HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Potential Amnesty Clause

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2012, 12:46 PM
  #1
Senor Catface
Registered User
 
Senor Catface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Nepal
Posts: 6,115
vCash: 500
Potential Amnesty Clause

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/11...amnesty-clause

Thought this might be of relevance for the team going forward. It's sort of funny, and not surprising, that the story focuses on the worst contract in the league. Big surprise there. Anyways, here's hoping this doesn't just turn into a Horcoff topic. I thought some people might want to talk about the potential clause though. Keep in mind...not confirmed, just an idea teams are throwing around.

Rewarding bad management...horrah!

Senor Catface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 12:49 PM
  #2
Koto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 500
what i dont understand is who is asking for this?

i'd have to think 25 owners would be against it. it essentially raises the cap.

cant see players liking it, it could end their career earlier and reduce earnings.

Koto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 01:06 PM
  #3
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
That article also talks about Columbus moving Rick Nash to the Rangers. Wouldn't the time to move Rick Nash be in the summer then you have potential interest from all 29 other teams?

Reimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 01:11 PM
  #4
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,927
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koto View Post
what i dont understand is who is asking for this?

i'd have to think 25 owners would be against it. it essentially raises the cap.

cant see players liking it, it could end their career earlier and reduce earnings.
I suspect there are more than 5 teams. How many were there last time that used it?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...ates-Pt-1.html

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 01:21 PM
  #5
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
The real problem is that they took out so much flexibility in the last go-round of negotiations (from bonuses to options to buy-outs to recalls and sending guys to the minors, it was rather nuts). I hope they bring a lot of those back in this time around as any team that becomes successful will need them.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 01:54 PM
  #6
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,645
vCash: 2391
I'm only in favour of an amnesty buyout if the cap drops significantly in a year and a rollback in player salaries isn't enough to compensate for that cap drop.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:17 PM
  #7
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,694
vCash: 500
Not in favor of it at all. If you make a bad choice, live with it.

Beerfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:19 PM
  #8
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Anything that expands the cap honestly is good for us.

Rich owner + new arena coming + insanely loyal fanbase willing to pay anything at the gate, means we are now in a totally different stage than the 90s.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:29 PM
  #9
Eytinge
Registered User
 
Eytinge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Not in favor of it at all. If you make a bad choice, live with it.
But Horcoff would be off the team, I thought you wanted that?

Eytinge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:18 PM
  #10
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koto View Post
what i dont understand is who is asking for this?

i'd have to think 25 owners would be against it. it essentially raises the cap.

cant see players liking it, it could end their career earlier and reduce earnings.
If the new CBA changes enough you almost have to include something like this. There has to be at least one team if not several who will be put in a tough spot because of the changes that will be coming. To expect them to plan for a new CBA which they have no idea what will bring is unreasonable. So you have to offer teams a way to realign their teams direction to one that is more favorable to the new CBA.

Who knows the new CBA could even make some teams non-compliant to it, in which case you have no choice but to offer compliance buyouts like they did in the previous CBA.

If you offer it to one team you have to offer it to all.

Does anyone remember if any players were bought out during the last compliance buyout period?

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:25 PM
  #11
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
I know I'm in the minority, but I'm for it. I dislike guaranteed contracts and actually prefer the NFL style of contracts that aren't guaranteed. If someone has a great year, sure, give them their money. But if they suck, too bad for them. It pays the people who are doing well the top money, and those that no longer are, less money.

ponokanocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:40 PM
  #12
The Nuge
Farewell Smytty
 
The Nuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,618
vCash: 1026
I'm all for buying out Horcoff, but I'd also resign him. Just I'd go for ~ 2 years @2.5 million. He gets his money, we get some extra cap space

The Nuge is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:50 PM
  #13
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponokanocker View Post
I dislike guaranteed contracts and actually prefer the NFL style of contracts that aren't guaranteed.
I would still like to know how the NFL "contracts" are contracts at all. It doesn't appear as though you even need to buy people out.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:59 PM
  #14
Gord
Go Esks!
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,471
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Anything that expands the cap honestly is good for us.

Rich owner + new arena coming + insanely loyal fanbase willing to pay anything at the gate, means we are now in a totally different stage than the 90s.
what good is spending to the cap if you ice a lousy team?
Oilers have has a pretty high payroll the last several years and it didn't help much.
Besides, a rich owner will make more money with a rabid fan base if he doesn't spend to the cap.
Why spend more if people give you their money no matter what kind of team is on the ice?

Gord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:04 PM
  #15
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
What I want is for all no-trade and no movement clauses to be void during the off-season. Everyone gets them as a matter of course these days, whether they've earned them or not. It has to stop.

Neilio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:08 PM
  #16
okgooil
HFBoards Sponsor
 
okgooil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Anything that expands the cap honestly is good for us.

Rich owner + new arena coming + insanely loyal fanbase willing to pay anything at the gate, means we are now in a totally different stage than the 90s.
I agree.

okgooil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:14 PM
  #17
Koto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilio View Post
What I want is for all no-trade and no movement clauses to be void during the off-season. Everyone gets them as a matter of course these days, whether they've earned them or not. It has to stop.
nah, you can't legislate against stupid.

a free agent should definitely be able to sign somewhere knowing his family will be able to set down roots for the duration of the contract.


GM's just need to be pickier about it, sign less outlandish contracts.

Koto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:15 PM
  #18
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
I would still like to know how the NFL "contracts" are contracts at all. It doesn't appear as though you even need to buy people out.
They're legal contracts because it states specifically in them that the teams have the right to cancel the contract if they choose. A lot of legal contracts have out clauses. They don't need to buy out players in the NFL.

ponokanocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:19 PM
  #19
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponokanocker View Post
They're legal contracts because it states specifically in them that the teams have the right to cancel the contract if they choose. A lot of legal contracts have out clauses. They don't need to buy out players in the NFL.
I understand that part, but the whole "we'll pay you THIS...unless we don't feel like it" doesn't really jive with the understanding of a sports contract. Then again, I view the NFL very dimly.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:21 PM
  #20
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eytinge View Post
But Horcoff would be off the team, I thought you wanted that?
I firmly believe he wouldn't be. And what I want for my team and what is right and fair and just are two different things all together.

Beerfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:32 PM
  #21
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
I understand that part, but the whole "we'll pay you THIS...unless we don't feel like it" doesn't really jive with the understanding of a sports contract. Then again, I view the NFL very dimly.
I love the power it gives to the owners, and doesn't make a joke of the sport. Also, fans of the teams like to see the players who are the best getting the big paycheques, and those that don't show up lose their big paydays. Players have to show up and play their a$$es off, or they lose their big contract.
Players like Souray would keep their mouth shut knowing that the team could just cut them. Players like Gomez and Horcoff that don't live up to the big money don't earn it and it goes to better players. There are no black hole contracts or teams having to bury players like Drury in the minors.

ponokanocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:36 PM
  #22
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,244
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Anything that expands the cap honestly is good for us.

Rich owner + new arena coming + insanely loyal fanbase willing to pay anything at the gate, means we are now in a totally different stage than the 90s.
How is expanding the cap good for anybody but the players?

I am the Liquor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:36 PM
  #23
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,927
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
I understand that part, but the whole "we'll pay you THIS...unless we don't feel like it" doesn't really jive with the understanding of a sports contract. Then again, I view the NFL very dimly.
That's why NFL players try get $28,000,000 bonuses in March. They also have a portion that is guranteed money.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:38 PM
  #24
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
How is expanding the cap good for anybody but the players?
Well I am thinking about a different type of amnesty where say one or two contracts don't count against the cap or you're allowed to go over a cap and pay into a luxury tax lets say.

We could offer someone like Shea Weber say $12 million dollars in that case.

I mean if our owner can afford it, and our new arena can bankroll it ... it's not like other teams apologized to us when they were outspending us 3-to-1. Of course that isn't neccessarily what this type of amnesty is referring to, but I kinda do wonder if scrapping the cap right now for the next 6-7 years at least wouldn't be plenty beneficial to the Oilers.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 04:46 PM
  #25
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
How is expanding the cap good for anybody but the players?
Totally agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Well I am thinking about a different type of amnesty where say one or two contracts don't count against the cap or you're allowed to go over a cap and pay into a luxury tax lets say.

We could offer someone like Shea Weber say $12 million dollars in that case.

I mean if our owner can afford it, and our new arena can bankroll it ... it's not like other teams apologized to us when they were outspending us 3-to-1. Of course that isn't neccessarily what this type of amnesty is referring to, but I kinda do wonder if scrapping the cap right now for the next 6-7 years at least wouldn't be plenty beneficial to the Oilers.
I personally loved when the cap came into effect. We were headed toward MLB without it, and if we do anything like you are suggesting, we would be right back where we got out of. If anything, I'd like to see more revenue sharing like the NFL where any team can go to the cap with a good team. Green Bay would never be where they are today without it.
I personally think it's awefull that Nashville can't add something to their roster because of the small market they play in, and may have to break up their big 3. They could of been and still be cup contenders for years.

ponokanocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.