Friedman: "There's still a big possibility that San Jose has to honor Kane's contract and that Kane has to return to SJ"

[Gecklund]

I suspect what you read was not from the NHL.

Pretty sure it was or at the very least a respected source. Either way there’s 0 chance it happens. If it does I hope the Sharks try to cut Vlasic too and see if it works and if not oh well no harm done. Maybe with Burns, EK, and Couture too if they really want to rebuild. Only thing that happened was it opened up a roster spot for this season.

 

[ucanthanzalthetruth]

There was a report months ago that the NHL and PA had agreed that Kane's contract will not be reinstated even if he wins the grievance. Was the report accurate? I don't know.

Wouldn't precedence have been set by the Richards issue? Kings got hit with a big cap but not as much as a buyout, Richards got most of his money, but the contract wasn't reinstated and he signed with the Caps? It worked out well there, not sure why the NHL would deviate here...

 

[Hasbro]

Might work to the Oilers’ advantage if they work a trade and get San Jose to retain.

 

[mouser]

Pretty sure it was or at the very least a respected source. Either way there’s 0 chance it happens. If it does I hope the Sharks try to cut Vlasic too and see if it works and if not oh well no harm done. Maybe with Burns, EK, and Couture too if they really want to rebuild. Only thing that happened was it opened up a roster spot for this season.

I don't expect the contract to be reinstated.

My disagreement was the claim that SJ would only receive a cap hit of the difference between Kane's SJ contract and any new contract he signs. That's not what happened with Mike Richards.

 

[Gecklund]

I don't expect the contract to be reinstated.

My disagreement was the claim that SJ would only receive a cap hit of the difference between Kane's SJ contract and any new contract he signs. That's not what happened with Mike Richards.

No but that’s what’s been stated to happen by every news source prior to this.

 

[mouser]

Wouldn't precedence have been set by the Richards issue? Kings got hit with a big cap but not as much as a buyout, Richards got most of his money, but the contract wasn't reinstated and he signed with the Caps? It worked out well there, not sure why the NHL would deviate here...

Sort of. Technically Richards is not considered a precedent. Though the NHL and PA could negotiate a similar settlement for Kane.

Haven't seen any reports that they're considering doing so at this time though.

 

[McDoused]

Wouldnt this be a worse case scenario for both sides?

Why would the Sharks want this? They were done with him and he isnt an asset at 7M a season. They would have to retain to get rid of him. You have to think that San Jose would prefer to settle and give Kane money that wouldnt count against their cap.

I'm sure Kane would want this either. Sure he would get the money he is owed but he wouldnt want to play for the sharks.

Seems weird that an arbitrator would pick a scenario that both sides are unhappy with. It's not like this is somewhere in the middle.

 

[mouser]

No but that’s what’s been stated to happen by every news source prior to this.

Really? I've only seen one article claiming that. And it wasn't statements from the NHL, rather a non-NHL person with arbitration experience that doesn't automatically apply to this situation in a union workshop.

 

[Homesick]

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks had no grounds to terminate his contract; would the Sharks would be on the hook for half his contract(since he was on waivers) and the Oilers would get first dibs since they have his rights until July 13th?

 

[CupInSIX]

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks had no grounds to terminate his contract; would the Sharks would be on the hook for half his contract(since he was on waivers) and the Oilers would get first dibs since they have his rights until July 13th?

The Sharks should file tampering charges if Edmonton continues to negotiate a new contract.

 

[Homesick]

The Sharks should file tampering charges if Edmonton continues to negotiate a new contract.

Well we are talking about the NHL here

 

[Gecklund]

Really? I've only seen one article claiming that. And it wasn't statements from the NHL, rather a non-NHL person with arbitration experience that doesn't automatically apply to this situation in a union workshop.

I mean I genuinely don’t care enough to go find articles or statements again. It’s one of those situations where no one knows what’s going to happen until it does but either way, I think we both agree the premise of this thread as stated in the OP would never happen. Kane’s contract will never be reinstated with SJ but in some form his cap hit might.

 

[North]

The Sharks should file tampering charges if Edmonton continues to negotiate a new contract.

How is it tampering if he currently does not have a contract with San Jose?

The arbitrator hasn’t rendered a decision yet and Kane is still an Oiler.

 

[mouser]

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks had no grounds to terminate his contract; would the Sharks would be on the hook for half his contract(since he was on waivers) and the Oilers would get first dibs since they have his rights until July 13th?

If the arbitrator rules SJ had no grounds to terminate the contract then SJ is on the hook for all backpay and all future obligations of the contract.

There's a little bit of grey area in the CBA whether the arbitrator can actually re-instate the contract. The CBA says the arbitrator cannot change the contractual status of a player. Would reinstating Kane's contract count as changing the status? Or does simply recognizing the contract termination was invalid automatically reinstate the contract?

Either way, what would certainly happen if Kane wins the grievance is the NHL and PA will have to negotiate some sort of one off agreement how to deal with the situation.


In a way it's better for SJ if Kane wins the grievance that the contract is reinstated. If Kane were to win and the contract wasn't reinstated, that would essentially mean SJ is on the hook for the remaining $24m with no option to buyout or trade the contract to reduce that obligation. You can't trade or buyout a contract that's been terminated.

 

[themelkman]

Wouldnt this be a worse case scenario for both sides?

Why would the Sharks want this? They were done with him and he isnt an asset at 7M a season. They would have to retain to get rid of him. You have to think that San Jose would prefer to settle and give Kane money that wouldnt count against their cap.

I'm sure Kane would want this either. Sure he would get the money he is owed but he wouldnt want to play for the sharks.

Seems weird that an arbitrator would pick a scenario that both sides are unhappy with. It's not like this is somewhere in the middle.

Better than having to pay him to play on the oilers for free, but far worse than the contract being terminated

 

[UrbanImpact]

Wouldnt this be a worse case scenario for both sides?

Why would the Sharks want this? They were done with him and he isnt an asset at 7M a season. They would have to retain to get rid of him. You have to think that San Jose would prefer to settle and give Kane money that wouldnt count against their cap.

I'm sure Kane would want this either. Sure he would get the money he is owed but he wouldnt want to play for the sharks.

Seems weird that an arbitrator would pick a scenario that both sides are unhappy with. It's not like this is somewhere in the middle.

Thats not what the arbitrators job is.

Arbitrators only job is determine if Sharks had the right to terminate the contract.. period. full stop

 

[bone]

I don't expect the contract to be reinstated.

My disagreement was the claim that SJ would only receive a cap hit of the difference between Kane's SJ contract and any new contract he signs. That's not what happened with Mike Richards.

Yeah, this would be completely illogical as it basically would then be in Kane's best interest to sign at league minimum with his new team so that they can add more players and thereby forcing a cap hit onto the Sharks greater than $6M dollars. It just wouldn't make any sense unless the portion paid by San Jose is subject to creditors but not the new team, but then you could argue that the creditors would be suing as a result dragging this out longer.

 

[joestevens29]

So if all this happens then Kane's goals should be voided and the Oilers shouldn't win the first two rounds and the Kings and Flames should be back in the post season.

Oilers should have to forfeit every game he played with us and the NHL should redo the lottery

 

[Wretched Oil]

I'd bet Kane is hit with a fraud charge at some point.

Joke post or joke poster?

 

[North Cole]

I can't imagine they force him to go back to the Sharks as neither he, the team, or his team mates want him there. Situation doesn't really help anyone at that point. Are they able to get some kind of compliance buyout/settlement if the ruling goes against them? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[XXIV97]

If he’s reassigned, he’s never pulling a teal sweater on again. He’ll be traded along with his contract. There are teams that will do it. Good for us in any light.

Doesn't Kane have a clause that he can only be traded to three teams? Therefore, he could make a clause that he can only be traded to Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Buffalo.

So it really isn't a good thing for the Sharks since they would get screwed in any trade.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Seems odd that his contract status with the Sharks can be legally disputed but he was also eligible to sign with another team.

Hypothetically couldn’t the Sharks take an issue with this had Kane gotten hurt while playing for Edmonton?

Seems like by signing with Edmonton he accepts the termination by San Jose.. not double dipping

 

[mouser]

Seems odd that his contract status with the Sharks can be legally disputed but he was also eligible to sign with another team.

Hypothetically couldn’t the Sharks take an issue with this had Kane gotten hurt while playing for Edmonton?

Seems like by signing with Edmonton he accepts the termination by San Jose.. not double dipping

It's not really reasonable to expect someone to quit working while they're going through a legal dispute with a previous employer.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

@mouser
At this point, it seems like Kane would prefer to be UFA and sign wherever he wants. Could he and the Sharks cut a deal to settle this past season then agree to mutually terminate the remaining years of the contract. I’m thinking something like the Sharks agree to pay Kane the difference between what he was owed and what he made with the Oilers and take that cap hit for this current season.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

LOL if Holland traded for Kane's SJS contract and cripples his cap even further.