This story intrigued me…  it says that “a source is claiming that if the former Canucks goalie is injured, the team cannot complete the move.”  I wondered why a “source” would be needed at all.  Isn’t this written in the CBA???  Wouldn’t you just have to ask somebody familiar with the CBA?

Well, I don’t know anybody familiar with it who’s easily accessible.  So I looked at it myself.  I’m no lawyer but it seems to me there are two pertinent parts.

First, a portion of Section 13 of the Standard Players Contract, which deals with buyouts:

13.  The Club, in addition to other rights hereunder, at its option, by written notice delivered to the Player in person, or by overnight mail to the Player’s address set forth herein, may terminate this SPC on the following conditions:
(a)  The Club shall offer the Player on Unconditional Waivers, either before or promptly after the notice of intention to exercise the Ordinary Course Buy-Out option (herein called “notice of termination”) is given.
(b)  Termination pursuant to this Paragraph shall be effective upon receipt by the Player of the notice of termination and the Player clearing Unconditional Waivers pursuant to Paragraph 13(a) above.
(c)  The notice of termination shall be effective if given in the form attached as Exhibit 20, with a copy faxed to the NHLPA and Central Registry as follows:
(i)  beginning the later of June 15 or forty-eight (48) hours after the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals and ending at 5:00 p.m. New York time on June 30…

And a portion of Section 5, Paragraph (d) of the SPC, which deals with injuries:

(d)  It is also agreed that if the Player, in the sole judgment of the Club’s physician, is disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player by reason of an injury sustained during the course of his employment as a hockey Player, including travel with his team or on business requested by the Club, he shall be entitled to receive his remaining Paragraph 1 Salary and Signing Bonuses due in accordance with the terms of this SPC for the remaining stated term of this SPC as long as the said disability and inability to perform continue but in no event beyond the expiration date of the fixed term of this SPC

Again, I’m no lawyer, but I’d say by looking at 5(d) that it looks like this story is true.

Posted by BobTheZee on 06/23/08 at 07:39 PM ET

I agree with your conclusions. I think the only reason they were claiming a “source” for info was the suggestion that Cloutier is still injured—which I presume that the Kings are challenging. (But by all the reports I’ve read this year, Cloutier’s status as “injured” was a matter of ‘fact’, not ‘sources’. Hell, he was struggling with the same injuries during his Vancouver days, much less before he became LA’s problem.)

Worth noting:  Cloutier and the Kings have not gotten along well this season in general. My own instincts tell me that this is a war that the Kings are going to lose.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 06/23/08 at 08:24 PM ET

Hell, he was struggling with the same injuries during his Vancouver days, much less before he became LA’s problem.

Maybe the Kings are trying to claim the injuries were pre-existing. If that’s the case, however, why did their doctors ever let him pass a physical and be signed?

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 06/23/08 at 09:07 PM ET

Maybe the Kings are trying to claim the injuries were pre-existing. If that’s the case, however, why did their doctors ever let him pass a physical and be signed?

Fair question. And yet they signed him despite a recurring hip issue in his final year (or more) in Vancouver.  It was certainly well-publicized, so if they and their doctors ignored it, it would be their own foolishness. (Or, to be fair, a mis-diagnosis about the longevity of the problem, which can happen, I suppose…)

My best guess is that they assumed, because of the doctors (and probably with Marc Crawford’s sincere hope and reassurance) that his problem was resolved.

But that assumption didn’t pay off. And he’s only played 9 NHL games since Dec. 2006 as a result.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 06/23/08 at 09:20 PM ET

...the suggestion that Cloutier is still injured—which I presume that the Kings are challenging.

Cloutier can counter-challenge if he disagrees with the team doctors.  The procedural details are spelled out in a handful of sub-paragraphs after 5(d) in the SPC.  I agree that his injuries since his Vancouver days have hardly been a secret.  But he did play, even if only a few games, and I wonder if that can give rise to a King’s claim that his past injuries are…  well, in the past.  Which can lead to another counter-claim, etc., etc., etc.  So this may be a long way from over.  Perhaps we’ll all get to gather the kids, sit back, and watch the fireworks.

Worth noting:  Cloutier and the Kings have not gotten along well this season in general.

I did read this way back when you had first posted it, but I had since forgotten.  My usual take on these kinds of stories is that not all of it is true, but some of it is…  in this case, enough for me to conclude that perhaps the Kings are not the best organization to be working for.

My own instincts tell me that this is a war that the Kings are going to lose.

This is a very polite way of saying that the Kings are going to be screwed twice by the same trade.

BTW, the full CBA is here.  The Standard Player Contract is Exhibit 1.

Posted by BobTheZee on 06/23/08 at 11:02 PM ET