Western Conference Final: Colorado Avalanche vs Edmonton Oilers

[rataylor22]

The obvious caveat is that most employees aren’t assets and do not have an intrinsic market value. Theoretically the Sharks could trade Kane to recoup value, especially after this past season.

[saucelife90]

The obvious caveat is that most employees aren’t assets and do not have an intrinsic market value. Theoretically the Sharks could trade Kane to recoup value, especially after this past season.

The big gamble would be getting him to move the NTC which I would assume goes back into effect?

[rataylor22]

No idea. Like I said, less than 1% chance a judge/arbiter would rule that way. It would just be the only reason they might rule this way in this case. Like even if they have to eat $2M and only get a 4th from Edmonton, that is slightly better/more control than letting the market decide the offset or whatever.

[rataylor22]

Nothing in stone yet.

If Kane wins his grievance, after this season, the Sharks will owe him $19 million of actual cash over the next three seasons, $7 million AAV against the cap. But the impending free-agent Kane won’t get to double-dip. Say the Oilers re-sign him to a three-year, $15 million deal ($5 million AAV) this summer – that would reduce what the Sharks owe Kane in real money, and turn a $7 million cap hit into a $2 million hit.
So in theory, the better that Kane plays, the more relief that the Sharks could receive, in cash, and perhaps most importantly, on the cap. The cap-strapped Sharks will need all the help that they can get to improve the team this offseason.
However, this situation is fluid. Remember, this is an unprecedented situation, and there’s still another hearing date.
The same source offered another possibility: If Kane wins his grievance, his rights and contract would revert entirely back to the Sharks.
Yes, Kane could be a Shark again this summer.

1) If this is actually legit and sourced, you should have shared the source.

2) I wonder what the actual restrictions to this are. Like theoretically if you're getting $7M either way, why wouldn't you sign in Edmonton for league min x 3 years. Helps you current team contend, hurts the team you hate the most, still get all of your money. But like for coaches who have offsets, the NHL has a rule against that. So wonder what the restriction would be here.

[kovalchuk17]

The obvious caveat is that most employees aren’t assets and do not have an intrinsic market value. Theoretically the Sharks could trade Kane to recoup value, especially after this past season.

this is a good point. i had a lengthier post in mind but decided against it since the range of outcomes is so large. the arbiter will have their hands full with multiple layers to this: breach of contract + player compensation + salary cap circumvention + player rights

[Invictus]

It was an article by Sheng Peng. (Who I believe guests on Keeping Karlsson episodes, when they do their preseason 32 Beats team dives, to cover San Jose)

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/sh...be-good-sharks

[rataylor22]

Yea, Sheng is great, I'm sure he has accurate info. Just good to see the base article too.

[tweetdrivr]

If an Arbiter were to use the “oh well now Kane has value again” logic it would open up every trade, free agent decision, and draft pick ever to that “oh well now player x has more value and I want to revisit my decision/return”. The Sharks chose to terminate his contract. What Kane has done since simply cannot be factored in and there is no way he is returned to their roster. This is about the $$ they pay Kane and what that means for their cap.

[rataylor22]

This is incorrect.

If an Arbiter were to use the “oh well now Kane has value again” logic it would open up every trade, free agent decision, and draft pick ever to that “oh well now player x has more value and I want to revisit my decision/return”. The Sharks chose to terminate his contract. What Kane has done since simply cannot be factored in and there is no way he is returned to their roster. This is about the $$ they pay Kane and what that means for their cap.

In your own words.

It's not factoring in what Kane has done. San Jose chose to terminate the contract on the grounds (with assurance from the NHL) that they had just cause to do so and remove all obligation from their balance sheet. Remove that information and they may have chosen a different avenue (buyout, trade, etc.). An arbiter ruling the San Jose is obligated to pay the full contract (and cap) value is also inherently ruling the the NHL supplied San Jose with incorrect information. The arbiter than has jurisdiction to rule (even if there is slim chance they actually do) that San Jose has the option to fully restore the terms of the contract. I know you don't want this to be a potential option, but just because you don't want it to be a potential option doesn't mean it isn't one. Again, it is a very very unlikely, <1% option. It is, however, an option on the table.

Also, when the arbiter doesn't rule this way, it's not a "gotcha" moment, it just is the arbiter not choosing an option they were always very very unlikely to choose.

The same source offered another possibility: If Kane wins his grievance, his rights and contract would revert entirely back to the Sharks.

Yes, Kane could be a Shark again this summer.

Elliotte Friedman suggested as much in an appearance with “Donnie and Dhali” last month when he said, “I don’t know. It’s not impossible that’s the outcome.”

In that case, the Sharks could try to deal Kane and the rest of his contract. But if the Sharks fail to trade Kane this summer -- remember that he has a three-team trade clause, meaning there are three organizations of his choice that he can be dealt to -- they might be forced to buy him out.

This would allow Kane to be a UFA and would be a situation where he could “double dip” -- the Sharks, in a buyout, would owe him a significant chunk of the remainder of his original contract, and he could make more money on top of that on the open market, be it in Edmonton or elsewhere.

It’s possible, in this scenario, for the Sharks to simply keep Kane, but there appears to be too much water under the bridge for that to happen.

“There are no definitive answers to [these scenarios],” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told San Jose Hockey Now in an e-mail today. “All will depend on how [the] case is presented to the arbitrator and how parties frame potential alternatives for relief.”

And look, TBH Bill Daly, the deputy commissioner of the NHL cannot definitively say it's not an option. So we really have no reason to take your absolutes over much more informed parties who cannot make the same assurances.

[rataylor22]

What I know for sure is that legal cases are very straightforward and predictable and everyone always knows the outcome before they start, and the entire process is just procedural. Speaking in absolutes, especially in very rare/one-off cases, is always the way to go.

[kovalchuk17]

if the worst case scenario happens (even at less than 1% chance), ekane has 3 years at 7m left on his deal. i can see san jose just retaining 3m per year so edmonton can take him at 3 years 4m per season. that seems pretty good. alternatively i could also see sharks trading ekane for 2 bad contracts like zack kassian and tyson barrie (7.5m total for 2 more years). theres solutions when two teams wanna tango.

the other 99%+ of outcomes likely leave ekane as a UFA with a possiiblity of compensation and cap charge for san jose. fun to speculate for sure