Auston Matthews

[CarltonTheBear]

True enough, but the only "evidence" is the video of him walking with his pants down.  We don't know anything of what happened before that other than what the security guard is saying.

In a nutshell: I just don't see any reason for the guard to lie/fabricate a part of that story. If she was after money like some people have suggested (not saying you) then we probably never even hear about this incident.

 

[Bullfrog]

True enough, but the only "evidence" is the video of him walking with his pants down.  We don't know anything of what happened before that other than what the security guard is saying.

Well, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is. That's possibly the only video evidence, but her testimony, the police report, his friends' testimony, the condo manager's testimony, etc., are all pieces of evidence that are considered. This is why he has to be careful with any public apology, despite the public's desire to hear one.

Realistically, this thing isn't going to see trial.

 

[Zee]

True enough, but the only "evidence" is the video of him walking with his pants down.  We don't know anything of what happened before that other than what the security guard is saying.

Well, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is. That's possibly the only video evidence, but her testimony, the police report, his friends' testimony, the condo manager's testimony, etc., are all pieces of evidence that are considered. This is why he has to be careful with any public apology, despite the public's desire to hear one.

Realistically, this thing isn't going to see trial.

The police report is based off her testimony though and we know of the existence of the video.  We haven't heard anything about what his friends have said or anything he might have said to the police.

 

[Kin]

Well, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is. That's possibly the only video evidence, but her testimony, the police report, his friends' testimony, the condo manager's testimony, etc., are all pieces of evidence that are considered.

"Mr. Hutz, do you have any evidence?"

"Well your honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, it's good news then that "we" aren't responsible for adjudicating this case and those in authority will have the available evidence.

 

[Zee]

I agree with what someone else said. This thing doesn't go to trial, something is agreed upon behind the scenes and it quietly goes away (however quiet that can be with the media coverage)

 

[ZBBM]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this is being blown wildly out of proportion but here we are all the same.

Honestly I think the Leafs should try and void his contract and I hope he has to live a homeless lifestyle for the rest of his existence.

Or suspend him for 10 games and give the C to Tavares.  That works for me.

Like we very literally went over the fact that the Team probably can't suspend him a few pages back.

Like I said, you could be right.  If that's confirmed, then you will be right.  And then you and I can join hands and walk together through the Gates of Fact Land.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is. That's possibly the only video evidence, but her testimony, the police report, his friends' testimony, the condo manager's testimony, etc., are all pieces of evidence that are considered.

"Mr. Hutz, do you have any evidence?"

"Well your honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but evidence is weighted according to its dependability, admissibility in court, etc. (e.g. evidence produced in court that wasn't previously disclosed is usually given no weight if admitted at all.)

Testimony from a party about his/her direct experience is not hearsay.

 

[Kin]

Like I said, you could be right.  If that's confirmed, then you will be right.  And then you and I can join hands and walk together through the Gates of Fact Land.

Despite your late in life conversion into a management stooge, for the Leafs to be able to suspend Matthews it has to be affirmed somewhere. Power to suspend players for off-ice activity is pretty clearly with the commissioner's office and not a team according to the CBA(Article 18-A, which I've read).

I use a word like probably because I'm always open to an idea I haven't considered but in the absence of a specific thing actually being suggested then, yeah, it's a fact.

 

[Kin]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here

It's a funny line from the Simpsons about the various kinds of evidence is all.

 

[Bullfrog]

ah, sorry about the total miss there.  I watched the first couple of seasons of the Simpsons only.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Despite your late in life conversion into a management stooge, for the Leafs to be able to suspend Matthews it has to be affirmed somewhere. Power to suspend players for off-ice activity is pretty clearly with the commissioner's office and not a team according to the CBA(Article 18-A, which I've read).

I think this would be something covered in the SPC signed between the team and player, not in the CBA. I only did a quick scan but I couldn't find anything in the CBA that covered a teams right to suspend a player for failing to attend a practice but we know that they can (like when the Leafs suspended Kadri).

That doesn't mean for sure the Leafs can suspend a player for off-ice actions, but I don't think the lack of support in the CBA for it means anything.

 

[Kin]

Despite your late in life conversion into a management stooge, for the Leafs to be able to suspend Matthews it has to be affirmed somewhere. Power to suspend players for off-ice activity is pretty clearly with the commissioner's office and not a team according to the CBA(Article 18-A, which I've read).

I think this would be something covered in the SPC signed between the team and player, not in the CBA. I only did a quick scan but I couldn't find anything in the CBA that covered a teams right to suspend a player for failing to attend a practice but we know that they can (like when the Leafs suspended Kadri).

That doesn't mean for sure the Leafs can suspend a player for off-ice actions, but I don't think the lack of support in the CBA for it means anything.

I would agree except the CBA does specifically detail the Commissioner's authority in this matter.

I think that if the SPC had a clause in it that granted teams that ability it would be pretty well known because past instances of cases where it might have been applicable would have focused on a team's potential responsibility in these matters. But when Patrick Kane or Ryan O'Reilly or your various DV cases popped up it was always a league matter.

 

[Kin]

So I can't find a SPC to read just yet but I came across this from PPP:

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/18/12205730/so-you-want-to-sign-an-spc-a-standard-player-contract-primer

It seems to confirm what I'm saying. There is a conduct policy in there but it seems to be related to a team's power to terminate a contract, not suspend a player. Teams can set "reasonable" team rules and suspend players for the violation of them(here's where Kadri comes in) but those rules need to be filed with the league beforehand so Matthews would have had to have violated an already existing team rule here(and, no, I don't think "No Crimes" would count).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So I can't find a SPC to read just yet but I came across this from PPP:

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/18/12205730/so-you-want-to-sign-an-spc-a-standard-player-contract-primer

It seems to confirm what I'm saying. There is a conduct policy in there but it seems to be related to a team's power to terminate a contract, not suspend a player. Teams can set "reasonable" team rules and suspend players for the violation of them(here's where Kadri comes in) but those rules need to be filed with the league beforehand so Matthews would have had to have violated an already existing team rule here(and, no, I don't think "No Crimes" would count).

From the article:

Paragraph 2: Player Obligations
Here's where your end of the deal starts up.  You agree to play to the best of your ability, and under the direction and control of the Club, in any NHL, All-Star, Exhibition, or International games.  Don't feel like showing up for that preseason tilt in Columbus?  Well, too bad, you signed to it.

You also agree to show up to training camp in shape ("good physical condition"), and to stay in good physical condition throughout the year.  You play exclusively for the Club or whatever team the Club loans or assigns you to?no moonlighting as the star centre for the Moose Jaw Meat-Peddlers.  You participate in all reasonable Club promotional activities.  Oh, and as per clause 2(e), you conduct yourself "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."

I think "No Crimes" would fit into here.

For the record though, I highly doubt the Leafs would suspend Matthews for this if they could. And it certainly wouldn't be for 10 games if they did.

 

[Zee]

When Shanahan suspended Kadri I know the official reason was him being late for practice but didn't Shanahan come out and say something to the effect of its more than just being late?  There were all sorts of speculation about Naz having to learn and grow up away from hockey in his personal life.  I guess the suspension was due to the practice issue but a general "code of conduct" for the team might apply no?

 

[Kin]

From the article:

From the very next paragraph of the article:

The odds are, if we're ever talking about a violation of 2(e) in a serious way, you've gotten into very serious?possibly criminal?trouble, because your team will likely be trying to terminate your deal.

I'd have to read the contract to be sure but if a violation of this clause constitutes a material breach of the contract that can justify its termination then I don't think it also grants unilateral suspension power.

Because if "No Crimes" was enough there then I don't see why LA would have settled with Richards.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

From the very next paragraph of the article:

The odds are, if we're ever talking about a violation of 2(e) in a serious way, you've gotten into very serious?possibly criminal?trouble, because your team will likely be trying to terminate your deal.

I'd have to read the contract to be sure but if a violation of this clause constitutes a material breach of the contract that can justify its termination then I don't think it also grants suspension power.

My main point was just that the ways in which a team can disicpline a player are laid out in SPCs, not the CBA. And I think we've seen that's obviously the case. It's obviously tough to fully understand all those clauses without reading them word for word though. And even then it'd be open to interpreation, let's not forget the Kings/Richards case wasn't exactly a cut and dry sort of thing.

 

[Kin]

My main point was just that the ways in which a team can disicpline a player are laid out in SPCs, not the CBA.

Right and what I'm saying is that the fact that the CBA specifies a Commissioner's power to do these things tells me that there really isn't a comparable team mechanism. What, to me, the article from PPP confirmed(although again without reading theSPC) is that there is no specific mechanism by which a team can suspend a player for as broad a concept as off-ice conduct and that the ways in which they can suspend a player have to be pretty specific and pre-registered with the league.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Matthews hasn't even been convicted yet.  The only crime he has been charged with is allegedly trying to open the car door on the security guards car.  You watch the interview with the police officer and he was even hesitant on what he could charge Matthews with.  Providing proof that Matthews was the one trying to open the car door, and providing proof that his intent was nefarious, in a court of law, will be tough. 

Walking around in your underpants isn't a crime, as demonstrated by those people involved with hiphop culture.