Mike Richards VI (UGH): The Armageddon Edition (MOD NOTE POST #1)

[AKAY47]

Herby, I completely agree on your Voynov thing. I actually said it before you (I think) but you can look at it from both sides of the spectrum. Lombardi knows about the backlash this will receive, especially considering Voynov will be looked at and people will say "Well, VV's contract isn't as bad as Mike Richards, so of course they're going to try to keep him".

Another way to look at it is, if what Voynov did isn't warranted enough for termination of contract, then you can only imagine what Mike Richards did. I'm not speculating, but you can guess it's worse than what Voynov did. Do both their contracts play a factor in who's getting terminated? Maybe.

Like say Richards was still playing high-quality hockey and his contract was better, do the Kings terminate the contract? That's a legit question. But, like I keep saying, we're all speculating here until we actually find out what he actually did.

 

[Fishhead]

I know Macramella says he knows the reason, but does he really? I have a hard time believing he has all the details. You can bet if someone else from TSN knew, it would be all over the place. I doubt he knows anymore than someone like Bob or their other crew.

Its all a big contest to see who breaks what first in that business, and who is a true "insider". Macramella is a media guy, with a radio show, who writes for other periodicals. I find it hard to believe he has information that other veteran guys at TSN do not have. And based on what they TSN guys have said, they don't know a whole lot.

 

[KingClipper]

I'm baffled Eric Macramella has continued to be cited like the Supreme Court.

He's one lawyer working for a hockey station. His information could be incomplete, or outright false, or maybe his opinion itself is misinformed. I don't understand the validity of one random lawyer on a TV station, especially when everyone else, traditionally in the know, has refrained from sharing ANY opinion.

Haters are clinging to his every word because he's telling them what they want to hear. Not sure why any of us are giving him any credence over all the people in the know who seem to believe it's serious, though.

 

[Fishhead]

Haters are clinging to his every word because he's telling them what they want to hear. Not sure why any of us are giving him any credence over all the people in the know who seem to believe it's serious, though.

My feeling is that he doesn't know any more than other media member knows, which is probably just a vague overview of the situation. But as a lawyer, can you really go wrong stating that the contract probably won't be voided? That's not a reach, it's difficult to void any contract under a CBA.

 

[onlyalad]

I'm baffled Eric Macramella has continued to be cited like the Supreme Court.

He's one lawyer working for a hockey station. His information could be incomplete, or outright false, or maybe his opinion itself is misinformed. I don't understand the validity of one random lawyer on a TV station, especially when everyone else, traditionally in the know, has refrained from sharing ANY opinion.

Imo
He doesn't think any contract can be voided. He might be right. We have had murders, druggies, wife beaters(alleged) and all sorts of people in all sports that have kept their contracts. As far as we know Richards wasn't arrested. Anything short of a terrorist act and it is likely you can still get paid.

 

[Telos]

LOL, why does the situation have to be so black and white and either side is ganged up upon? He isn't quoted as a definitive judge of the matter, but his opinion has weight. Him saying that he doesn't think it is enough has meaning. This HAS to be a slam dunk home run undeniable reason to have ANY hope of passing. There is NO way the NHLPA or any rational arbitrator is going to let this pass unless it is an absolutely ironclad and perfect reason. Who knows, it just might be, but the chances are low and it is the most convenient this to possibly happen to the most convenient person in the most convenient way... To get this through, Lombardi is going to have to climb a legal Everest. Can he do it? Yeah, and on some level I am hoping for it like everyone else. Just going to have to wait and see.

Imo
He doesn't think any contract can be voided. He might be right. We have had murders, druggies, wife beaters(alleged) and all sorts of people in all sports that have kept their contracts. As far as we know Richards wasn't arrested. Anything short of a terrorist act and it is likely you can still get paid.

Exactly. You can do a myriad of illegal things and still be entitled to what is contractually yours. The reasons that justify contract termination are near extinct.

 

[Reclamation Project]

He was obviously using his Range Rover to tow a W.O.M.D. into Canada from the Dakotas.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Maybe something like this?

 

[AlabamaKingsFan]

I have a source on this situation,it's called common sense. It tells me that this isn't some desperate attempt to avoid a cap recapture from a buy out. No gm with a brain in their head would attempt to do something like throwing a "desperate" "hail Mary" and risk never getting a free agent to sign with their team ever again or risk losing their own soon to be free agents like kopi just to save a few bucks. There is something extreme that would have had to happen to even attempt doing this, and DL has to have pretty strong proof otherwise the league would have just shot it down in the first place and avoided any potential headache. Just my .02 cents of course....

 

[Dawdler]

if this incident occurred around the 17th, it sure didn't seem to phase Richards according to his lake picture from a couple of days ago.

I really think in the end both sides will be bloody, neither side is going to come out clean.
Richards will get his money in an out of court settlement and the Kings will be clear of the 10 year CAP hell

 

[Fishhead]

if this incident occurred around the 17th, it sure didn't seem to phase Richards according to his lake picture from a couple of days ago.

I really think in the end both sides will be bloody, neither side is going to come out clean.
Richards will get his money in an out of court settlement and the Kings will be clear of the 10 year CAP hell

Maybe the lake has special meaning. If that picture is from the Lake of the Woods, it does share a border with the USA. Unconfirmed sources say that a pathway across the lake has the nickname "The Kessel Run."

 

[Little Psycho]

He was obviously using his Range Rover to tow a W.O.M.D. into Canada from the Dakotas.

Did he take Arnold with him?!

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Maybe the lake has special meaning. If that picture is from the Lake of the Woods, it does share a border with the USA. Unconfirmed sources say that a pathway across the lake has the nickname "The Kessel Run."

I did the Kessel run in 14 parsecs

 

[Riposte!]

This whole thing has really shown me how many people that use the internet don't know how to correctly use the word "myriad"

 

[Chain]

Just to re-iterate my point from the last thread, Eric Macramella (TSN legal analyst) claimed to know the reason behind the termination and believed that it wasn't enough to justify termination. Because it doesn't sound like the reason is THAT bad, this is going to have the aroma of underhandedness by the Kings organization until the true reason comes to light. It you team that with the fact that contract termination like this is unprecedented in the NHL, usually always has no hope to clear for virtually any reason, the result of this would open the flood gates on similar arguments, and it all just so happens to occur against the #1 thorn in our side and likely around the NHL, it just reeks of a desperate move. This is a nightmare scenario all around.



I agree on both sides. You have to think Lombardi feels he has a case, but on the other hand it is going to stink of a questionably ethical desperation move until the real reasons come to light. Just have to wait and see, but given the hill Lombardi has to climb to get it done it is going to be very unlikely we get out of this with a simple contract termination almost regardless of the reason, though we still need to know what that is, and who knows, maybe it is a slam dunk case, but unlikely, especially with some in the know with the experience saying it isn't enough.

But all of the examples he cited were MLB. That's a different league with a different CBA. Did the MLB CBA at the time have a conduct clause similar to the one the NHL does now? The "political environment" of the sport definitely wasn't the same. I think all of us would agree things changed to some degree following the Ray Rice incident. The Baltimore Ravens terminated Ray Rice's contract for domestic violence. The Patriots terminated Alex Hernandez's contract before he was even found guilty of murder. Those are the NFL but they set about as much precedence for the NHL as MLB does, which I don't think is much.

Regardless, if Marcamella is so confident that incidents like illegal conduct aren't grounds for terminating contracts, then what the heck are those clauses doing in the CBA in the first place? Just how serious an act dose it take to terminate an NHL contract? After all, conduct unbecoming is a pretty broad brush.

The only other contract terminations that I'm aware of are from refusing to report to the AHL or to training camp. But the CBA is still fairly new so I don't know if more was added to it then as far as conduct and termination goes.

Maybe the Kings wont win arbitration against the NHL PA if they decide to challenge, but I have trouble thinking Dean would try this if he didn't think there was a good chance at winning, especially since they did have potential trades with Calgary and Edmonton in the works and if it really is something anything close to trivial it will make Dean and the Kings look bad. Has Dean ever been that kind of guy?

 

[kingsholygrail]

Has there been a player more controversial on this board for more reasons than Mike Richards?

Everything from on-ice performance, to contract, to this now.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Has there been a player more controversial on this board for more reasons than Mike Richards?

Everything from on-ice performance, to contract, to this now.

Avery

 

[kingsholygrail]

Avery

I think I was still new here for the Avery controversies.

 

[Chain]

I wonder how many facial expressions Sutter has made since this was announced.

 

[agentfouser]

Has there been a player more controversial on this board for more reasons than Mike Richards?

Everything from on-ice performance, to contract, to this now.

Michael Cammalleri

 

[Telos]

I think the biggest disappointment over the whole situation is that there was the potential to trade him. There were teams that were remotely interested. Regardless of what happened, Richards screwed things up royally for himself.

This whole thing has really shown me how many people that use the internet don't know how to correctly use the word "myriad"

Do tell.

 

[Fishhead]

Mikko Eloranta was a pretty polarizing figure for a while. There were huge arguments on whether he was really in his 50's or, in truth, an undead.

You know the whole undead craze that's been sweeping the nation for the past 10 years or so? Yep, all because of Mikko.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Really depressing scenario as a fan of this team and Mike Richards regardless of it being a business.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Has there been a player more controversial on this board for more reasons than Mike Richards?

Everything from on-ice performance, to contract, to this now.

#4?

But yeah, this last bit of news is like a gamma ray burst.

 

[lebowski74]

Do they Kings have to take the cap hit even if the terminate the contract, thought I read a tweet from Mackenzie saying as much?