Amnesty who??

by SHUMU on Feb 13, 2012 2:11 PM CST

So I saw this SI 'truth & rumor' bit that basically said that some GM's want to insert an amnesty clause into the next CBA.

Montreal is but one city where the "cap number" has become almost more important than real dollars. In this, their lost season, there could be good news on the horizon for the Canadiens. While it's a long way from being reality because there's a negotiation for a CBA ahead, sources say several GMs have asked the NHL to consider a one-time amnesty clause in the next agreement to buy out one contract that wouldn't have a cap hit. The clause would allow the Habs to rid themselves of Scott Gomez and his cap hit of $7.3 million for the next two seasons without having to absorb the hit. Habs GM Pierre Gauthier has hopelessly tried to deal Gomez, who finally ended a goal-scoring slump that dated back more than a year.

And I was wondering if this Amnesty clause goes through who would the wings use it on, if they use it at all? The way I see it, it's a messy situation to try to amnesty someone and then try to renegotiate the contract, so for my money Franzen not going to get amnestied. so the only contract that I really have a problem with is Big Rig...

What do you guys think??

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

its good for the whole CBA

we would pocket it because i don’t really see anybody we should use that on right now.

by DOC CARTER on Feb 13, 2012 2:31 PM CST reply actions

Would not be able to pocket it and use it later.

All 30 teams would get one chance to use it and if they do not it is gone.

"Pavel Datsyuk is Magic."

by EuroCap on Feb 13, 2012 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

If its like the NBA

which i don’t see why it wouldn’t, they would be able to pocket it…… teams like ours and other teams that have good contracts on the roster are not going to allow teams like montreal to get one so they can get a quick fix without fighting for one of our own and the right to use it whenever we want.

by DOC CARTER on Feb 13, 2012 3:48 PM CST up reply actions

The likelihood of the teams getting to pocket one isn't likely.

Isn’t the NBA one also a one time thing? In the same light as the good teams not wanting to reward bad GMs, the bad GMs have the numbers advantage, and would rathe it be a one time thing.

Goalies are enforcers too.
Twitter- @nkehagias

by AppState on Feb 13, 2012 4:44 PM CST up reply actions

The NBA

allows each team to have 1 amnesty clause that they could use over the lifetime if the CBA which is 10 with an opt out of 7. The reason it seemed they were using them so early is because the NBA is full of terrible contracts….. example: Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon (Sorry Piston Fans Couldn’t help it).

by DOC CARTER on Feb 14, 2012 6:02 AM CST up reply actions

Is this going to be one of the amnesty clauses where the amnestyee can't resign with the current club?

If so, no one.

If they can resign with the same club, I have an odd idea. Resign Liddy for one more year, amnesty him, and then resign him at a low cost so we can have Weber or Suter with Nick on the top pair next year. Plus, I imagine he’s one of the few guys who’d have no problem going this route.

Other than something like that? Id like to tweak Z’s contract.

But, for the most part, Kenny does too good of a job for this to give us much to talk about. Everyone will mention Riggy, but I don’t see that happening.

Goalies are enforcers too.
Twitter- @nkehagias

by AppState on Feb 13, 2012 2:38 PM CST reply actions

Addendum:

A)I meant resign Nick BEFORE the end of the season, otherwise it wouldn’t work. This already makes my idea extremely improbable.

B)I doubt Kenny votes in favor of this addition to the new CBA. It’s usually proposed and supported by teams who give out bad contracts, and frowned upon by the teams who aren’t stupid.

C)I’d be interested if someone like Kovalchuk would get amnestied?

Goalies are enforcers too.
Twitter- @nkehagias

by AppState on Feb 13, 2012 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

I would hope that they can re-sign with anyone....

But I think this whole thing is a bad idea.

by BLOOD RED on Feb 14, 2012 1:35 AM CST up reply actions

I hope he doesn’t use it. Don’t reward stupidity. Don’t take the easy way out.

by Apocalyptic0n3 on Feb 13, 2012 5:52 PM CST reply actions

I would assume that this would be similar to the “amnesty” clause that was allowed when we came out of the lockout. So any player who is bought out would not be able to resign with that team for 2-3 years.

I can’t see them allowing teams to pocket it either, but I’m also not a fan of the idea in the first place.

Dancing Datsyuk Decidedly Dazzles Dainty Defensemen

by Robocop on Feb 14, 2012 7:58 AM CST reply actions

It would certainly end up being used on Zetterberg or Franzen's contracts...

…towards the end of them, should they not just retire.

Pierre McGuire is a blithering dimwit.

by Brion on Feb 14, 2012 9:02 AM CST reply actions

Most amnesty clauses must be used within a week or two of the CBA being ratified

by Apocalyptic0n3 on Feb 14, 2012 9:40 AM CST up reply actions

Honestly I have no idea how they work.

The only league I’ve heard of it happening in is the NBA. And that league is such a mess that I don’t care enough to learn about it anymore.

In that case, I don’t think it will happen to anyone. Ericsson’s contract is too short to get butthurt over and Franzen/Zetterberg are still producing too much to just let go.

Pierre McGuire is a blithering dimwit.

by Brion on Feb 14, 2012 12:16 PM CST up reply actions

There was an amnesty buyout in the NHL after the 2005 CBA

I think teams had 8 days to use those buyouts. I wouldn’t expect the offer to remain on the table for long.

by J.J. from Kansas on Feb 14, 2012 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

I don't like the idea of circumventing the cap.

If you are dumb enough to give big bucks to guys that shouldn’t get it, then you should pay for it. Just like the Hawks should still be on the hook for Huet’s contract. Franzen’s contract is just fine too.

by dewman8810 on Feb 14, 2012 6:26 PM CST reply actions

The Rangers and Wade Redden as well

by Apocalyptic0n3 on Feb 14, 2012 9:15 PM CST up reply actions

I am both for and against this addition

First, the for argument (NOW WITH STIPULATIONS!)

Stipulation 1: Teams can either use it now or bank it for the future. If teams have been run properly (like the Red Wings have), then there is no point, but dumb teams like the Habs and the Rangers with Redden and the Hawks with Huet/Campbell etc. get this unfair advantage, then this rule can’t exist. It’s just too unfair and blatant cheating

Stipulation 2: The new salary cap structure has got to use a guarantee/bonus structure. The fact that the NHL uses a 100% guaranteed money structure is ludicrous and stupid. The NFL, a league in which the careers of athletes are way shorter on average, doesn’t even use a 100% guaranteed weight to their salary cap system. It’s moronic.

With that being said: why I’m for it

If the teams struggling to get out of salary cap hell, like the Canadiens want to blow it now, then that’s awesome. But the Red Wings could (smartly) bank it and use it to get out of the weight of one of the three possible albatross contracts set to come up in the next few years: Zetterberg, Franzen and Kronwall. One of these players is going to bust (the probabilities are just too low that all continue to be amazing right up until they’re 40) and having that instant out would be fantastic for a team like the Red Wings who retool rather than rebuild.

Reasons against: It lets the idiots off the hook

Terrible contracts are just that: franchise crippling mistakes that damage the ability of the GM to field a competitive team. But, it also rewards smart GMs who don’t go out and sign the Erhoffs and the Leinos of the world to gargantuan deals that make no sense for the immediate present or the coming future. Letting them dig out from their mistakes, with no penalty, is epically stupid and is moreso an example of forced parity than even the salary cap.

If they allow the amnesty clause, I do think it should come with a penalty, such as forfeiture of a 1st round draft pick or something.

by eight_legged_freaks on Feb 15, 2012 11:40 AM CST reply actions

The CBA allows for bonuses...the cases are just few and far in between

From nhl.com:

Performance bonuses will only be permissible for the following types of players: (1) players on entry-level contracts; (2) players signing one-year contracts after returning from long-term injuries (players with 400 or more games who spent 100 or more days on injured reserve in the last year of their most recent contract); and senior veteran players who sign a one-year contract after the age of 35.

However, I do agree that the NHL could do a better job of allowing bonuses under the current system. The alternative is allowing for contract renegotiation when certain conditions arent being met, which sounds like even more of a mess and hassle.

I’m against virtually all ways of getting out of a stupid contract barring career ending injury/retirement. Hockey has been around long enough for the people spending the money to know that players cant guarantee a level of performance 5 years down the road, never mind 10. I understand the urge to lock someone up so no other team can have them, but that has to come with the understanding that in the future you may not want the player and be unable to move him.

by Nim ~ on Feb 15, 2012 5:58 PM CST up reply actions

I don’t think the Rangers would amniesty redden because although his contract is God awful it doesn’t count towards the cap for whatever reason….and as bad as Sather is at overpaying free agents he is pretty good at trading a la Scott Gomez.

by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 2:07 AM CST via Android app up reply actions

Unless they make it impossible to hide contracts

by Apocalyptic0n3 on Feb 16, 2012 3:10 AM CST up reply actions

If there was a fundamental change to the CBA like that, then I could see a one time use amnesty provision, similar to what was allowed when the current CBA was adopted.

Dancing Datsyuk Decidedly Dazzles Dainty Defensemen

by Robocop on Feb 16, 2012 5:27 AM CST up reply actions

There should be

No more than double the league minimum should be allowed to be “hidden” in the minors. Any amount over that should remain against the team’s cap hit.

This should also count for goaltenders parked in Europe.

by J.J. from Kansas on Feb 16, 2012 7:06 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

This times a thousand

Goalies are enforcers too.
Twitter- @nkehagias

by AppState on Feb 16, 2012 8:21 AM CST up reply actions

So long as the league minimum is more than half the max rookie contract, then I agree. I think your solution to the long term contract issue was similar as well (where the lowest year of the contract cannot be less than half the highest year, or something like that, and no single year change can be more than 25% in either direction)

by Apocalyptic0n3 on Feb 16, 2012 9:19 AM CST up reply actions