Potential Buyouts

[ZBBM]

Let's see ... the NHLPA "reaches out" to the league with concerns over Gomez and Redden and bingo, out of nowhere, here comes an "accelerated" compliance buyout.  Why do you think the NHL agreed to that, posthaste?  Because they are selfless, altruistic, noble guardians of the good and right?  Or because their lawyers told them, "Get this fixed or else"?

I like to think they were swayed by the case I made for it yesterday.

Well, and that.

 

[TML fan]

What's the exact thing they did with Gomez?  They told him he can't play?  I don't understand, what if he wants to play?  Doesn't he have a grievance he can file, he's under contract, has a no-movement clause or something, how can they tell him "sorry you can't play"?

They've basically made him a healthy scratch for the entire season, which, as long as they still pay him and give him access to the team's facilities, is all they need to do to honour his contract.

I dunno....  What they've done is enjoined him from following his profession, and preemptively, without giving him the same chance as every other similar employee in the organization.  I think there's a grievance or a lawsuit here.

Unless his contract stipulates he has to play, Montreal can do whatever they want with him, as long as he gets his money.

Or they can dream up this accelerated buyout thing on the quick to avoid very messy lawsuits.  I think Gomez and Redden could definitely have sued, and won.

How do you figure? Just what have they done that violates any laws or any stipulations in their contract? This is a personnel decision. By your logic, anyone who's ever been a healthy scratch has been denied every opportunity to showcase themselves for a contract and thus has a grievance with the league.

Gomez's contract says he can't play hockey anywhere but for the Montreal Canadiens or their affiliates. It is up to them to decide who plays and who doesn't. As long as he gets paid, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The damages are those that he suffers by not being treated equally with other employees.  Of course a team can decide who suits up and who doesn't, but this is not the same as a healthy scratch.  It's more like a lockout of a single individual.  In fact, it IS a lockout.  They are denying him the opportunity to pursue his profession in an arbitrary and capricious way that is completely different from how they are treating their other employees.

By sending him home with no chance whatsoever to participate on the team or its affiliates, they have essentially kicked these guys off the team without the employee having a chance to become a free agent -- and that is essentially a unliteral abrogation of the contract.  It's bad faith dealing, and you'd better believe their agents could have made a lawsuit out of it.

Let's see ... the NHLPA "reaches out" to the league with concerns over Gomez and Redden and bingo, out of nowhere, here comes an "accelerated" compliance buyout.  Why do you think the NHL agreed to that, posthaste?  Because they are selfless, altruistic, noble guardians of the good and right?  Or because their lawyers told them, "Get this fixed or else"?

This still doesn't explain what law or which part of his contract has been violated. Montreal is under no obligation to give Gomez anything other than what is owed to him.

I don't see how anything Montreal has done is in bad faith. Gomez got every penny from Montreal that his contract says hes worth, and he did very little for them. I'm sure when that contract was signed there was a reasonable expectation that Gomez would perform to a certain level, which he hasn't. Now Montreal wants to rid themselves of a problem contract. They can't trade him. All they can do is buy him out, and if he gets hurt they can't even do that.

So Montreal has this giant boat anchor weighing down their team, and you think THEY are the ones who are being unfair?

If Gomez wants to play he can ask to be released from his contract and forfeit his remaining earnings. Otherwise, if I'm Montreal, I'm going to do what is best for my team.

Honestly, if the players have this same attitude, I can't say I blame the league for locking them out twice.

 

[Kin]

Gomez hasn't lived up to his contract for several years. I'm sure when that contract was signed there was a reasonable expectation that Gomez would perform to a certain level, which he hasn't. Now Montreal wants to rid themselves of a problem contract.

When a player signs a contract all he's obligated to do is play to the best of his ability. Teams, going into contract negotiations, know that player decline is part of the risk associated with a long term deal and have no reasonable expectation that a player's ability won't decline due to injury or age.

If Gomez wants to play he can ask to be released from his contract and forfeit his remaining earnings.

I actually don't think this is true. Once you've signed a contract there is no mutual walk away option, otherwise it could be used to renegotiate during the middle of a deal.

 

[TML fan]

Gomez hasn't lived up to his contract for several years. I'm sure when that contract was signed there was a reasonable expectation that Gomez would perform to a certain level, which he hasn't. Now Montreal wants to rid themselves of a problem contract.

When a player signs a contract all he's obligated to do is play to the best of his ability. Teams, going into contract negotiations, know that player decline is part of the risk associated with a long term deal and have no reasonable expectation that a player's ability won't decline due to injury or age.

If Gomez wants to play he can ask to be released from his contract and forfeit his remaining earnings.

I actually don't think this is true. Once you've signed a contract there is no mutual walk away option, otherwise it could be used to renegotiate during the middle of a deal.

Right. But where in the contract does it say that the team doesn't have the right to decide if he plays or not?

Oh. I always assumed that there was some sort of clause for a mutual parting of ways.

 

[ZBBM]

What's the exact thing they did with Gomez?  They told him he can't play?  I don't understand, what if he wants to play?  Doesn't he have a grievance he can file, he's under contract, has a no-movement clause or something, how can they tell him "sorry you can't play"?

They've basically made him a healthy scratch for the entire season, which, as long as they still pay him and give him access to the team's facilities, is all they need to do to honour his contract.

I dunno....  What they've done is enjoined him from following his profession, and preemptively, without giving him the same chance as every other similar employee in the organization.  I think there's a grievance or a lawsuit here.

Unless his contract stipulates he has to play, Montreal can do whatever they want with him, as long as he gets his money.

Or they can dream up this accelerated buyout thing on the quick to avoid very messy lawsuits.  I think Gomez and Redden could definitely have sued, and won.

How do you figure? Just what have they done that violates any laws or any stipulations in their contract? This is a personnel decision. By your logic, anyone who's ever been a healthy scratch has been denied every opportunity to showcase themselves for a contract and thus has a grievance with the league.

Gomez's contract says he can't play hockey anywhere but for the Montreal Canadiens or their affiliates. It is up to them to decide who plays and who doesn't. As long as he gets paid, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The damages are those that he suffers by not being treated equally with other employees.  Of course a team can decide who suits up and who doesn't, but this is not the same as a healthy scratch.  It's more like a lockout of a single individual.  In fact, it IS a lockout.  They are denying him the opportunity to pursue his profession in an arbitrary and capricious way that is completely different from how they are treating their other employees.

By sending him home with no chance whatsoever to participate on the team or its affiliates, they have essentially kicked these guys off the team without the employee having a chance to become a free agent -- and that is essentially a unliteral abrogation of the contract.  It's bad faith dealing, and you'd better believe their agents could have made a lawsuit out of it.

Let's see ... the NHLPA "reaches out" to the league with concerns over Gomez and Redden and bingo, out of nowhere, here comes an "accelerated" compliance buyout.  Why do you think the NHL agreed to that, posthaste?  Because they are selfless, altruistic, noble guardians of the good and right?  Or because their lawyers told them, "Get this fixed or else"?

This still doesn't explain what law or which part of his contract has been violated. Montreal is under no obligation to give Gomez anything other than what is owed to him.

I don't see how anything Montreal has done is in bad faith. Gomez got every penny from Montreal that his contract says hes worth, and he did very little for them. I'm sure when that contract was signed there was a reasonable expectation that Gomez would perform to a certain level, which he hasn't. Now Montreal wants to rid themselves of a problem contract. They can't trade him. All they can do is buy him out, and if he gets hurt they can't even do that.

So Montreal has this giant boat anchor weighing down their team, and you think THEY are the ones who are being unfair?

If Gomez wants to play he can ask to be released from his contract and forfeit his remaining earnings. Otherwise, if I'm Montreal, I'm going to do what is best for my team.

Honestly, if the players have this same attitude, I can't say I blame the league for locking them out twice.

Sure they are.  Like any employer, they have to follow labor law.  In the context of the CBA, they can't make decisions that unilaterally deny a player the right to pursue his profession and, in this case, become a free agent.  That's why the NHL moved pronto to fix this.

 

[TML fan]

What's the exact thing they did with Gomez?  They told him he can't play?  I don't understand, what if he wants to play?  Doesn't he have a grievance he can file, he's under contract, has a no-movement clause or something, how can they tell him "sorry you can't play"?

They've basically made him a healthy scratch for the entire season, which, as long as they still pay him and give him access to the team's facilities, is all they need to do to honour his contract.

I dunno....  What they've done is enjoined him from following his profession, and preemptively, without giving him the same chance as every other similar employee in the organization.  I think there's a grievance or a lawsuit here.

Unless his contract stipulates he has to play, Montreal can do whatever they want with him, as long as he gets his money.

Or they can dream up this accelerated buyout thing on the quick to avoid very messy lawsuits.  I think Gomez and Redden could definitely have sued, and won.

How do you figure? Just what have they done that violates any laws or any stipulations in their contract? This is a personnel decision. By your logic, anyone who's ever been a healthy scratch has been denied every opportunity to showcase themselves for a contract and thus has a grievance with the league.

Gomez's contract says he can't play hockey anywhere but for the Montreal Canadiens or their affiliates. It is up to them to decide who plays and who doesn't. As long as he gets paid, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The damages are those that he suffers by not being treated equally with other employees.  Of course a team can decide who suits up and who doesn't, but this is not the same as a healthy scratch.  It's more like a lockout of a single individual.  In fact, it IS a lockout.  They are denying him the opportunity to pursue his profession in an arbitrary and capricious way that is completely different from how they are treating their other employees.

By sending him home with no chance whatsoever to participate on the team or its affiliates, they have essentially kicked these guys off the team without the employee having a chance to become a free agent -- and that is essentially a unliteral abrogation of the contract.  It's bad faith dealing, and you'd better believe their agents could have made a lawsuit out of it.

Let's see ... the NHLPA "reaches out" to the league with concerns over Gomez and Redden and bingo, out of nowhere, here comes an "accelerated" compliance buyout.  Why do you think the NHL agreed to that, posthaste?  Because they are selfless, altruistic, noble guardians of the good and right?  Or because their lawyers told them, "Get this fixed or else"?

This still doesn't explain what law or which part of his contract has been violated. Montreal is under no obligation to give Gomez anything other than what is owed to him.

I don't see how anything Montreal has done is in bad faith. Gomez got every penny from Montreal that his contract says hes worth, and he did very little for them. I'm sure when that contract was signed there was a reasonable expectation that Gomez would perform to a certain level, which he hasn't. Now Montreal wants to rid themselves of a problem contract. They can't trade him. All they can do is buy him out, and if he gets hurt they can't even do that.

So Montreal has this giant boat anchor weighing down their team, and you think THEY are the ones who are being unfair?

If Gomez wants to play he can ask to be released from his contract and forfeit his remaining earnings. Otherwise, if I'm Montreal, I'm going to do what is best for my team.

Honestly, if the players have this same attitude, I can't say I blame the league for locking them out twice.

Sure they are.  Like any employer, they have to follow labor law.  In the context of the CBA, they can't make decisions that unilaterally deny a player the right to pursue his profession and, in this case, become a free agent.  That's why the NHL moved pronto to fix this.

Has Gomez been bought out yet?

 

[bustaheims]

Oh. I always assumed that there was some sort of clause for a mutual parting of ways.

There is, but, it's sort of complicated and I'm not sure if it applies to all contracts (it might just be for two way contracts or have something to do with NHL games played or something) and is reserved for players heading to Europe (I'm 99.9% sure of this part, but I could be wrong - at the very least, I've only seen it used for AHL type depth players heading to Europe).

 

[Kin]

Right. But where in the contract does it say that the team doesn't have the right to decide if he plays or not?

I think that where they'd get into trouble is that this isn't something where they could credibly claim that the reason he's not playing is because of a lack of ability but rather because changes to the CBA changed the nature of his contract and the risk inherent in letting him play. I don't necessarily know that they'd lose a grievance there but, as I was saying yesterday, because this situation arose out of the peculiar way the buy-outs were detailed and there's no practical downside to changing things, I understand why they'd agree to the changes they have.

 

[TML fan]

Right. But where in the contract does it say that the team doesn't have the right to decide if he plays or not?

I think that where they'd get into trouble is that this isn't something where they could credibly claim that the reason he's not playing is because of a lack of ability but rather because changes to the CBA changed the nature of his contract and the risk inherent in letting him play. I don't necessarily know that they'd lose a grievance there but, as I was saying yesterday, because this situation arose out of the peculiar way the buy-outs were detailed and there's no practical downside to changing things, I understand why they'd agree to the changes they have.

Possibly. They could claim that the reason they are buying him out in the first place is because of how dramatically he declined, and the changes to the CBA are coincidental.

 

[Kin]

Possibly. They could claim that the reason they are buying him out in the first place is because of how dramatically he declined, and the changes to the CBA are coincidental.

Alright, but if you're in their shoes would you rather fight that grievance or agree to a change in the buy-out that has no downside to your club, maybe pre-empts a messy dressing room situation and lets you avoid the whole thing altogether?

 

[TML fan]

Possibly. They could claim that the reason they are buying him out in the first place is because of how dramatically he declined, and the changes to the CBA are coincidental.

Alright, but if you're in their shoes would you rather fight that grievance or agree to a change in the buy-out that has no downside to your club, maybe pre-empts a messy dressing room situation and lets you avoid the whole thing altogether?

I don't know. Probably the second option. I guess we will find out by the end of the week.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Oh. I always assumed that there was some sort of clause for a mutual parting of ways.

There is, but, it's sort of complicated and I'm not sure if it applies to all contracts (it might just be for two way contracts or have something to do with NHL games played or something) and is reserved for players heading to Europe (I'm 99.9% sure of this part, but I could be wrong - at the very least, I've only seen it used for AHL type depth players heading to Europe).

John LeClair and Brendan Shanahan had their contracts terminated seemingly just by not reporting to their teams' AHL affiliate after being waived. The details behind both of those situations were a little sketchy, but it did happen with no cap consequences.

 

[bustaheims]

John LeClair and Brendan Shanahan had their contracts terminated seemingly just by not reporting to their teams' AHL affiliate after being waived. The details behind both of those situations were a little sketchy, but it did happen with no cap consequences.

Yeah. I'm not 100% sure on the how the $125 buyout/mutual termination thing works, but, I know there are a number of restrictions in how/when it can be. It may be less about the player going to Europe and more about them not playing in the NHL in that league year/season.

 

[Kin]

Looks like Redden/Gomez will get the early buy-outs:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=650653&navid=nhl:topheads

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: Wade Redden and Scott Gomez clear unconditional waivers. Can now be bought out.

 

[ZBBM]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413753

TSN's legal analyst also thinks that Gomez and Redden had legal grounds to challenge being sent home.  I felt it could be done through a lawsuit; he thinks through a grievance.  Either way, the NHL knew it had a legal problem on its hands, and moved quickly to fix it.

 

[cw]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413753

TSN's legal analyst also thinks that Gomez and Redden had legal grounds to challenge being sent home.  I felt it could be done through a lawsuit; he thinks through a grievance.  Either way, the NHL knew it had a legal problem on its hands, and moved quickly to fix it.

If there is a dispute resolution mechanism in the CBA, which there is in the NHL CBA, the court could toss the lawsuit if that wasn't attempted. A grievance was the obvious first legal step if that step was to be taken.

I think some of the things said could have been more problematic than what they were trying to do. They could have let them try out and simply not played them risking injury during the tryout. And then they'd have a pretty tough case.

Having said that, I think Redden in particular has suffered more than enough. To penalize him another year seemed flat out wrong if he's able to perform at a NHL level.

 

[Britishbulldog]

So did the amendment for Gomez and Redden end on the opening day of the season (Jan 19th)?  It must have for Komisarek not being bought out.

 

[bustaheims]

So did the amendment for Gomez and Redden end on the opening day of the season (Jan 19th)?  It must have for Komisarek not being bought out.

They had to be completed a few days before that, so, yes, that window is closed. Next buyout window opens after the draft (or somewhere around then).

 

[L K]

Gomez and Redden combine for 18GP 2G 2A -10 with San Jose and St. Louis respectively.