You’ll Never Wait So Long

The somewhat interesting news in the hockey world yesterday came when the Calgary Flames extended Mark Giordano to a 6-year, $40.5 million extension. The deal will kick in when Giordano turns 32 and will carry him into 2022 when he is 38 years old. Along with that will be a $6.75 million cap hit, which in years 37 and 38 will probably be (Borat voice) NOT good.

So what does that mean?

For one, it negates any kind of P.K. Subban-type contract which Giordano was rumored to be chasing. The second is that it may hopefully set some kind of baseline for Brent Seabrook’s next deal. While Seabrook is also rumored to be chasing a contract of Subban proportions, the Giordano one probably slots in much more favorably.

Both guys are at the same age/contract range; Giordano’s advanced metrics are better than Seabrook’s while Seabrook edges Giordano in the traditional stat line; albeit with more than 200 games played. Seabrook, though, has the playoff pedigree.

As we’re all too familiar, though, this is all meaningless if a player and agent decide they’re worth something and the team disagrees.

On the other hand, I quickly remembered that worrying about cap hits, term lengths and whatever else are a wasted practice right now until the Hawks and the league know what’s going to happen with the little shithead.

Are the Hawks going to be stuck with his cap hit, a la Slava Voynov, while he’s in court? Could be.

Will the Hawks find some sort of loophole to get out of the cap hit while he’s not allowed to play? I suppose it’s not impossible.

What is known is that the Hawks currently sit in organizational purgatory and will remain so for the foreseeable future, thanks to him. And that’s, without question, the least offensive result of this ongoing investigation.

–These started showing up around town yesterday:

Naturally, none of the pictures featured on the Hawks Twitter account showed the little shithead on a train car. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. A quick search of the hashtag revealed trains that featured Hossa, Keith, Toews and Seabrook. I highly doubt there will be any Kane cars out there and it’s interesting how little was being made about this locally and nationally. Especially considering the Hawks threw it out there and didn’t really say if they had to pull his cars out of service one way or the other.

The London Knights felt compelled to issue a statement to announce they were re-arranging the name of one of their training camp squads and that perked everyone up for a second.

I love the lede on this story too. “First EA Sports, now the London Knights.”

Yup, first losing an endorsement from a globally recognized corporation that literally takes money out of his pocket and removes his face from a cover that will be seen by millions. And now, a junior hockey team he played on 10 years ago for minimum wage isn’t using his name on a training camp roster. The shame.

(But really, does something like that really warrant an official announcement from the Knights? They could’ve made that change the day of training camp with nary a peep and maybe 5 people would’ve noticed.)

–As I’m sure you all are desperately waiting to hear, I do have “Fear the Walking Dead” thoughts and I will put those together in a longer prose on Friday. See you all then.

  • Leightons5hole

    if the kings could void Richards’ contract, could the hawks do the same the little shithead?

    • FifthFeather

      I suppose they could. But that appears to be the nuclear option.

      • Kissmyanthia

        i would assume the only way that would go through is if Kane is convicted. I don’t think the NHLPA would allow them to do that if he is not.

        Keep in mind, the Mike Richards thing is being contested by the NHLPA right now because he was never convicted of anything. He still might end up being Kings property.

        • This is in the standard player contract found in the CBA:

          2. (e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.

          So that’s the standard language, as I stated above I would assume, due to prior incidents, Kane’s contract would have stronger language.

          That being said, I do believe the NHLPA would fight it just like Richards just because it sets precedence.

          • FifthFeather

            It should also be noted that the Kings voided Richards contract because he is terrible at hockey.

          • Agreed. Ultimately, I think they get stuck with the contract, unless there’s a long history of issues that they’ve been documenting.

          • Sopel the catfish

            Any chance they’ll use his play on the ice as points towards “Conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club”? There is a nice history of that documented.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            That is correct, if the Kings actually gave any fucks about “morality” they’d have voided Voynov’s contract long before they were even talking about Mike Richards

          • I think this is going to be at the crux of the NHLPA’s case against the Kings. You have a player that served time and a player that isn’t even charged (as of this moment at least) and you cut the player not charged.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            There’s so much going against the Kings. No charges filed against Richards, and in all likelihood no charges coming. No action against other players that were actually charged with crimes last season (not just Voynov, whose crime is much more serious than what Richards may have done, but also Stoll who was charged with possession of coke and I think ecstasy in Vegas). And the cherry on top is that the incident likely points to a substance abuse issue and the substances in question are painkillers, which likely puts some of the culpability back on the Kings and the NHL (particularly in the post-Derek Boogaard world). I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see any way that the Kings could possibly come out on top in this scenario without there being considerably more damning information about Mike Richards that is not publicly available.

        • SnakePlissken

          As far as I know, Richards has not even been charged.

    • Functionally speaking there is language in the standard player contract that would allow for termination. That is just the standard contract, with Kane’s prior incidents one would assume there would be stronger language in there.

      Similar to the Richards’ case you would imagine that the NHLPA would file a grievance, not because they approve/disapprove of Kane’s behavior, but because of precedence, etc. Also, similarly I believe the Hawks would be responsible for the cap recapture penalty. However, since this is the absolute first year of the contract it’s also the cheapest in terms of the penalty (at least according to

      My guess is that Kane won’t be with the team until this gets resolved one way or the other.

      If charges ultimately are filed I’d expect Kane to get suspended by the NHL, much like Voynov and ultimately would expect cap relief, this time much faster than the Voynov situation. Then it would be treated like LTIR. Which is tricky because you have to at least account for the possibility that Kane comes back and you’d have to be able to slot him back into the payroll and be under the cap.

      If no charges are filed I have no clue what you do here. Its hard to imagine the Hawks not doing anything. But what you do, in this case, is a really hard thing to figure out. This is the scenario where the Blackhawks front office would be put to the test in terms of image consciousness and the value of winning on the ice.

      • MySpoonIsTooBig

        You’re wrong on a couple of key points. First and foremost, every single player in the NHL is signed to a standard player contract. Directly copied from section 11.1 paragraph (a) of the CBA:

        Standard Player’s Contract. The standard form SPC annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 will be the sole form of employment contract used for all Player signings after the execution of this Agreement. The standard form SPC may not be amended or modified in any manner whatsoever.

        So no, there are no additional clauses or stronger language attached to Kane’s contract. Possibly if charges are filed, and certainly if he’s convicted or pleads guilty, the ‘Hawks could use the language in the CBA that you refer to below to void his contract if they so choose, but that’s only because that language exists in every single SPC

        Secondly, I don’t think you fully understand how cap recapture penalties work as it’s not applicable here. The cap recapture rule included in the 2013 CBA was created to punish teams who signed aging players to front-loaded long-term contracts with massive salary drop-off’s at the tail end that were intended to bring down the overall cap hit with an unofficial agreement that the player would likely retire several years before the contract expired (i.e. after he’d earned the vast majority of the total money on the deal). For a handful of reasons, it is only applicable to contracts signed under the prior CBA as the 2013 CBA includes rules that cap both contract length and year-to-year salary variability thereby making it impossible to sign the sort of deal that the cap recapture penalty was designed to retroactively punish. On top of that, the cap recapture penalty punishes teams for salary cap savings they have enjoyed while the player has been playing with them and earning a salary that is greater than his cap hit, even if his contract might have been subject to cap recapture because Patrick Kane’s current contract was not going to go into effect until this season the ‘Hawks have currently enjoyed exactly $0 in cap savings and thus would not have been on the hook for any cap recapture penalty.

        However, as we’ve learned from the Mike Richards saga currently playing out in LA, if the ‘Hawks were to terminate Kane’s contract on the grounds that he violated the morality clause it appears that they’d still be on the hook to both pay him and carry his cap hit as if they were using a regular buyout to terminate his contract. That means that Kane would receive 2/3 of the total money he’s due ($56M of $84M) over twice the length of time (16 years instead of 8) and the ‘Hawks would carry some sort of cap hit ranging from as low as $1.6M to as high as $10M for the next 16 years which is not exactly an ideal situation (see: One would hope that, were it to come to that and Patrick Kane was never going to be playing professional hockey again, the league would provide some sort of cap relief to the ‘Hawks but right now it’s impossible to read the tea leaves one way or the other.

        • Good catch, I modified my original comments to reflect the changes. Curious why the online tools even offer the cap recapture tool for any contract after 2013

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            It’s possible that I’m wrong about cap recapture not applying to contracts signed under the new CBA, I’ve had difficulty finding the language in the CBA that makes it clear one way or the other. However even if contracts signed under the new CBA can be subject to cap recapture it would have incredibly minimal effect due to the language capping contract lengths and year-to-year salary variability, the type of back-diving contracts that the cap recapture penalty was designed to retroactively punish (think Luongo, Hossa, Kovy, M. Richards, etc.) are no longer possible. And even if Kane’s contract could be subject to a cap recapture penalty it would not matter in this specific instance because his contract begins this season and thus the ‘Hawks could not have enjoyed any sort of cap savings yet. That said it would still be incredibly painful for the ‘Hawks salary-cap wise if, instead of any sort of cap recapture penalty, they voided Kane’s contract but had to treat it like a regular buyout.

          • No I think you are right because, I believe, the CBA made it such that the contracts could vary a certain amount year to year and over the life of the contract.

            So you couldn’t have a contract that went from 8 mil in year 1 to 1mil in year 2.None of the terrible backloaded contracts would be valid under the CBA.

            The other interesting point is would they be subject to buyout if termination was with cause, as Richards was. He was subject to the recapture because his contract was 2013.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            You’re correct about the language in the CBA limiting salary variability, that’s what I was getting at – because salary variability is limited in addition the cap on length, the kind of back-diving contracts that cap recapture was designed to punish cannot be registered in the first place under this CBA.

            I admit that I haven’t played incredibly close attention to the Mike Richards saga, partially because it doesn’t (or didn’t appear to at least) affect the ‘Hawks at all but mostly because there is virtually no chance whatsoever that the Kings are going to actually win this battle. The one thing that did stick with me was the assertion that, in using the morality clause to terminate his contract, the Kings would still be on the hook to pay Richards and carry a cap hit as if they’d terminated his contract via regular buyout. However, now that you’ve got me thinking more about it, I’m honestly not sure whether that’s par for the course for using the morality clause to terminate a contract (in which case it would apply to potentially terminating Kane’s contract) or if it is related to the fact that the contract was signed under the prior CBA and would have been subject to cap recapture were Richards to retire before the contract ends (which would make in not applicable here).

          • The_Cheeb

            Great conversation, Derek and Spoon. The Mike Richards case is important because it involves ownership avoiding both a monetary and salary cap responsibility. I think it’s important to figure out what the NHLPA “wants” to happen in the Richards case.

            1) Get money for Richards.
            That’s what they do: fight for money for their members, and fight to keep owners from ignoring the CBA. The contract buyout money, which they have no means to fight, would be 14.6mil I believe. They will try to get him that, or as close to it as possible.

            2) Get money for other NHLPA members.
            AHA! If they have a collective brain, the NHLPA doesn’t really want the Kings to suffer any cap penalty. It would mean less overall money for other players for multiple years down the road.

            So don’t be surprised if a settlement is reached in the Richards case, that gets him money while allowing the Kings no cap hit, or a lesser cap hit than what a straight contract buyout would have cost them.

            This is pure speculation, but that case is interesting to follow for it’s precedent setting potential.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I’m not certain that I agree with you as to what the NHLPA wants to happen in the Richards case. There’s considerably more on the line than getting money for Mike Richards or anyone else. What’s on the line is precedent, there’s simply no way that the NHLPA can allow a team to use the morality clause to terminate a contract for such nebulous reasons. Mike Richards has not been charged with a crime and likely won’t be, the precedent that could be set by allowing a team to terminate his contract via the morality clause could have a massive and terrible ripple effect.

            Additionally, it actually hurts the money available for the rest of the NHLPA if they were to come to some sort of settlement that allows the Kings to pay Richards and terminate his contract without any cap penalty. The money that the Kings would pay to Richards in your settlement idea would almost certainly come from the 50% of total HRR that belongs to the PA. To give the Kings cap relief while paying Richards out of the players’ share would give the Kings more cap space to add contracts, which would push the NHL’s total salary commitments higher, which would substantially increase the likelihood of players not getting their full escrow withholdings back.

            I’d be incredibly surprised by any sort of settlement. For a number of reasons the Kings have absolutely no case, and Donald Fehr is more than smart enough to know it.

          • The_Cheeb

            “Mike Richards has not been charged with a crime and likely won’t be”…..

            He just got charged……


            It’s a personal use allegation, not as bad as an “intent to distribute” quantity, but still…..

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I literally read a barrage of tweets about his being charged like 10 minutes after posting lol

          • The_Cheeb

            Hey Spoon, your post timing was funny, I couldn’t resist. Regarding your precedent argument, I did say that in my post, mentioning how the NHLPA cannot let the owners ignore the CBA. With today’s criminal charge, the NHL just increased their bargaining strength. Regarding my money/cap settlement theory: I admit no legal knowledge. However, if the Kings and the NHLPA agree to a legal monetary settlement, isn’t there a possibility the money does not get subtracted from future HRR pool? Because then it’s a court case, perhaps outside the scope of the CBA?

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I disagree completely that today’s news about criminal charges in any way strengthen’s the NHL’s bargaining position, he’s being charged with a single count of possession of a controlled substance (which law enforcement specifically noted was an amount consistent with personal use, not distribution). First of all, the PA and the league had information that we are not privy to and thus had to know that charges were coming, so this really changes nothing for them. Second, and more importantly, nothing exists in a vacuum – the Kings are going to have to argue that somehow a small-time drug possession charge is a strong enough violation of the SPC’s morality clause to terminate his contract while Slava Voynov’s conviction on considerably more serious domestic violence charges was not. That alone is a hole in the Kings argument big enough to drive a semi through.

            There is no incentive whatsoever for the PA to agree to any sort of settlement. Even if Richards wants one there’s no incentive for the PA, it’s in their best interest to not allow any precedent to be set of a contract being terminated for any reason not specifically laid out in the CBA. As for your suggestion of a settlement where the cash doesn’t come from the HRR pool, that simply won’t fly. Not only is that outside the bounds of the CBA (and a judge’s ruling cannot go against the CBA unless it’s ruled that the CBA, or a clause within it, is not actually legally enforceable), but then that sets a precedent that the owners of the other NHL teams won’t be happy with – it would allow for cash-rich clubs to find nebulous reasons to terminate contracts of under-performing players and pay them off so as to lessen their cap burden. That creates an unfair advantage for the richer clubs like the ‘Hawks, Habs, Leafs, Rangers etc. to find ways to rid themselves of bad contracts that are not available to the smaller clubs. It’d be like bringing back the ability to bury a contract in the AHL or Europe, and there are any number of reasons why that recourse was specifically written out of the current CBA.

            What it boils down to is that the lawyers on either side are aware that any sort of settlement could set a precedent that is against the interests of their employers, so a settlement is incredibly unlikely. That will leave it in the hands of the arbitrator or judge, and as I said previously barring the possibility of considerably more damning information that has not been made publicly, there is virtually no chance that the Kings can win this case on its merits.

          • The_Cheeb

            Great stuff, Spoon. I do think your earlier argument of “no charges against Richards, and none likely to happen”, plus teams using “nebulous reasons to terminate contracts” is weakened by today’s criminal charge. A criminal drug possession charge involving a border crossing is not at all a “nebulous reason”, or solely morality based. CBA/SPC language exists specifically to punish players if they misbehave. The Kings will argue that they interpret a border crossing arrest and criminal charge as a punishable offense. You seem sure that an arbitrator or Judge will agree that this level of criminal conduct should result in zero financial repercussions for Richards. I am not so sure. The Kings have lawyers too. If the NHLPA rebuffs all attempts to kill the Richards contract, couldn’t they threaten a long suspension without pay? There’s precedent for that, via Voynov. I sure would not be shocked if the Kings lose this. (And I selfishly hope the Kings get the worst cap penalty possible). I’m just not so sure that the Kings cannot maneuver this battle into a position where they can force a compromise.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            Thanks for the conversation Cheeb, though I’m pretty sure we’re still in disagreement. Had there been no charges then yes, the reasons that the Kings are trying to use to terminate Richards’ contract would be even more nebulous, however considering the number of players not just in the NHL but specifically within the Kings organization who have been arrested on far more serious charges the reasons are still quite nebulous. There is no specific language in the CBA / SPC that allows for a contract to be terminated for being arrested or charged with a crime. There is a so-called “morality clause”, but it’s incredibly vague and does not exactly specify what constitutes “conduct detrimental to the best interests of the club”. The SPC does state that the club may terminate the SPC if the player were to “fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club’s rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC” but it will be pretty much impossible to convince a judge that a single possession arrest constitutes a material breach when both other such arrests (Jarret Stoll for coke and ecstasy in Vegas) and arrests for considerably more serious offenses (Voynov for spousal abuse) did not. And those are just arrests of Kings players, there have been plenty of other players around the league that have faced charges for a wide array of crimes including domestic violence, assault, drug possession, drunk driving, and illegal gambling and none of those charges were considered material breaches of contract.

            The Kings and/or the league are I’m certain well within their rights to punish Mike Richard with a severe suspension. However there is nothing in the CBA that in any way indicates that the Kings have the right to terminate his contract, and it’s incredibly unlikely that a judge is going to rule otherwise

          • The_Cheeb

            So nice to maintain an adult conversation on a sports comment page. :^)

            I can see the NHLPA scoring a knockout win here. I cannot see the Kings scoring a knockout win. I just think it’s quite possible that they can use this…..

            “The Kings and/or the league are I’m certain well within their rights to punish Mike Richard with a severe suspension.”

            … force a settlement that, while not voiding the contract, gets them something better than what they would suffer from a straight buyout.

            But I hope you are completely right, and the NHLPA crushes the Kings!

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            A civil adult conversation is certainly a (welcome) rarity on comment boards :-).

            I honestly just don’t think that the forthcoming suspension could possibly be severe enough to push the PA towards some sort of settlement. Even if the league tries to come down with something nuts like a full-season suspension (which Richards would be able to appeal to a neutral arbitrator and would likely get reduced considerably because there is no precedent for such a sever suspension for this sort of offense) it would simply not be in the PA’s best interest to accept any sort of settlement. At that point it’s not just about Mike Richards and what he wants, it’s about the rest of the PA and the sort of precedent that could be set any sort of settlement or decision that is not a knockout win for the PA.

            The only kind of “settlement” that I can see working for all sides (unfortunately except for our side that wants the Kings to get crushed) would be something along the lines of not letting the Kings terminate the contract but allowing to put him on LTIR while he enters some sort of substance abuse rehab program. They wouldn’t be able to get rid of his contract, but they would be able to get some cap relief while he was receiving the treatment that he needs. The upshot for the Kings would be that if Richards were to be arrested on drug charges for a 2nd time or otherwise relapse the Kings would likely have an easier time terminating his contract for a material breach for violating the “fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club’s rules governing training and conduct of Players” as the Kings would have already made an effort to help him clean up his act.

  • Preacher

    On the “limbo” of the Hawks’ future, do we trust Jaeckel’s rumors? (I can’t keep track of who’s reliable and who isn’t!) His latest comments included lots of trade speculation about Bickel but also a comment that Kane has probably been seen in the Hawks’ sweater for the last time, no matter the outcome of the investigation. Even if he isn’t charged, the brass won’t take the image hits from him anymore.

    Your thoughts?

    • FifthFeather

      Don’t pollute your mind with that.

    • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

      JJ knows less than Jon Snow.

      That same article has the Hawks trading Crow.

  • Bobby Otter

    Something to consider with salaries moving forward… the dollar is crazy strong right now (or the Loonie has tanked, take your pick). That lowers league wide revenue, that keeps the cap from increasing. (Does anyone know if the cap can go down?)

    Guys looking at deals signed two years ago, heck even a year ago, are kidding themselves right now. These deals signed a year or two ago are going to suppress the salaries of guys looking for extensions this year, and if this continues, next too.

    There’s always gonna be money for the superstars, but I could see even the Seabrooks of the world getting squeezed by this if there isn’t a Loonie rebound.

    • Sarcastic Mike

      And the bad news for the Hawks and other capped out teams is that the Loonie is not rebounding anytime soon.
      It’s already down another 10% or so from where it was when they set this year’s cap, an el-nino induced warm winter and additional global pressures on the oil market are going to really put even more pressure on the Loonie. If they’re lucky it might hold ground. If the super duper extra lucky the Loonie will bounce back to the low level it was at when the cap was set.
      Basically, if anyone offers to take Bickell’s salary for a bucket of pucks and a used mouthguard, Stan should take the deal and not even worry if the pucks show up.

  • HossasPierogi

    What are the Blackhawks gonna do on banner raising night? Show highlights of last year’s playoffs without showing Kane? I think the organ-i-zation’s avoidance of this issue is becoming ridiculous.

    • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

      Well, he was largely invisible in the SCF.

      • HossasPierogi

        Not in the last few games and definitely not in the clincher

        • The_Cheeb

          Kane was invisible only on the score sheet.
          Kane’s unappreciated value on the SCF was spending all his ice time against Victor Hedman. Bitch all you want about how Hedman was getting licked by the media during the SCF, he was awesome. That goofy Sharp goal was the goalie’s fault. Kane required such a constant effort for TB/Hedman to suppress, he allowed Q to do what he wanted against those inferior 2nd/3rd pairings. Kane had huge hockey strategy value in the SCF.

  • brettraz

    If no charges have been filed can the Hawks really indefinitely suspend Kane? On what grounds? Also, I understand that many writers on this site passionately feel that in the vast majority of cases, the alleged victim in sexual assault/rape incidents have a biased legal and public opinion barrage to overcome, and that this is appalling. We get it, ad nauseum. I think most of us would agree that the percentages of actual crimes versus actual convictions is extremely skewed. But Kane hasn’t even been charged, can we hold off on the “Little Shithead” until we learn a little more? Do we really need to make this the test case for everyone to stand on their soapbox. If you want to start a dialogue about sexual abuse and rape in general that is one thing, but I think centering so much of that furor on the Kane case is very premature and is pretty irresponsible at this juncture.

    • The_Cheeb

      “If no charges have been filed can the Hawks really indefinitely suspend Kane?” Yes.
      “On what grounds?” You can search for the pertinent CBA/SPC language, it’s fairly powerful. The closest, most recent case is the Kings’ Voynov. He was arrested (yes, I know Kane was not), but Voynov was not immediately charged with a crime. He was suspended indefinitely, then was charged with a crime about 2 months after being suspended.

      Depending on what shakes out, Kane and the NHLPA could have a perfect case to recoup every cent of pay from games he might miss. But I cannot find any evidence that shows he can refuse to be suspended. The Hawks would love for a resolution very quickly so decisions can be made before the season. But from all I’ve tried to absorb online, if nothing more happens before October 7th, my personal best guess is he WILL be suspended.

      Also, the TCI staff, or me, or you, can consider Kane or anyone else a “shithead” any time we want. Just like we can call someone on another sports team a piece of garbage, or heck, even our neighbor or relative. Kane has no special halo of protection just because he was huge in helping a hockey team win 3 championships. FWIW, I decided Kane was a reckless, irresponsible, drunken, protected, enabled shithead WAY BEFORE this summer. It’s no different to my opinion that Corey Perry is a dirty, chickenshit, cowardly, choker.
      Nobody needs allegations, criminal charges, or convictions to do that. It’s called an opinion.

      • brettraz

        Thanks for the Voynov comparison. Sheds some light.

        And my point wasn’t to tell you or the writers what you are allowed to say. I was just expressing how it comes off to me. You can say whatever you want, and readers can react how they want. You can be open to reader’s differing opinions or leave them, that’s what the comments section is for. I guess I hope that the website hasn’t come to a place where it outlaws or degrades any opinion on this subject that doesn’t mirror their own. Much of the time I find the derogatory nick names on the website and Indian to be humorous. On the “little shithead front”, I didn’t see a lot of wit or humor behind it, and took it to be a little too presumptive and close-minded based on the info so far.

        • The_Cheeb

          Hello again Brettraz. Thanks for your reply. Based on my reading so far, I feel that the TCI blog/staff only resorts to venom and name calling in very pointed, passionate circumstances. This is one of them. The “shithead” comment is only too presumptive/close-minded if you base it solely on this summer’s drama. There is plenty of long range background on the exploits of Patrick Kane to develop a reasonable, open minded, thoughtful, and very negative opinion of his personal character. I try to always keep in mind that sometimes the TCI staff writes hardcore professional reporter type pieces, and other times off-the-cuff opinion/editorial. Sometimes they mix it into one article. They also seem open to differing opinions, as long as the comments section maintains a level of adult discourse.

  • twothousandone

    “Are the Hawks going to be stuck with his cap hit, a la Slava Voynov, while he’s in court? ”

    I thought the deal was if he is suspended by the league, his cap hit is treated like long term IR. I know the Voynov policy was set AFTER he was suspended (he was suspended when he was arrested, the deal came just after he was charged), but I thought it was likely to apply.
    Do you mean the downside is CHICAGO suspends Kane, even if he isn’t charged, and thus takes the hit? Or did something with Voynov change when I stopped paying attention?

  • twothousandone

    And, on the topic of defensmen, Giordano’s deal suggests a $1 million raise for Seabrook. With Versteeg’s $2.2 million rolling off, they have that. If the rest of Versteeg’s money goes to Shaw, it can work because there’s no one who looks to be in major need of a raise. The following year Daley’s $3.3 million and Bickell’s $4 million roll off, freeing money for Teravainen, Dano, Panarin, Garbutt, Runbald, etc.

    Of course, they have to do something NOW, probably with Versteeg’s money, to re-sign Kruger. Pay $2 million of Bickell’s salary for the next two years if someone will pay the other $2 million. Give them Hartman, McNeil or Baun if that makes it work.

  • Jim

    Wouldn’t mind that 10.5 Cap hit being applied to Stamkos (in a Hawks jersey)

  • Jim

    IMO, Kane is done as an endorsement guy. Whether he’s guilty or not, endorsements are all about perception. Wonder if the local Chevy dealers drop him?

    • Black JEM

      I agree.

      Then he and his legal advisers will consider libel charges against all the media who piled on – just like what RS is now facing. If there is nothing here, and so far there is still nothing here, unlilke Voynov still no arrest and none coming yet, how do you justify all the electrons already “printed”?

      I am assuming that strict opinion pieces will garner some protection, like this site. But the big guys will potentially find themselves in court justifying their reporting and it will all be there to be reviewed. In the world of Twitter and instant media, it will be interesting to see how the application of libel is construed. He certainly can point to significant income being lost, assuming the accusations prove false.

      Of course whether he is guilty or not, and I have zero idea except that it is getting very long (and the D Rose news shows how long these things can drag on even after the police/DA find no case), given his high profile it was stupid to put himself in this position in the first place. Don’t athletes understand the environment out there? Hell, there are apps to document consent now. Crazy!

      He – regardless of the outcome – was just stupid.

      • Jim

        Ever see the movie “Wag the Dog”? Robert DiNero plays the fixer. And he keeps saying during the movie, if it shows up on TV, then it’s real. So they make up stuff, and put it on TV. Kane is getting this. I keep waiting for Kane’s public statements of outrage that such outlandish charges are being waged against him….and his vehement denial that anything like this even remotely happened….and that he will fight for his reputation….but I keep getting crickets….

        Everybody has a right to go out and get drunk, not making a moral judgement. But you become a version of yourself about 100 IQ points lower, and you then live with the consequences. Whether it’s the 2am brawl, the 3am shooting, the 4 am, well you know. Not saying what happened, I wasn’t there, but something happened.

  • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

    So what does that mean?

    It means Stan got the deal of the century with #2’s contract.
    3 Cups, 2 Norris, 1 Conn Smythe… and counting….

  • Get some balls

    This is why the Media Sucks. Fry the guy before he is even charged, when all sources say that there will be no charges. Lib-tards at their best.