NHLPA files grievance on behalf of Mike Richards

[bustaheims]

If a particular violation of the contract allowed a team to terminate a contract than language dealing with that violation, which this specifically does, would mention that. It doesn't. Short of Mike Richards specifically having something in his contract that specially allows for this that seems pretty clear to me.

Until someone actually points to something in the CBA that covers this I'm not sure I'm going to give the Kings here much credit on the "Who knows?" doctrine.

You could also argue that, if it doesn't specifically prohibit contract termination (and, without having the Drug Policy in front of me, I can't say for sure whether or not it does), it allows for it - and that is absolutely the kind of argument the Kings' lawyers are going to make. The Drug Policy sets forth the minimum standard for dealing with this situation. It's not necessarily exhaustive or absolute.

 

[Kin]

Also, I'm pretty confident that if there were specific language in the standard player contract that allowed teams to terminate a contract after an arrest LA or the league would have mentioned it by now and make this an open and shut case.

 

[Kin]

You could also argue that, if it doesn't specifically prohibit contract termination (and, without having the Drug Policy in front of me, I can't say for sure whether or not it does), it allows for it - and that is absolutely the kind of argument the Kings' lawyers are going to make. The Drug Policy sets forth the minimum standard for dealing with this situation. It's not necessarily exhaustive or absolute.

No, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The contract doesn't specifically prohibit them firing Mike Richards out of a cannon into the sun or seizing his property or any number of things they can't do.

 

[bustaheims]

No, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The contract doesn't specifically prohibit them firing Mike Richards out of a cannon into the sun or seizing his property or any number of things they can't do.

Well, if you're to take it to absurd levels, sure. Things that are unreasonable, unrealistic or illegal are not allowed. In the case of firing Richards out a canon into the sun and such, there's specific laws that govern that. However, things like contract termination, which falls very firmly within the confines of standard business practices, have to be specifically prohibited.

 

[Kin]

Well, if you're to take it to absurd levels, sure. Things that are unreasonable, unrealistic or illegal are not allowed. However, things like contract termination, which falls very firmly within the confines of standard business practices, have to be specifically prohibited.

No, they don't. If you want a mechanism within a contract that allows for the termination of a contract, it's incumbent on the person crafting the contract to include it specifically.

That really, literally, was Contract Law 101.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You could also argue that, if it doesn't specifically prohibit contract termination (and, without having the Drug Policy in front of me, I can't say for sure whether or not it does), it allows for it - and that is absolutely the kind of argument the Kings' lawyers are going to make. The Drug Policy sets forth the minimum standard for dealing with this situation. It's not necessarily exhaustive or absolute.

Eric Macramalla was on TSN this afternoon and said that nowhere in the drug policy does it bring up termination. It also clearly states what has to happen when a player is arrested and what happens when a player is charged. If you're arrested for possession you're evaluated by the leagues doctors and put in a two-week treatment program. If you're convicted then you're suspended with pay and you go into a program for a year or more. These don't exactly sound like minimum requirements that allow teams to bypass them for stricter punishments. They're collectively bargained agreements that need to be adhered to. And like I said, there's a good reason for that. If Richards does indeed have a serious drug problem and is addicted to pain killers or what not, the league can't just toss him aside. They need to give him the help that he requires because there's a very strong likelihood that he got addicted to this stuff because of hockey. Honestly I'm amazed that the league's lawyers even allowed the termination in the first place.

 

[bustaheims]

No, they don't. If you want a mechanism within a contract that allows for the termination of a contract, it's incumbent on the person crafting the contract to include it specifically.

That really, literally, was Contract Law 101.

In the case of the CBA - and especially the Drug Policy - both sides crafted the contract. That muddies the water quite significantly.

 

[bustaheims]

Eric Macramalla was on TSN this afternoon and said that nowhere in the drug policy does it bring up termination. It also clearly states what has to happen when a player is arrested and what happens when a player is charged. If you're arrested for possession you're evaluated by the leagues doctors and put in a two-week treatment program. If you're convicted then you're suspended with pay and you go into a program for a year or more. These don't exactly sound like minimum requirements that allow teams to bypass them for stricter punishments. They're collectively bargained agreements that need to be adhered to. And like I said, there's a good reason for that. If Richards does indeed have a serious drug problem and is addicted to pain killers or what not, the league can't just toss him aside. They need to give him the help that he requires because there's a very strong likelihood that he got addicted to this stuff because of hockey. Honestly I'm amazed that the league's lawyers even allowed the termination in the first place.

But, that's exactly the problem - it doesn't address it. It doesn't say you can or you can't. It says this is what you have to do when a player is arrested for a drug/alcohol related offence. It doesn't say that it's all you can do. That's why the NHL's lawyers allowed it. As long as they still met the other conditions of the Drug Policy - which, in this case, is have Richards undergo evaluation for potential addiction issues and whether or not treatment is require - the Kings actions didn't specifically violate the CBA.

 

[Kin]

In the case of the CBA - and especially the Drug Policy - both sides crafted the contract. That muddies the water quite significantly.

No, it really doesn't. The Flyers, and by extension the Kings, offered Richards the Contract. Richards did not draw up the contract.

But, regardless, like CtB says the drug policy is specific about what happens to players found in violation of it and the consequences of it. The very fact that it's collectively bargained is why "Yeah, but we reserve the right to add additional, unmentioned penalties" will never fly in a million years.

 

[Kin]

Honestly I'm amazed that the league's lawyers even allowed the termination in the first place.

You shouldn't be. There's no downside for them here and they can take a one in a million shot at giving teams a means for terminating contracts that's entirely at their discretion.

 

[bustaheims]

No, it really doesn't. The Flyers, and by extension the Kings, offered Richards the Contract. Richards did not draw up the contract.

We're not talking about the individual contract anymore, though. We're talking about the CBA. The contract is governed by that CBA, yes, but the CBA was crafted by both sides. The CBA is the real document at issue here. Without the CBA, the Drug Policy doesn't apply, either.

But, regardless, like CtB says the drug policy is specific about what happens to players found in violation of it and the consequences of it. The very fact that it's collectively bargained is why "Yeah, but we reserve the right to add additional, unmentioned penalties" will never fly in a million years.

If the Kings met their requirements under the Drug Policy, which in this case are fairly minor, they've met their obligations. At that point, as long as other sections of the CBA allow for contract termination under these circumstances, the Drug Policy would no longer be at issue.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You shouldn't be. There's no downside for them here and they can take a one in a million shot at giving teams a means for terminating contracts that's entirely at their discretion.

Yeah I guess. I also think that LA's maybe banking on an arbitration settlement that has them coming out better than a contract buyout would. Maybe something that ends up paying Richard's the full value of his contract but with less cap hit. I dunno if that's even possible, but I'm sure they'd try to push for it.

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah I guess. I also think that LA's maybe banking on an arbitration settlement that has them coming out better than a contract buyout would. Maybe something that ends up paying Richard's the full value of his contract but with less cap hit. I dunno if that's even possible, but I'm sure they'd try to push for it.

I don't think that's even an option. Either Richards' contract is terminated, or it's in force. If it's determined to be in force, he'd count at the full cap value - though, the league may allow some leeway for the Kings in regard to a buy-out. Anything would be considered to be renegotiating the contract.

 

[Kin]

We're not talking about the individual contract anymore, though.

You can bet your life that an independent arbitrator will absolutely be focused on the language in the contract that Mike Richards signed.

If the Kings met their requirements under the Drug Policy, which in this case are fairly minor, they've met their obligations. At that point, as long as other sections of the CBA allow for contract termination under these circumstances, the Drug Policy would no longer be at issue.

Right, which is where we get back to me not believing for the faintest of seconds that there's specific language in the CBA that allows for the termination of a contract after any arrest at a team's discretion, especially considering the NHL and Kings have apparently decided not to mention it.

 

[Kin]

Yeah I guess. I also think that LA's maybe banking on an arbitration settlement that has them coming out better than a contract buyout would. Maybe something that ends up paying Richard's the full value of his contract but with less cap hit. I dunno if that's even possible, but I'm sure they'd try to push for it.

Well, sure. It's like I said when this got announced. If you're LA, why wouldn't you exhaust whatever methods were at your disposal to save what could be millions of dollars?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think that's even an option. Either Richards' contract is terminated, or it's in force. If it's determined to be in force, he'd count at the full cap value - though, the league may allow some leeway for the Kings in regard to a buy-out. Anything would be considered to be renegotiating the contract.

Well, it really depends on how much power an independent arbitrator will have. That one Forbes article I posted brought up a couple of similar instances with the MLB about 10 years ago. In both cases a contract was terminated, the PA grieved, and the two sides settled with a sizeable payout of the players contract. I don't know how that ended up working cap-wise though.

 

[Tigger]

If the Kings met their requirements under the Drug Policy, which in this case are fairly minor, they've met their obligations. At that point, as long as other sections of the CBA allow for contract termination under these circumstances, the Drug Policy would no longer be at issue.

How can they have met their requirements? The issue hasn't been resolved yet.

 

[bustaheims]

You can bet your life that an independent arbitrator will absolutely be focused on the language in the contract that Mike Richards signed.

Just like you can bet yours that the Kings lawyers and the arbitrator will be pretty focused on the language of the CBA that governs said contract. That contract has no validity without the CBA, making the CBA the more important document.

Right, which is where we get back to me not believing for the faintest of seconds that there's specific language in the CBA that allows for the termination of a contract after any arrest at a team's discretion, especially considering the NHL and Kings have apparently decided not to mention it.

To be fair, they haven't said much about the case publically, outside of asserting their belief that they have the right to have terminated Richards' contract. They're not presenting their case to the public, they will be presenting it to an arbitrator - and we also have no idea what communication may have taken place between the league, the team and the PA.

 

[bustaheims]

How can they have met their requirements? The issue hasn't been resolved yet.

Because, their only requirement in this case (at this point, at least) is to evaluate Richards' need for further treatment.

 

[Kin]

Just like you can bet yours that the Kings lawyers and the arbitrator will be pretty focused on the language of the CBA that governs said contract. That contract has no validity without the CBA, making the CBA the more important document.

Right. "The language of the contract" is the issue. "Hey, yeah, we didn't specifically say we couldn't do this..." is not the language of the contract.

To be fair, they haven't said much about the case publically, outside of asserting their belief that they have the right to have terminated Richards' contract. They're not presenting their case to the public, they will be presenting it to an arbitrator - and we also have no idea what communication may have taken place between the league, the team and the PA.

Again, I'm not going to put a ton of stock into "Hey, you never know what might be true" when a simple press release referring to specific language within the CBA would effectively end discussion on the matte.r