Taro T Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Your last sentance is what I was thinking of when I made my post. If it turns out to be a relatively minor offense, then other teams with big contract albatrosses may pursue this clause at the first sign of trouble. I'm just hoping if it goes through it is for some serious sh!t. This being the NHL, one can't put anything past them; but it seems reeeeaaally unlikely that the league would ok it if it is minor because stiring up trouble w/ the NHLPA right before starting the expansion process seems like a less than stellar idea. Though, it is the NHL, so who knows. ;) Yes sir, Officer.... I mean your Royal Mountedness..... My General Manager packed my hockeybag..... I have no idea where that white powder came from.... :w00t: Quote
nucci Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Your last sentance is what I was thinking of when I made my post. If it turns out to be a relatively minor offense, then other teams with big contract albatrosses may pursue this clause at the first sign of trouble. I'm just hoping if it goes through it is for some serious sh!t. Then the players union will fight it and his contract may not be terminated. Quote
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Yes sir, Officer.... I mean your Royal Mountedness..... My General Manager packed my hockeybag..... I have no idea where that white powder came from.... Worked for Keith Richards and Jimi Hendrix. Quote
TrueBlueGED Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/06/30/the-l-a-kings-and-the-difficult-task-of-upholding-the-termination-of-the-mike-richards-contract/ Good article on the likelihood of this sticking. Quote
3putt Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Your last sentance is what I was thinking of when I made my post. If it turns out to be a relatively minor offense, then other teams with big contract albatrosses may pursue this clause at the first sign of trouble. I'm just hoping if it goes through it is for some serious sh!t. The Leaf's will have private eyes posted at every Tim Horton's from Fort Erie to North York with a picture of Phil Kessel in their pocket. Quote
Taro T Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/06/30/the-l-a-kings-and-the-difficult-task-of-upholding-the-termination-of-the-mike-richards-contract/ Good article on the likelihood of this sticking. I don't expect it to be a slam dunk for the Kings by any means, but ownership perpetually losing arbitrations in baseball does not mean they'll necessarily lose this one - Fehr or no Fehr. (Pretty sure he saw the union not only not get rid of the cap but actually have the players share of HRR decrease as well in his last negotiation.) With no facts available to us right now, I'd put it 50-50. :) Quote
BagBoy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 The Leaf's will have private eyes posted at every Tim Horton's from Fort Erie to North York with a picture of Phil Kessel in their pocket.Nice One! Quote
Brawndo Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2015/06/30/nhls-mike-richards-nhl-notified-about-oxycodone-drama-at-canadian-border TMZ reporting that he was questioned about having oxycodone while crossing the border. It's a narcotic painkiller Quote
Taro T Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2015/06/30/nhls-mike-richards-nhl-notified-about-oxycodone-drama-at-canadian-border TMZ reporting that he was questioned about having oxycodone while crossing the border. It's a narcotic painkiller If that's what the issue is, it would be interesting to see if the Kings have anything in writing that Richards would stay away from that. My guess is he doesn't. Quote
Weave Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) If that's what the issue is, it would be interesting to see if the Kings have anything in writing that Richards would stay away from that. My guess is he doesn't. I would think that if he were on Oxycodone legitimately the Kings would know about it and the team doc would likely have written the prescription for it, My gut tells me that it is not legally possessed oxycodone. A no-no whether expressly mentioned by the team or no. Man, I can see where the team would want to use this to negate his contract, but that isn't much of an offense IMO. Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the players in the league have oxy without a script. Edited June 30, 2015 by weave Quote
LastPommerFan Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 I would think that if he were on Oxycodone legitimately the Kings would know about it and the team doc would likely have written the prescription for it, My gut tells me that it is not legally possessed oxycodone. A no-no whether expressly mentioned by the team or no. Man, I can see where the team would want to use this to negate his contract, but that isn't much of an offense IMO. Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the players in the league have oxy without a script. This is why the elimination of his contract concerns me. Quote
Taro T Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 I would think that if he were on Oxycodone legitimately the Kings would know about it and the team doc would likely have written the prescription for it, My gut tells me that it is not legally possessed oxycodone. A no-no whether expressly mentioned by the team or no. Man, I can see where the team would want to use this to negate his contract, but that isn't much of an offense IMO. Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the players in the league have oxy without a script. If Oxy is all they've got on him; it tips the scales towards expecting it's back to a buyout. That's why I was wondering if they somehow had in writing that he'd stay clean (can't see how they would though). Them telling him last year that he would be bought out but him "looking (Dean) in the eye" claiming he'd stay clean causing the Kings to rethink their strategy sounds plausible; but don't know that would rise to enough to get the contract voided. This one will definitely be interesting to watch. Need me some popcorn. Quote
ubkev Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 I would think that if he were on Oxycodone legitimately the Kings would know about it and the team doc would likely have written the prescription for it, My gut tells me that it is not legally possessed oxycodone. A no-no whether expressly mentioned by the team or no. Man, I can see where the team would want to use this to negate his contract, but that isn't much of an offense IMO. Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the players in the league have oxy without a script. Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of North Americans have some controlled substance without a script. Quote
calti Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 donut smuggling? Wouldn't surprise me if 30% of North Americans have some controlled substance without a script. that's a very low estimate Quote
Brawndo Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 If Oxy is all they've got on him; it tips the scales towards expecting it's back to a buyout. That's why I was wondering if they somehow had in writing that he'd stay clean (can't see how they would though). Them telling him last year that he would be bought out but him "looking (Dean) in the eye" claiming he'd stay clean causing the Kings to rethink their strategy sounds plausible; but don't know that would rise to enough to get the contract voided. This one will definitely be interesting to watch. Need me some popcorn. If the ruling is against the Kings, I think they have missed the buyout period, as it was not completed by 5 PM today Quote
Hoss Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 If the ruling is against the Kings, I think they have missed the buyout period, as it was not completed by 5 PM today Have to wonder how that would go. I think the NHL could potentially allow them to buyout the contract given the situation, but I could also see them taking the opportunity to set an example. The league probably doesn't want these type of issues. Quote
Trettioåtta Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 I find it interesting the NHLPA have not instantly put up a huge rejection to this and made a statement. Lombardi has a legal background, the Kings have a legal department. I doubt this decision was made in haste. Perhaps just very fortunate timing for them? Quote
Taro T Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 If the ruling is against the Kings, I think they have missed the buyout period, as it was not completed by 5 PM today Hard to say. They'd begun the process within the eindow and then changed to termination. My GUESS is that if the termination is determined to be ungrounded that the league would give the Kings a mulligan. Again, hard to say when they make so much up on the fly. Quote
Hoss Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Hard to say. They'd begun the process within the eindow and then changed to termination. My GUESS is that if the termination is determined to be ungrounded that the league would give the Kings a mulligan. Again, hard to say when they make so much up on the fly. The Kings apparently indicated the day of the termination that is these their intention when they started the waiver process. So I don't think they've got that argument on their side. Quote
GoPre Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) The Kings apparently indicated the day of the termination that is these their intention when they started the waiver process. So I don't think they've got that argument on their side.Weren't they attempting to trade Richards to Edmonton during the draft? That could backfire on LA. Edited July 1, 2015 by Thanes16 Quote
Trettioåtta Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Weren't they attempting to trade Richards to Edmonton during the draft? That could backfire on LA. Yes. They had to pull out because they were told of this incident. If anything it helps them. Everyone knows it was a bad contract and this is mighty convient for them. But trying to trade him shows they were seeking legitimate ways to remove him and he torpedoed these attempts Quote
LGR4GM Posted July 3, 2015 Author Report Posted July 3, 2015 really, we didn't get the? okay... Mike Richards and Oxycotin http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/07/02/mike-richards-oxycontin-and-the-termination-of-his-contract/3/ Quote
WildCard Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 really, we didn't get the? okay... Mike Richards and Oxycotin http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/07/02/mike-richards-oxycontin-and-the-termination-of-his-contract/3/ Does he have an injury history? I wonder if he got hooked on them like many other athletes during recovery. Quote
Weave Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Does he have an injury history? I wonder if he got hooked on them like many other athletes during recovery. Like I said, wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the league has oxy without a script. Every NHL player has an injury history. Quote
WildCard Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Like I said, wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the league has oxy without a script. Every NHL player has an injury history. Missed that above; you're probably not far off on that percentage. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.