The only way amnesty could work is if there's an arbitration process.

A guy like Gomez would have his cap hit adjusted to 2.5 mil from 7.3 mil.

Coyotes suck
Anyone who picked PHX had to of been from Arizona, New Mexico, or Utah

and you wouldn't want to buy out Horcoff without a cap hit, you don't want that.
- jimbro83

I like Horcoff as a player. He's certainly overpaid. He's the textbook example of a player you'd use the amnesty measure on.

But no, I think it's moronic to give GMs a get out of jail free card, even if that isn't convenient for the team I cheer for.

I like Horcoff as a player. He's certainly overpaid. He's the textbook example of a player you'd use the amnesty measure on.

But no, I think it's moronic to give GMs a get out of jail free card, even if that isn't convenient for the team I cheer for.
- Morris

well, if the amnesty happens, and the Oilers buy him out, I wanna see you come on here and say how terrible it is

Poorer teams will not support an amnesty clause that gives a competitive advantage to the wealthy and they far outnumber wealthy teams. Getting the sloppy seconds for cheap is not enough.

Poorer teams will not support an amnesty clause that gives a competitive advantage to the wealthy and they far outnumber wealthy teams. Getting the sloppy seconds for cheap is not enough.
- Canada Cup

why did they support one in 2005 when the teams were much poorer than they are now?

well, if the amnesty happens, and the Oilers buy him out, I wanna see you read come on here and say how terrible it is
- jimbro83

Sure thing. Want me to PM you or post in this very thread?

I think it'll be a great thing for the Oilers organization, give them some extra room to re-sign young talent, etc. As a fan of the oilers, i'll still think it's bogus. As a league-wide initiative, i'll say it's a terrible idea. In fact, I don't think the Oilers are in that much cap trouble and it won't bother me that much if they don't amnesty him.

The amnesty rule is a double edged sword, if the receiving team is going to honor the cap hit that opens up the possibility that a poor team signs a Gomez to a $1 contract and uses it to work around the minimum cap ceiling. The opposite is true too if they're not forced to honor the cap hit a team like the Rangers could build a dynasty with formerly overpaid players.
- J-P

If the new team had to honor the original cap hit, that could work. teams struggling to the cap floor could sign these guys, make the cap, without actually paying the $.
This would go to further equalize league talent.

I thought the idea of the amnesty clause was that it is the equivalent of a buyout, for only one player, without the lingering cap implications. (Think Darcy Tucker who is still hitting the leafs cap even though he is long retired).
Players would have to be signed to the league minimum (not 1$), but if a team is only held accountable to the new contract cap wise, you could easily have a 200 million dollar dynasty on your hands, full of amnesty players, that now fits within the 60mil cap.
I really think this would happen as these players without worrying about $, would flock to a hockey market, and would want to win (join forces).

Sure thing. Want me to PM you or post in this very thread?

I think it'll be a great thing for the Oilers organization, give them some extra room to re-sign young talent, etc. As a fan of the oilers, i'll still think it's bogus. As a league-wide initiative, i'll say it's a terrible idea. In fact, I don't think the Oilers are in that much cap trouble and it won't bother me that much if they don't amnesty him.
- Morris

if they lower the salary cap, guaranteed they'll be an amnesty clause, it's as simple as that.

why did they support one in 2005 when the teams were much poorer than they are now?
- jimbro83

Economics for poor teams actually got worse in last CBA which was supposed to fix things for them. Salary floor goes up too fast fast driven by revenues of 3 or 4 teams. Why let those teams improve even more since they can afford amnesty. Amnesty will also just drive up FA prices since big spenders know they can dump their mistakes

if they lower the salaary cap, guaranteed they'll be an amnesty clause, it's as simple as that.
- jimbro83

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying I think it's a moronic idea.

If the new team had to honor the original cap hit, that could work. teams struggling to the cap floor could sign these guys, make the cap, without actually paying the $.
This would go to further equalize league talent.

- B-Wforever

It could work if the new team has to honor their current market value, but I don't think it's a good idea to have poor teams with the option to buy a Gomez and Redden at a bargain (league minimum etc) just to get to the minimum. Talent would take a hit IMO.

Actually the arbitration process I proposed above could work even if the player is not staying with his current team. Let a neutral party decide what that player would be worth today, then adjust his cap hit to reflect that.

Economics for poor teams actually got worse in last CBA which was supposed to fix things for them. Salary floor goes up too fast fast driven by revenues of 3 or 4 teams. Why let those teams improve even more since they can afford amnesty. Amnesty will also just drive up FA prices since big spendings know they can dump their mistakes
- Canada Cup

we are talking about a one time amnesty to buy out one contract because the cap will go down.

All these contracts were signed with the cap going up and up

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying I think it's a moronic idea.
- Morris

and I think you are a liar when you say you wouldn't want it

and I think you are a liar when you say you wouldn't want it
- jimbro83

Think away.

What if a team doesn't have a huge contract that needs amnesty? What kind of relief do they get?

My suggestion is that each team which requires amnesty has the cap lowered $5 million for two years.

If there is a lockout (which I seriously doubt, because I just don't think the issues are nearly as divisive as have been in play the last few lockouts in sports) the only good thing to come out of it will be the comedy of Ek pretending to be an insider on the negotiations again. Reminder that he got is initial reputation from claiming on a weekly basis during 2004-05 that a deal was near

What if a team doesn't have a huge contract that needs amnesty? What kind of relief do they get?

My suggestion is that each team which requires amnesty has the cap lowered $5 million for two years.
- okings5

Owners would never go for that, it would defeat the purpose of amnesty (ie. marginal protection against their own stupidity, which, it should never be forgotten, is the purpose of the cap as well).

There is no idiot-proof system - there are always going to be idiotic GMs and owners, the best that can be done is to institute limits on their idiocy. I think the cap has done a fairly good job of this, it's not perfect by any stretch, but I still don't see how any other system (soft cap, luxury tax) could work better. It all comes down to management, plain and simple - for all the whining people have about how the cap didn't help small markets, they overlook the fact that many of those places were in Florida, Atlanta, etc, and these teams were all horrendously run anyway, which will always doom you to failure.

The only way amnesty could work is if there's an arbitration process.

A guy like Gomez would have his cap hit adjusted to 2.5 mil from 7.3 mil.
- J-P

I always interpreted amnesty as a one-time buyout that doesn't count against your cap (which happened right after the lockout as well.) Although in that case, I believe teams were able to buy out multiple players.

prob is there has to be some rule that if they can waive a contract then whats to say they dont just resign the guy to a better deal for the team? sure the bolts would want a do over with vinnys contract but they certainly want him to finish his career a bolt. i dont see the problem in giving teams the ability to restructure contracts like they can in the NFL. plus the cap is supposed to go up to almost 70 mill next year so thats going to add 5mill in cap space for every team anyway.

In that year, even though all 30 had a chance at #1, it was still heavily weighted towards the teams who were bottom feeders the year before.
- p_zub

If I'm not mistaken, the lottery during the lockout was based on how teams fared several years prior, not just the last year. So if there is another lockout, the Leafs should have the best chance at Mackinnon, considering they are the only team to not make the playoffs since the last lockout

If I'm not mistaken, the lottery during the lockout was based on how teams fared several years prior, not just the last year. So if there is another lockout, the Leafs should have the best chance at Mackinnon, considering they are the only team to not make the playoffs since the last lockout
- FinAddict

That's assuming there would be a year-long lockout again which I seriously doubt.

Again, what exactly are the issues this time around? The NBA and NFL almost wiped out their seasons with lockouts but those issues were far more serious.

Until the NHL comes out with another thing like the Levitt Report, I'm going to remain optimistic, and that's a rarity.

prob is there has to be some rule that if they can waive a contract then whats to say they dont just resign the guy to a better deal for the team? sure the bolts would want a do over with vinnys contract but they certainly want him to finish his career a bolt. i dont see the problem in giving teams the ability to restructure contracts like they can in the NFL. plus the cap is supposed to go up to almost 70 mill next year so thats going to add 5mill in cap space for every team anyway.
- boltsfan48

This rule is already in the CBA applied to buyouts, so I don't see why they wouldn't extend it to amnesty.

To be honest I never really got why contract restructuring is banned though. I suppose it's to prevent backdoor cap-circumvention agreements - ie. you sign a guy to a long contract with a $7M AAV while secretly agreeing to renegotiate it to $4M a couple years down the line.

and I think you are a liar when you say you wouldn't want it
- jimbro83

Just because his team could potentially benefit from the idea doesn't mean the idea isn't a (frank)ing stupid one.

Let's give GMs more reasons to sign players to dumbass contracts, I don't see the downside at all

Just because his team could potentially benefit from the idea doesn't mean the idea isn't a (frank)ing stupid one.

Let's give GMs more reasons to sign players to dumbass contracts, I don't see the downside at all
- FinAddict

Yeah I made a typo and accidentally hit the reply button to fix it instead of the edit button and now it won't let me delete the comment, deal with it