HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Amnesty buyout, is it fair?

View Poll Results: Is the amnesty clause unfair or fair?
It is fair 68 60.71%
It is unfair 44 39.29%
Voters: 112. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 03:50 PM
  #26
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,876
vCash: 500
If we're talking fair/unfair , why would be be fair for teams who signed long expensive contracts to be punished for working within the rules set forth by the previous CBA?

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:06 PM
  #27
Sasso09
Registered User
 
Sasso09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 6,983
vCash: 500
Bryz Votes no

Sasso09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:12 PM
  #28
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronx,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
If we're talking fair/unfair , why would be be fair for teams who signed long expensive contracts to be punished for working within the rules set forth by the previous CBA?
This. Exactly why it's fair. Having two is unnecessary though.

Ih8theislanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:51 PM
  #29
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 500
Teams signed the players assuming not only an ever-increasing cap, but likely the idea that if a new CBA lowered the cap, there would be a buyout option. I know people want teams to live with their mistakes, but you can't have teams that can't even field a full team under a new cap.

Regal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 07:20 PM
  #30
klozge
Avs
 
klozge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Espelkamp, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma View Post
I like it, it gives the league a chance to clean its self up a bit and its also fair IMO because every team has that bad contract they'd like to get rid of.
That's simply not true.

klozge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:34 PM
  #31
WolfgangAmadeusEller*
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Burlington
Country: United States
Posts: 2,009
vCash: 500
Revenue sharing, is it fair?

WolfgangAmadeusEller* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:36 PM
  #32
ohheyhemsky
Regehr DooDoo
 
ohheyhemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Den
Country: Indonesia
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 50
Bye bye Horcoff.

ohheyhemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:39 PM
  #33
UnrefinedMcCrude
Registered User
 
UnrefinedMcCrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,440
vCash: 333
Business environment has changed, somewhat drastically.

They are needed for some teams who would otherwise be unable to shed salary to get below the new reduced cap next year.

can and will this be exploited for some teams to get out of bad contracts? sure, but the legitimate use outweighs the free cut some teams will get.

UnrefinedMcCrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:43 PM
  #34
CanadienShark
Registered User
 
CanadienShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruinsfan46 View Post
That's not the way it works, new management doesn't absolve the franchise of old management's sins.

I was against having one, the teams made their own beds with these contracts but in the end having one wouldn't be a big deal to me, two is just ridiculous.
Exactly, ownership needs to take responsibility for the actions of the GM.

CanadienShark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:10 PM
  #35
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,675
vCash: 500
Just to clarify, the cap hit will now count on players "stashed" away in the minors, right? Would this also be the case for players who go to play in Europe?


Also, would a team be able to buy-out a contract and then re-sign the player? For example, could Philly buy-out Bryz and re-sign him for 600,000 per year?

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:14 PM
  #36
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
Just to clarify, the cap hit will now count on players "stashed" away in the minors, right? Would this also be the case for players who go to play in Europe?


Also, would a team be able to buy-out a contract and then re-sign the player? For example, could Philly buy-out Bryz and re-sign him for 600,000 per year?
Yes for players in the minors. Unsure about players in Europe. No to being able to resign the player you bought out. However it's my understanding you could trade bad contracts with another team and buyout and resign the player you traded for. For example you could trade Bryzgalov for Scott Gomez and re sign Scott Gomez for 1.5 mil.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:20 PM
  #37
MTechnik
Showtime
 
MTechnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,071
vCash: 500
If the NHL wants revenue sharing, better let the rich teams fix their mistakes. Fans of small poor teams shouldn't even comment on if it's fair or not.

MTechnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:21 PM
  #38
PensBandwagonerNo272
the march
 
PensBandwagonerNo272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,450
vCash: 500
I don't like it at all.

PensBandwagonerNo272 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:10 PM
  #39
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Yes for players in the minors. Unsure about players in Europe. No to being able to resign the player you bought out. However it's my understanding you could trade bad contracts with another team and buyout and resign the player you traded for. For example you could trade Bryzgalov for Scott Gomez and re sign Scott Gomez for 1.5 mil.
That could become interesting.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:37 AM
  #40
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Habs View Post
Its not a get out of jail free card, its to help teams who thought they could spend 70M get under the new cap that will be imposed next year.
Man, I wish the Avs were given this amount of help after the first lockout. Would have changed a few things... might have been able to keep Foote and never give Columbus that 1st we wasted for instance.

Point is, I think it is wrong to give the big spenders a free pass on contracts from a competitive standpoint this time around without giving the financially responsible franchises the same thing for whenever they might need to buyout a contract without cap implications.

Lonewolfe2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 09:30 AM
  #41
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
The only reason it is fair is because of the lowered cap. You should not be penalized for something that did not exist when the contract was signed/traded for.

Drydenwasthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 09:39 AM
  #42
Tuggy
Registered User
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,958
vCash: 1484
For those saying it's unfair, I can't even begin to understand your point of view. This whole question doesn't even really make sense. These are compliance buyouts for teams to get under the cap for the new framework. The other alternative would have been player salary rollbacks and I'll you what, we wouldn't be thinking about hockey next week if that was the case.

Just because the poorer teams couldn't spend to the cap max doesn't mean they have "smarter" management. I guarantee if those teams could spend more money they would.

Tuggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:42 AM
  #43
TorstenFrings
Co-Trainer
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Zimbabwe
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
I don`t think it is fair, but fair is little more than a buzzword in business anyway.

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:10 AM
  #44
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Like much around player contracts, it does not provide an equal benefit to all teams. Which does not automatically equal unfair.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:27 AM
  #45
jw2
Registered User
 
jw2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 3,530
vCash: 500
i think its fair.

I don't like it, and I think its bad for the game, but I think its fair.

I think we will see a lot of middle tier players being bought out. These guys will have to settle for very small contracts, at that point, as there will be verry little cap space league wide.

jw2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:29 AM
  #46
SeriousHabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,674
vCash: 500
It is fair because of the reduction in cap space. Even careful GMs could be screwed by the compression.

SeriousHabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:02 PM
  #47
loadie
Official Beer Taster
 
loadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaner89 View Post
Benefits teams that have horrible contracts.... Mtl, Nyr, etc
No, it benefits all teams that are at or near the cap limit. The cap will be lowered, how do you expect a team with a cap of 70 Million to get to 64? You give them buyout options.

__________________

The French Canadian rule: Read about it, go to bed smarter.

http://ultimatehockeynetwork.com/the...-or-fiction-2/
loadie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:13 PM
  #48
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,917
vCash: 500
I think the buyout issue is perfectly fine.

Sometimes things do not work out as planned by either the team or the player.

No one could have expected the dramatic fall from grace that Redden took. He wasn't a terrible player before they signed him. He just lost his ability to play the game. As such the Rangers did what EVERY TEAM can and has done with players that were no longer capabl of playing in the NHL, they sent him to the minors.

The punishment that the Rangers suffered through is that it was a one way contract and have paid him over 12 million to play minor league hockey.

They should allow one buyout per team, per year. And NOT have it count against the cap.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:21 PM
  #49
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
Just to clarify, the cap hit will now count on players "stashed" away in the minors, right? Would this also be the case for players who go to play in Europe?


Also, would a team be able to buy-out a contract and then re-sign the player? For example, could Philly buy-out Bryz and re-sign him for 600,000 per year?
I don't think that that has been confirmed one way or the other.

One of the NHL's proposals included that, but I'm not certain it was negotiated into the final agreement.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:47 PM
  #50
Minor Boarding
Registered User
 
Minor Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Corleone
Posts: 1,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post

They should allow one buyout per team, per year. And NOT have it count against the cap.
Sather, is that you?


Minor Boarding 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 06:52 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.