View Single Post
05-06-2004, 08:52 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by rocketlives
Saku Koivu and Jose Theodore are both signed for the 2004-05 season. Let's say the team owners lock the players out for a full season, would Saku and Theo remain signed for the 2005-06 season under the same conditions or would their contracts have to be renegotiated?
Since contracts are dated, I would have said that the contracts would expire before the Alexei Yashin arbitration case. If I was, say, a John LeClair who stands to lose the final year of a five year deal at $9 million, I'd file a grievance citing the Yashin case as precedent.

Yashin refused to play even though he had a valid contract. The arbitrator made a bizarre ruling and extended the contract for a year. In the imaginary LeClair case, the owners will be refusing to put on the games even though LeClair has a valid contract. Why shouldn't his contract be extended too?

Other players like Brent Sopel and Matt Cooke will be on the final year of a contract that underpays them. They could be filing grievances the other way, insisting that their contracts have expired.

The NHLPA may argue that the players should be able to have it both ways. LeClair has the option to extend, Cooke have the right to allow his deal to expire.


Tom_Benjamin is offline