Feeling good about the Leafs dumping Kessel's salary baggage

DONT FORGET RICK DIPIETRO

DONT FORGET RICK DIPIETRO
- TheJerseyDevil1

A. why are you shouting?
B. If you think Wang is going to Pay someone and not have it help him reach the cap floor you are crazy.

A more likely scenario is Wang taking on another horrible sallary if a team gives him the cash.

If the amnesty becomes a part of the new CBA, teams that don't ulitize or exercise their amnesty option should be rewarded as well.

Seriously. Why should teams who have poorly managed or abused their franchise's contracts get off without penalty, while teams who have been diligent in their management practices get screwed?

Even as a Leafs fan, I'm against the amnesty!
- As_I_See_It

I agree. As I said earlier, if a team uses the amnesty clause, it should pay some kind of penalty. For example, its cap is lowered $5 million for two years. Another posted said the owners won't go for that. Probably not, but from what I understand, most teams won't benefit from the amnesty clause. So either punish the ones who need to use it or reward those who don't.

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

People from those states dont go to games its geezers from the north east moving there adn if the games are at 7 thats past their bedtime.

Wow, speculation at its finest. There's no way this contract-dropping amnesty is going to go off this way. It makes no sense at all. The league was up in arms about long contracts that enabled teams to drop the cap hit of players like Kovalchuck and Richards to about 60% of what they actually made this year. Why would they see no competitive advantage in a team being able to sign a guy like Jeff Carter to $600k while the Kings pay the difference?

What reason does the NHLPA have to let this fly? You want Parise at an $8mil hit, or Carter at a $600k hit? This is bound to have a negative influence on the FA market. Suddenly, the expensive players sit and wait while the bargain players are scooped up. There may be a 20% difference in the production of Parise and Carter, but you're advocating a system that would enable Carter provide a team with 90% savings. That's just a no-brainer for a GM. Will Carter have a reason to sign with anybody but the team he likes the very most if he knows that the Kings are paying the difference? If you want to create two or three mega teams, then this is the fastest way to get there, otherwise, it's insane.

Amnesty of some sort is a fine idea to start with, but it can't possibly be this simple. A team should be on the hook for some of the player's pay (let's say default 10% -15% of the player's pay stays against your cap as a penalty), but the team that picks up the player shouldn't get a free pass to take a minimum hit either. Maybe a system similar to the RFA offersheet system for compensation. Start with the new team having to take a cap hit of at least 40% of his original contract. If they take the player at 40%, then they have to give his previous team a 3rd round draft pick. If they take him at 50%, then they have to give his previous team a 4th round draft pick. If they take him at 55%, then it's a 5th rounder. 60% is 6th round pick, 65% is 7th round pick, and 70% is no compensation. In every situation up to 70%, the old team has to take a cap hit of 10%-15% of the player's remaining salary, yet still pays the player the entire difference. There should also be a catch here for the team that's unloading the player: If a team signs your player for 70% of your contract, then the other 30% of the cap hit falls on your team for the remainder of his contract. This will prevent teams from unloading players that are worth something close to their contract in an effort to unload cap space.

A. why are you shouting?
B. If you think Wang is going to Pay someone and not have it help him reach the cap floor you are crazy.

A more likely scenario is Wang taking on another horrible sallary if a team gives him the cash.
- niteislander

I don't care I'm sick of this guy... i want him out!

whats up with that black box next to the main blog? there used to be 3 articles, tim and engels and another, now only tim and eric's are there

potentially nothing. however I fully expect they would put in something that would make such a move illegal.
- Eklund

umm. they already do.

umm. they already do.
- Fountain-San

Enjoy your ban!

Can we really bank on the fact that this amnesty issue means that certain players will be willing to take basement-bargain contracts because their salary is already being paid by the former team?


Two things I see wrong with this -

1.) I cannot imagine that this amnesty resolution would mean that the team must pay out the full salary (either lump sum or yearly) and just take it out of the cap equation. While this benefits the front offices by potentially improving the on-ice product (freeing up cap money to improve the roster elsewhere), it still straps the organization with paying the player the full amount. It doesn't make any real business sense. I think the real solution here is a modified buy-out situation, where there are set buy-out terms (i.e a percentage of the total owed salary that exceeds a normal buy-out), or a team is given the right negotiate terms of a buy-out. Paying the player the full salary and releasing him to the UFA market makes about zero sense. Does anyone really think that Canucks would pay Luongo his ridiculous contract and just let him walk for nothing in return? That's laughable.


2.) Even if (I stress IF) a full amnesty situation were approved - would players really be willing to re-sign at low-level deals because they are being paid by their previous team? I highly, highly doubt it - especially when looking at players like Luongo, who are at upper-tier, if not elite status. You will not see players like this signing for fractional salaries, even if they've been paid. Their agents would be foolish to recommend this, and bet your life that some GM will be willing to shell out premium coin. If a situation were to happen like this, it would result in players making the equivalent of two salaries. Great for the player, terrible for the front office.

Overall, I think this is a completely foolish proposition.

What if we eliminate the NMC? And then say (I believe this already exists) If a player like Wade Redden gets cut to the minors then the player has the option to walk away from the contract and become a UFA. A mutual tearing up of the contract. I think our buddy Wade had that option, he picked $$ over NHL....

Can we really bank on the fact that this amnesty issue means that certain players will be willing to take basement-bargain contracts because their salary is already being paid by the former team?


Two things I see wrong with this -

1.) I cannot imagine that this amnesty resolution would mean that the team must pay out the full salary (either lump sum or yearly) and just take it out of the cap equation. While this benefits the front offices by potentially improving the on-ice product (freeing up cap money to improve the roster elsewhere), it still straps the organization with paying the player the full amount. It doesn't make any real business sense. I think the real solution here is a modified buy-out situation, where there are set buy-out terms (i.e a percentage of the total owed salary that exceeds a normal buy-out), or a team is given the right negotiate terms of a buy-out. Paying the player the full salary and releasing him to the UFA market makes about zero sense. Does anyone really think that Canucks would pay Luongo his ridiculous contract and just let him walk for nothing in return? That's laughable.


2.) Even if (I stress IF) a full amnesty situation were approved - would players really be willing to re-sign at low-level deals because they are being paid by their previous team? I highly, highly doubt it - especially when looking at players like Luongo, who are at upper-tier, if not elite status. You will not see players like this signing for fractional salaries, even if they've been paid. Their agents would be foolish to recommend this, and bet your life that some GM will be willing to shell out premium coin. If a situation were to happen like this, it would result in players making the equivalent of two salaries. Great for the player, terrible for the front office.

Overall, I think this is a completely foolish proposition.
- FredoXV

Best idea I have read here yet. But it would need tweaking... why would a buyout player not just say, give me the rest of my contract in 1 year? Why would he do anything that isn't an insane request as he is essentially beign cut anyway.

Can we really bank on the fact that this amnesty issue means that certain players will be willing to take basement-bargain contracts because their salary is already being paid by the former team?


Two things I see wrong with this -

1.) I cannot imagine that this amnesty resolution would mean that the team must pay out the full salary (either lump sum or yearly) and just take it out of the cap equation. While this benefits the front offices by potentially improving the on-ice product (freeing up cap money to improve the roster elsewhere), it still straps the organization with paying the player the full amount. It doesn't make any real business sense. I think the real solution here is a modified buy-out situation, where there are set buy-out terms (i.e a percentage of the total owed salary that exceeds a normal buy-out), or a team is given the right negotiate terms of a buy-out. Paying the player the full salary and releasing him to the UFA market makes about zero sense. Does anyone really think that Canucks would pay Luongo his ridiculous contract and just let him walk for nothing in return? That's laughable.


2.) Even if (I stress IF) a full amnesty situation were approved - would players really be willing to re-sign at low-level deals because they are being paid by their previous team? I highly, highly doubt it - especially when looking at players like Luongo, who are at upper-tier, if not elite status. You will not see players like this signing for fractional salaries, even if they've been paid. Their agents would be foolish to recommend this, and bet your life that some GM will be willing to shell out premium coin. If a situation were to happen like this, it would result in players making the equivalent of two salaries. Great for the player, terrible for the front office.

Overall, I think this is a completely foolish proposition.
- FredoXV

Or just modify the buy out to be say you get hit with half the cap hit but pay the player the same real dollars per year rest of contract. Not half over double length which makes buying out certain players impossible. Makes getting out of contracts easier, but still a steep price. I think most teams would go for that, and MTL for example would love to have a 3.5 mil hit for Gomez for the remaining 2 years while payign him 7. I think they would def go for that.

Just another band-aid-solution-out-clause to help protect the idiotic GM's and Owner's who can't control themselves.

F*** the amnesty, make them pay! Much like what's going on in Greece (and a lot of Europe for that matter) and the ridiculous bailout packages handed out in the US, when the F*** are these guys going to learn if they keep getting bailed out?

Just another band-aid-solution-out-clause to help protect the idiotic GM's and Owner's who can't control themselves.

F*** the amnesty, make them pay! Much like what's going on in Greece (and a lot of Europe for that matter) and the ridiculous bailout packages handed out in the US, when the F*** are these guys going to learn if they keep getting bailed out?
- As_I_See_It

Some teams are paying out the ass for the mistakes of previous ownership/management.

I am 100% for the amnesty...can anyone take a guess why!?!?