Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15196
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Hockey Widow » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:16 am

http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/blog?nam ... idates-nhl

An interesting concept that protects gm's from themselves but also allows players to keep playing rather than being dumped in the minors or shipped off to Europe.

On first read I thought it was a ridiculous idea and one that would keep allowing gm's to sign these crazy contracts. But after reading it again I started to warm to the idea. I would like to see something similar in the NHL for a number of reasons. First, it would allow a team to rid themselves of a bad contract and allow players to re-sign elsewhere, probably at real cap friendly deals even if for one year. Second, it would allow players like Redden to actually play in the NHL where he belongs just not at his current cap or salary. Third, it would create more movement in trades and the like as gm's could clear cap space. I'm sure there are other good reasons as well as a ton of good reasons against.

But if the NHL were to adopt such an amnesty clause I would like to see it restricted. For example, a team could only use this escape clause once every "x" number of years, not every year. Also they could only use one at a time so they could not jettison several players and several bad contracts at once. Also a player so jettisoned should be prevented from re-signing a huge deal until his current contract runs out thus limiting the double dipping, or conversely, whatever he signs for should be taken off what his buying out team owes.

It obviously favours rich teams that could afford to pay out these contracts but the poorer teams would potentially benefit in that they could now go after these jettisoned players and perhaps sign them to cheep 1-2 deals.

Anyway, an interesting idea.
The only HW the Canucks need

isle_nuck
CC Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:48 am

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by isle_nuck » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:29 am

I think it would be an interesting idea. However, I believe the NBA only brought it in because the owners needed something to save their sorry asses. They were trying to implement a stricter cap and tax system and without the amnesty clause, many of them would be paying a high luxury tax. (I could be wrong, the NBA CBA seems to be rather complicated and with many loopholes at this point and really, it's the NBA so I don't care that much)

As for how it's implemented: each team gets one shot to use it. It has to be used on a contract signed before the new CBA was implemented and they can use it at any point over the next couple years. Once a guy is amnestied, there is an auction for his services; highest team gets him. As for payment, if the player is making 10 mil, and the auction winner gets him for two mil, the new team owes him the 2 they bid and the old team is on the hook for the remaining 8. Not sure if the new contract has to match the remaining term on the old deal or if it can be for a varied term.

Some teams have already used it to clear space to sign new players; some are waiting to find all the loopholes; some are waiting for next years free agent class to see what's available then.

Waffle
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Waffle » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:36 am

There was an article about the NBA clause over at the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/sport ... .html?_r=1

In the end, I wonder if such a clause really benefits the rich teams who are most likely to make dumb deals in the first place.

Interesting thoughts HW.

User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3364
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Madcombinepilot » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:03 pm

I amskeptical about this idea.. while it might give some guys like Redden a chance to get back into the league, I would fear it would simply let the stupid GM's out there make even more bad mistakes. Nothing forced Redden to sign that deal, he wanted the money to play hockey. then he didn't play the quality that contract was worth. now he rides a bus to play hockey. Redden still wins, and I dont feel sorry for him.
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3050
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by dbr » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:31 pm

Yeah but is the quality of hockey better with Wade Redden riding buses in the AHL and a player like, say, Jason Strudwick or whoever playing in the NHL?

Frankly if it means higher-quality hockey then I'm all for it.

User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3364
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Madcombinepilot » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:33 pm

oh true. I am all for higher quality of hockey, dont get me wrong. I am thinking that if we 'open the rules' so to speak, in a way that allows every GM to make a mistake, well... a wise man once said, "stupid compounds on stupid".

the more stupidity we allow by opening the rules up, the more stupidity we will see.
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3050
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by dbr » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:37 pm

Madcombinepilot wrote:oh true. I am all for higher quality of hockey, dont get me wrong. I am thinking that if we 'open the rules' so to speak, in a way that allows every GM to make a mistake, well... a wise man once said, "stupid compounds on stupid".

the more stupidity we allow by opening the rules up, the more stupidity we will see.
Well, it is a one time thing. So it's not like the Rangers can go out and cut a player loose every year (in this manner, I guess they could always trade them to the Canadiens instead :P ) in order to go unrestricted free agent shopping.

It could also create an interesting dynamic among teams with money to spend and without poor contracts on the books. If/when Pierre Gauthier gets shitcanned the guy replacing him is going to have two awful contracts to get rid of in Kaberle and Gomez.

What are the odds that he might do a favour for a franchise like Vancouver that is happy with its players and able to use its own amnesty clause to get rid of a player coming in a trade instead?

ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2575
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by ESQ » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:42 pm

I like the idea as something the owners could "give" in exchange for the "take" they want from the PA in the new CBA.

Right now, sending a player down if the contract stinks only benefits the rich teams anyway, and enables them to continue to make terrible deals. The unfortunate part is that the player is also screwed for making too much money, a la Redden and Souray last year. I don't see the amnesty clause making the situation any worse, and as HW pointed out it actually could benefit poor teams by enabling them to get good players that were previously over-priced at a bargain.

Of course, any talk of "amnestying" Luongo's contract is pretty laughable.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15196
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Hockey Widow » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:58 pm

The thing with Luongo is that he has a very cap friendly deal. If he can play at a high level until is mid to late 30's then he will well earn his deal. After that it is anyone's guess but he becomes moveable as has been said many times to a team needing a cap hit and there will always be those teams. I mean he is moveable right now for a great return because his cap hit is so good for what he brings.

Currently we don't really have a player who I would think should be anmestied (is there such a word) But h=there are a handful around. Heck even a player with a year or two left who is eating cap space could be jettisoned in this way.

As I said though I would want controls. Sort of like abortion, it shouldn't be used for birth control, just that rare getting caught at a bad time sort of thing, or in the case of rape. So if a gm or team is getting raped they should be able to abort, once anyway.
The only HW the Canucks need

ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2575
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by ESQ » Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:11 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:As I said though I would want controls. Sort of like abortion, it shouldn't be used for birth control, just that rare getting caught at a bad time sort of thing, or in the case of rape. So if a gm or team is getting raped they should be able to abort, once anyway.
*picks jaw up off floor*
...I'm not touching that one with a 10-foot pole. :mrgreen:

But anyways, the cap has increased 60% since the lockout, I'm no good with compound math so lets say its gone up 10-12% per year. For arguments' sake, lets say cap growth (tied to revenue growth) slows to half that speed in the next five years, so the cap in 5 years is 30% higher than today's cap - that's a cap of $83.6 million. I think this may be conservative, with league revenues likely to jump once Phoenix is moved to a profitable location and the much-improved TV deal starts taking hold. But at any event, Luongo's $5.13 million cap hit in five years ~$3.9 million in today's cap dollars.

Point being, as time marches on, Luongo's cap hit improves. This is what happened with Pronger - went from an extremely-high priced Free Agent in Edmonton after the lockout to an unbelievable bargain. His $6.25 million in 2005 was 16% of the cap, by the time he got to Philly it was 11%.

ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2575
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by ESQ » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:18 pm

Either Gallagher is reading week-old ESPN articles for research or he is trawling this forum! His latest: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Galla ... story.html

Looking at his list of possible targets for amnesty, I'm trying to think of any small-market teams that have or likely would bury players in the minors. The only ones I can think of are Edmonton with Souray and Calgary with Kotalik, and potentially with a few others if they ever fully clean house (like basically every latter day Sutter contract). I suppose Florida did with Reinprecht as well, though they found a way to ultimately unload the contract. So the current system is unfairly benefitting rich teams anyway, I don't see an amnesty clause making things any worse.

In fact, I think small market teams operating under a tighter internal cap would benefit, because they have more flexibility with their dollars.

wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by wienerdog » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:25 am

The NHL has too many retards in management and this isn't going to do anything but validate their idiocy.

This clause will just give the poor managers of the League an undeserved advantage. I'm definitely in the camp that a great GM is as valuable as a franchise player, and a shitty one is like having a sieve as a starting keeper.

So, no dice from me. I'm a Cap purist and I like the team-building strategy side of the game as much as the on-ice tactical one.

We have that franchise player in Gillis. GMMG and his team have done a great job in managing the Cap and I'm not for allowing any other teams an advantage in this area.

Fuck amnesty!

Vpete
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Discussion: Should the NHL adopt an "amnesty clause"

Post by Vpete » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:04 am

Haven't read this yet but have thought about the concept. Take the NFL they do not have guaranteed contracts. Release a player and he is free. Perhaps a modification of this is worth looking at in the NHL.

Take Redden and his 6 million. Sather buries him in the minors and has no cap hit but all the expense but Redden is locked in. What about an agreed buyout phase? Sather can buy out the contract and release Redden with out a continued cap hit but there is a finite limit over the course of a determined time you can do this.

Before the season starts- Sather buys out Redden for full salary for year, takes a 1/3rd cap hit to current season cap but Redden is thus released and free to go. So what stops Sather from doing this with 5 contracts- a limit. One per season or 3 every fives seasons? Something which creates the action of giving cause to use the option.

I like it and I also like the idea of selling cap space at the trade deadline if the right conditions were put in place to balance out what comes in the off season to deal with increased cap load by the purchasing team.

Think of it this way: the aggregate cap space across the NHL is 1,928,550,000 so why should the players care how it's spent as long as they get the money. There just has to be some checks and balances so rich teams cannot continually recycle cap space year after year by buying and releasing players.
Brick Top: Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.

Post Reply