Amnesty

[23sharks]

I read the NHL may come up with an Amnesty Clause similar to the NBA when their CBA is negotiated.
Meaning you can dump a guy and his salary comes off your cap. You still have to pay him, but don't get stuck with the cap hit.
Thoughts?

 

[Cmon_WTF]

It's a better system than the buyout process they use now IMO.

 

[Destroydacre]

I'm fine with it. Contracts really shouldn't count against the cap for players not on your team (with a few exceptions that prevent cap circumvention like the 35+ rule the NHL currently has). If owners want to waste money on guys that aren't playing for their team they should be free to do so.

 

[Bowlby]

philly would really love that right now...

 

[SJVP408]

Wouldn't that really favor the owners with deep pockets? They just throw out stupid contracts and if things don't work out, then they do this amnesty thing. I don't know details about it, just going off what 23sharks stated. The cap is in place so GMs have to be careful not to hand out bad contracts. This seems like a way to easily get rid of a mistake.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Wouldn't that really favor the owners with deep pockets? They just throw out stupid contracts and if things don't work out, then they do this amnesty thing. I don't know details about it, just going off what 23sharks stated. The cap is in place so GMs have to be careful not to hand out bad contracts. This seems like a way to easily get rid of a mistake.

What's the difference between this or assigning a guy with a terrible contract like Redden to the AHL to get there cap hit off the books?

 

[SJVP408]

What's the difference between this or assigning a guy with a terrible contract like Redden to the AHL to get there cap hit off the books?

Ok, so I'm not understanding all the specifics, but to answer your question from my understanding is that Redden is still serving his contract. He's still playing hockey for the Rangers for however many years he has left while earning the amount of money he signed up for.

In the current system, the team has two choices to deal with a horrid contract. One is to bury him in the minors, cap hit does not affect team, but owners still paying him in full. Second is buyout, where a fraction of the player's cap hit is still weighing on the team.

With the amnesty, is the player completely paid off with the entire value of his deal? As in, if Redden was owed $30 for the next 5 years (just an example) he would be paid all $30 in one fat check and be able to sign elsewhere with no cap consequence to the Rangers? That would be my gripe with the amnesty clause, again, if I am understanding this correctly.

 

[23sharks]

Ok, so I'm not understanding all the specifics, but to answer your question from my understanding is that Redden is still serving his contract. He's still playing hockey for the Rangers for however many years he has left while earning the amount of money he signed up for.

In the current system, the team has two choices to deal with a horrid contract. One is to bury him in the minors, cap hit does not affect team, but owners still paying him in full. Second is buyout, where a fraction of the player's cap hit is still weighing on the team.

With the amnesty, is the player completely paid off with the entire value of his deal? As in, if Redden was owed $30 for the next 5 years (just an example) he would be paid all $30 in one fat check and be able to sign elsewhere with no cap consequence to the Rangers? That would be my gripe with the amnesty clause, again, if I am understanding this correctly.

I'm not sure how they would do that either. I'll see if I can find some info on how the NBA is going to do this. I'm pretty sure they get to do this only 1 time, but not sure how the payout works.
Yeah, it would probably favor owners who are willing to just throw away some of their $$$.
This article I read went as far as to predict who on each team would be a prime target for this.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Ok, so I'm not understanding all the specifics, but to answer your question from my understanding is that Redden is still serving his contract. He's still playing hockey for the Rangers for however many years he has left while earning the amount of money he signed up for.

In the current system, the team has two choices to deal with a horrid contract. One is to bury him in the minors, cap hit does not affect team, but owners still paying him in full. Second is buyout, where a fraction of the player's cap hit is still weighing on the team.

With the amnesty, is the player completely paid off with the entire value of his deal? As in, if Redden was owed $30 for the next 5 years (just an example) he would be paid all $30 in one fat check and be able to sign elsewhere with no cap consequence to the Rangers? That would be my gripe with the amnesty clause, again, if I am understanding this correctly.

If it works the same way as other leagues have used it the Rangers would pay out Redden's contract in the manner in which it was agreed upon. So $30m over 5 years would still be paid $30m over 5 years and not in one lump sum. And I believe there are limitations on how many players a team can be paying amnesty contracts to.

Yes, Redden would be free to sign another contract and play elsewhere which IMO makes this better for the league instead of forcing a team to bury a player in the AHL or send them to Europe for the duration of that contract.

 

[SJVP408]

If it works the same way as other leagues have used it the Rangers would pay out Redden's contract in the manner in which it was agreed upon. So $30m over 5 years would still be paid $30m over 5 years and not in one lump sum. And I believe there are limitations on how many players a team can be paying amnesty contracts to.

Yes, Redden would be free to sign another contract and play elsewhere which IMO makes this better for the league instead of forcing a team to bury a player in the AHL or send them to Europe for the duration of that contract.

Regarding the bolded, if the amnesty clause were to work like that, Redden is then rewarded, monetarily, for sucking at hockey after signing that fat contract. He gets paid in full his due money (if Rangers use amnesty clause on him), and on top of that, he gets to go sign another contract with another team for the league minimum making his contract with the new team much friendlier and being able to serve as a 7th dman on his new team.

The way it is now, Redden must rot away in the minors. But hey, that's what he gets for tanking it after signing his fat contract. He's still getting paid multimillions so let's not feel too sorry for him. Both the organization and the player is 'on the hook' for the contract which they agreed upon.

I guess the big difference I'm seeing is that both ways allow the player to get bought out. With the amnesty, there is no cap penalty. The way it is now, there is a cap penalty and that's what I like about it.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Regarding the bolded, if the amnesty clause were to work like that, Redden is then rewarded, monetarily, for sucking at hockey after signing that fat contract. He gets paid in full his due money (if Rangers use amnesty clause on him), and on top of that, he gets to go sign another contract with another team for the league minimum making his contract with the new team much friendlier and being able to serve as a 7th dman on his new team.

The way it is now, Redden must rot away in the minors. But hey, that's what he gets for tanking it after signing his fat contract. He's still getting paid multimillions so let's not feel too sorry for him. Both the organization and the player is 'on the hook' for the contract which they agreed upon.

I guess the big difference I'm seeing is that both ways allow the player to get bought out. With the amnesty, there is no cap penalty. The way it is now, there is a cap penalty and that's what I like about it.

There is no cap penalty for assigning someone to the minors. Except 35+ contracts.

Did Redden get bought out? No, he is forced to rot in the AHL because an idiot GM was willing to offer him the money that he got. A GM offering Redden that amount of money isn't Redden's fault. Yes, his skills diminished because of injuries but he could still be an asset to a team, just not at a $6m a year price tag, and the amnesty clause would give him that oppertunity.

The amnesty clause isn't designed to replace the buy out process. It's there to prevent teams from having to stash contracts in the AHL or overseas and give those players a chance to contribute at the NHL level for another team at a reasonable price.

 

[SJVP408]

There is no cap penalty for assigning someone to the minors. Except 35+ contracts.

Did Redden get bought out? No, he is forced to rot in the AHL because an idiot GM was willing to offer him the money that he got. A GM offering Redden that amount of money isn't Redden's fault. Yes, his skills diminished because of injuries but he could still be an asset to a team, just not at a $6m a year price tag, and the amnesty clause would give him that oppertunity.

The amnesty clause isn't designed to replace the buy out process. It's there to prevent teams from having to stash contracts in the AHL or overseas and give those players a chance to contribute at the NHL level for another team at a reasonable price.

About the amnesty not for replacing the buyout process. In a bottom line situation for the team, I know I said this earlier but...a buyout results in a cap penalty and the amnesty does not(?). If that's true, then amnesty gets the team off the hook too easy. That's my first problem with it.

About giving players another chance, there is where we view things differently. You think Redden should be given a chance to play again in the NHL by not having such a bad contract. I think he made his own bed when he put his name on the dotted line for that fat deal. You're right, it's not Redden's fault he was offered that big a deal but he still took it. Players know the result of being a bad hockey player with a big contract. They know what may happen. And playing for a big market like NYR, you will get stashed away if you suck. Things he should have thought about. Scared of that happening? Don't sign such a long deal. It's hard to leave money on the table but take heed of the consequences.

 

[SJVP408]

Also, Cmon. Can a player and team agree on terminating a contract? My guess is they cannot. That's something can can be done to avoid implementing this amnesty clause. Redden and NYR can agree to rip it up and Redden can go be a depth dman somewhere for $1. Though I haven't thought this one through and how it can be taken advantage of.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Amnesty is designed for the players that won't be bought out but won't make the NHL team they are currently under contract for. I'm assuming this but it would make sense that before a player is released on amnesty they must pass through regular and re-entry waivers meaning a team could pick them up for half the cap hit and salary and the origional team is still penalized half of each.

As long as there are specified limitations on how and how often it can be used this process is beneficial to both player and team. It would also benefit smaller market teams in the fact that there are teams out there who could use Redden right now but their internal budgets won't allow it. If Redden is released under amnesty they would have the oppertunity to add him at a cap friendly price.

I understand that you think there should be some sort of penalty to both player and team for signing some of these ridiculous contracts but to me the fact that a team still has to pay the full contract is enough of a penalty. While I don't think there should be any penalty to the player there may end up being a process in place simular to the waiver claim process to determin which team can sign that player instead of them becoming an outright UFA.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Also, Cmon. Can a player and team agree on terminating a contract? My guess is they cannot. That's something can can be done to avoid implementing this amnesty clause. Redden and NYR can agree to rip it up and Redden can go be a depth dman somewhere for $1. Though I haven't thought this one through and how it can be taken advantage of.

No, all NHL contracts are guaranteed. The only time a contract can be voided is if one party is in breach. The NHLPA would never agree to something like this.

 

[SJVP408]

Amnesty is designed for the players that won't be bought out but won't make the NHL team they are currently under contract for. I'm assuming this but it would make sense that before a player is released on amnesty they must pass through regular and re-entry waivers meaning a team could pick them up for half the cap hit and salary and the origional team is still penalized half of each.

As long as there are specified limitations on how and how often it can be used this process is beneficial to both player and team. It would also benefit smaller market teams in the fact that there are teams out there who could use Redden right now but their internal budgets won't allow it. If Redden is released under amnesty they would have the oppertunity to add him at a cap friendly price.

I understand that you think there should be some sort of penalty to both player and team for signing some of these ridiculous contracts but to me the fact that a team still has to pay the full contract is enough of a penalty. While I don't think there should be any penalty to the player there may end up being a process in place simular to the waiver claim process to determin which team can sign that player instead of them becoming an outright UFA.

Subjecting the player to the entire waiver process would be the proper thing to do. Better players on the ice means better hockey so, good point. A player like Redden would be a playoff addition.

Can you think of a better way to penalize the team? Just paying the full amount of the contract hurts the owner, but not the team cap. I'd like to see a penalty to the GM's bad move that hurts the team's ability to spend.

 

[Destroydacre]

Subjecting the player to the entire waiver process would be the proper thing to do. Better players on the ice means better hockey so, good point. A player like Redden would be a playoff addition.

Can you think of a better way to penalize the team? Just paying the full amount of the contract hurts the owner, but not the team cap. I'd like to see a penalty to the GM's bad move that hurts the team's ability to spend.

If a GM signs enough bad contracts to piss off the owner he'll get canned. Seems like a stiff enough penalty to me.

 

[SJVP408]

If a GM signs enough bad contracts to piss off the owner he'll get canned. Seems like a stiff enough penalty to me.

I agree, but I'm referring to a penalty to the team, not the GM himself.