employer, you signed a contractor to a 1-year contract to do some construction on your building. The contractor then comes out and says I'm not going to do the work. Would you still be entitled to pay him? The answer is no.

Another scenerio is you hire that same contractor, and he doesn't report, however, the money you were supposed to pay him comes out of your budget in finding his replacement. Is that fair and reasonable? No.

I'll digress on this topic because unless Marleau comes out and says, "I refuse to play for any team this year but San Jose," this won't be an issue. However, if he does do that - I don't see why the Leafs should be forced to pay him to not show up.

I don't see how it's relevant to this topic whether he takes it as a leave of absence or not. The fact is that he bounced from the team and didn't report. He didn't retire. But under your understanding, he would've had the option to terminate the contract but he didn't. And of course the NHL works differently because it's a collectively bargained contract between the players and the teams.

You can talk about your ideals all you want but it's irrelevant to the topic.

If Marleau refuses to report, Toronto won't have to pay him but his cap hit will still be on their books.

 

[Divine]

I don't see how it's relevant to this topic whether he takes it as a leave of absence or not. The fact is that he bounced from the team and didn't report. He didn't retire. But under your understanding, he would've had the option to terminate the contract but he didn't. And of course the NHL works differently because it's a collectively bargained contract between the players and the teams.

You can talk about your ideals all you want but it's irrelevant to the topic.

If Marleau refuses to report, Toronto won't have to pay him but his cap hit will still be on their books.

Well, there was never a precedent to terminate a contract until Mike Richards contract was terminated. Now, it may be an avenue that teams might explore. Lou might have not considered it as it's never been done before at that point.

Did you think there was the option to terminate a contract before Mike Richards? Probably not. In fact, other NHL GM's were upset that the Kings were able to terminate the contract - clearly indicating they didn't know it was a possibility.

Also, remember, the law takes precedence over any CBA. Just because you sign a CBA doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. The LA Kings took the legal route to terminate the contract, not through the CBA - which is why it went to an independent arbitrator.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, there was never a precedent to terminate a contract until Mike Richards contract was terminated. Now, it may be an avenue that teams might explore. Lou might have not considered it as it's never been done before at that point.

Did you think there was the option to terminate a contract before Mike Richards? Probably not. In fact, other NHL GM's were upset that the Kings were able to terminate the contract - clearly indicating they didn't know it was a possibility.

Except the events that preceded the Richards termination wasn't a refusal to report so that doesn't matter. It was pretty enormous extenuating circumstances that preceded it. Not a matter of refusing to report which has happened numerous times since the cap has been instituted and none of them have ever resolved in the manner in which you speak.

 

[Divine]

Except the events that preceded the Richards termination wasn't a refusal to report so that doesn't matter. It was pretty enormous extenuating circumstances that preceded it. Not a matter of refusing to report which has happened numerous times since the cap has been instituted and none of them have ever resolved in the manner in which you speak.

Yeah, usually because a player that refuses to report is a player that you want to protect. Usually, it's a player in a position of power (of value). Even if you had the option to terminate the contract and make them a UFA, are you going to do that to a player with value? No.

Just as if Patrick Kane did the exact same thing that Mike Richards did, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't terminate his contract.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Yeah, usually because a player that refuses to report is a player that you want to protect. Usually, it's a player in a position of power (of value). Even if you had the option to terminate the contract and make them a UFA, are you going to do that to a player with value? No.

Just as if Patrick Kane did the exact same thing that Mike Richards did, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't terminate his contract.

Except usually doesn't matter because those that management didn't want to protect refused to report and it still didn't end up in contract termination like Malakhov's case shows. Precedence at this stage for refusing to report is suspension without pay and the cap hit remaining on the books. So to circle back to how it relates to Marleau, if he refuses to report, the Leafs have the option to suspend him without pay but his cap hit will remain. So they're left with the option of leaving him suspended on their club or trading him.

 

[mouser]

Well, there was never a precedent to terminate a contract until Mike Richards contract was terminated. Now, it may be an avenue that teams might explore. Lou might have not considered it as it's never been done before at that point.

Did you think there was the option to terminate a contract before Mike Richards? Probably not. In fact, other NHL GM's were upset that the Kings were able to terminate the contract - clearly indicating they didn't know it was a possibility.

Also, remember, the law takes precedence over any CBA. Just because you sign a CBA doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. The LA Kings took the legal route to terminate the contract, not through the CBA - which is why it went to an independent arbitrator.

It went to the CBA mandated “independent arbitrator”. The Richards situation was entirely resolved under the CBA rules. The CBA contains the rules for selecting the Independent Arbitrator and delineates what powers the arbitrator has.

And yes, many contracts have been terminated in the past. What made the Richards situation unique was working out the cap implications.

 

[mouser]

I don't see how it's relevant to this topic whether he takes it as a leave of absence or not. The fact is that he bounced from the team and didn't report. He didn't retire. But under your understanding, he would've had the option to terminate the contract but he didn't. And of course the NHL works differently because it's a collectively bargained contract between the players and the teams.

You can talk about your ideals all you want but it's irrelevant to the topic.

If Marleau refuses to report, Toronto won't have to pay him but his cap hit will still be on their books.

I’m sure Lou could have terminated Malakhov’s contract. Problem is doing so wouldn’t have removed the cap hit. And once the contract is terminated it’s no longer possible to trade him, so the Devils would have been stuck with the unmovable 35+ cap hit.