NHL, Bettman playing leverage game with Olympics


[Editor’s note:  We thought we had locked the door.  We’re not sure how this guy snuck in.  We have alerted security.]

So with hockey — and thus the NHL — riding an unprecedented wave of popularity after the most compelling two-week tournament in the history of the sport (that sounds like hyperbole but it’s actually the truth), the folks who are calling the shots in pro hockey realize that pulling the plug on the two-week plug-pulling once every four years would be a huge blunder, right?


Commissioner Gary Bettman, in an appearance on NHL Network, continued his recent committing to not committing by calling the matter a “complicated decision.”

“When you get seduced by the two weeks of Olympic competition . . . you can’t forget the fact that this has an impact on our season and it has an impact on how our clubs operate,” Bettman said.  “Lots of people are making a big deal of the fact that we haven’t said we’re going in 2014.  We haven’t said we’re not going.  There’s plenty of time.  We haven’t said yes.  We haven’t said no.  We have said we will decide in the appropriate timeframe with our players association and in discussions with the [IOC and IIHF]. We haven’t decided and that’s not inconsistent with anything we’ve done in the past.”

So what’s really going on?  It’s all business.

With the NHL and the NHL Players Association working on a new deal and the players uniformly intent on playing in Sochi when the Olympics reconvene, Bettman can point to the concerns in order to leverage a major concession or two (or more) from the union.  And as The Globe & Mail recently pointed out (via SportsBusiness Daily), Bettman’s coy ploy is aimed at getting better terms from the IOC and the IIHF.

Still, the NHL’s decision to throw hot water on the ice by not committing to a return could be keeping folks who otherwise would be ready to embrace the NHL from making a decision on the matter until the NHL makes a decision on the next Olympics.  By then, of course, the excitement will have died down dramatically — and hockey will have once again faded to B-level curiosity, a category in which it simply doesn’t belong.

Kings grab goalie insurance by signing Budaj

LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 22: Jhonas Enroth #1 and Peter Budaj #31 of the Los Angeles Kings stretch before a game against the Arizona Coyotes at STAPLES Center on September 22, 2015 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Andrew D. Bernstein/NHLI via Getty Images)
via Los Angeles Kings
Leave a comment

In slightly less interesting Los Angeles Kings news than the latest in the Mike Richards fiasco, the team handed Peter Budaj a one-year, two-way deal on Friday.

The veteran goalie’s contract pays $575K on the NHL level and $100K in the AHL (though it’s $150K guaranteed), according to Hockey’s Cap.

At the moment, it sounds like Budaj will be third on the Kings’ goalie depth chart. That says as much about how things have been going lately for Los Angeles than Budaj’s work on a PTO.

As noted above, one of the more significant moves in Budaj’s favor came when the New York Islanders claimed Jean-Francois Berube off of waivers this week.

The Kings actually waived Budaj before signing him, so this has to be a relief to a goalie with a fairly robust resume as a backup.

All apologies to Budaj, but it’s probably true that the Kings would prefer not to see him at the NHL level very often in 2015-16.

Kings, NHLPA announce settlement in Richards grievance

Los Angeles Kings v New York Rangers

The Los Angeles Kings announced today that they have “reached an agreement with Mike Richards to resolve the grievance filed in relation to the termination of his NHL Standard Players Contract. The terms are agreeable to all parties.”

The club said that it will not be commenting further “on the terms” of the settlement.

The NHLPA released a similar statement.

It was reported earlier in the week that a settlement was close to being reached; however, it wasn’t clear what salary-cap penalties the Kings would incur.

We’re starting to find out some details now:

How the final numbers differ from what the Kings would have incurred if they’d bought Richards out will be interesting to see. And if there are differences, how will they be justified?

Stay tuned.