What's interesting is when they were talking about it on TSN they said multiple times that the NHL had approved the contract termination.
It initially seemed to me that the Kings were trying a hail mary to get out of that contract, but if it had to be approved by the league I'd have to think there was at least some merit to it.
If that's true I think the league has its priorities mixed up.
Voynov is still under contract with the Kings but Richards is not. Guy with drug problem loses his job but wife beater doesn't? "Morally" I believe the later is far worse.
It's beyond obvious that the Kings like Voynov's contract and him as a player, and don't like Richard's contract or as a player. They don't care about the moral implications of smuggling a few pills for personal use (Not like he's the first player to have drug problems either), they're seizing the opportunity to ditch a contract they don't want. If they cared they would have done the same with Voynov.
The hypocrisy is alarming, and IMO this sets a baddddd precedent.
Contractually speaking, I guess it is the Kings right to choose when to invoke the morality clause, but at the end of the day it's just a vague rule used to cheat a man out of the money that was promised to him, and has nothing to do with morals.