Why An Amnesty Clause Makes Sense

Shawn Horcoff. Keith Ballard. Matt Stajan. Mike Komisarek. The list is a lot longer than that, but it sometimes feels like every team in the league has a player or two whose contracts they’d love to make disappear.

That’s why some sort of amnesty buyout could be an appealing option when the NHL and NHLPA eventually get together and work out the next collective bargaining agreement.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

At this point, such an amnesty is entirely speculative; the NHL and NHLPA haven’t even sat down to begin discussing the next deal yet. That might not sound good, but it’s okay; the league and the players’ association have almost five whole months to hammer out a new deal and nothing in their past suggests they’d sacrifice hockey for bickering over terms. And surely, if they had done so, league revenues would have dropped so precipitously that they’d never even ponder doing it again.

At any rate, with the next CBA barely a twinkle in the eye of its uncommunicative parents, it’s impossible to know if it will contain some sort of contract amnesty. What is clear is that it makes sense for both sides.

A contract buyout is often viewed as an ugly tool by the media, but from a player’s perspective things generally aren’t so bad – especially if the player is old enough that he’s only eligible for a two-thirds buyout. Even when he isn’t, the buyout can work out well – Cam Barker made more money this year, post-Minnesota buyout, than he would have had the Wild opted to keep him around.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Take Shawn Horcoff as an example. If the Oilers decided this summer that they wanted to buy Horcoff out, they would need to spend $8.67 million (spread over six years) to make it happen. Horcoff, without a buyout, will make $13 million. Now, if Horcoff can get a free agent contract equal to Eric Belanger’s three year, $1.75 million/year pact he’ll pick up almost a full million extra to stuff into his bed of money (and that shouldn’t be hard, given his true value is likely north of $2.0 million per season).

Indeed, from a player’s perspective, any sort of contract amnesty would be a huge injection of cap circumventing cash. If each team spent $3.33 million on a buyout (i.e. bought out $5 million worth of total salary) that would be $100 million of expenses that wouldn’t count against the salary cap. Knowing what the they know about NHL general managers, the players’ association could also bank on that open cap space quickly being filled as teams do what they always do when they have money: spend it like drunk sailors on shore leave.

Plus, there’s even a chance that with an amnesty buyout, Wade Redden might get to play another NHL game at some point, and that has to be a plus.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

From the league perspective, the problem is that teams could go ahead and shell out $100 million that doesn’t count against the cap, throwing their delicate revenue-to-player salary ratio out of balance.

Really though, it’s a minimal point. The league will still have their salary cap, and this would represent a way to ease some of the pressure teams are facing internally without backing off it. Besides, the big market teams – the Leafs, the Rangers, etc. – have been crying out for a chance to use their financial clout to better their teams. An amnesty would give them that opportunity without throwing the cap system out of whack while still allowing small-budget teams to carry on as they were.

If the league chose to decline an amnesty offer, it might also come in handy as a wedge issue for the players’ association. For the NHLPA to get the best possible deal, they’ll need to find issues that split ownership, and this could easily be one of them.

In any case, the league will need to figure something out, particularly if they’re pushing for a reduced salary cap in the new CBA. If, for instance, the team was successful in pushing the players’ portion of revenue down to 50% as it is in basketball, that decision would knock the current cap down to the $55 million range. Eight teams already have that much committed to next year without signing any of their free agents.

This is why I tend to think a one-time amnesty clause will be a part of the new agreement. It simply makes sense from all angles – it’s money for the players, appealing to teams in financial trouble, and one way to help the league adjust to what is likely to be a lower cap figure in the future.

Then again, if NHL history is anything to go by, ‘making sense’ doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘going to happen.’

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

This week by Jonathan Willis at the Nation Network

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • DieHard

    How would the amnesty work? Do they just get to dump their crappiest contract on the buyout terms. Do they get a pass on the cap hit, but pay the guy? Is the fellow a free agent should that happen? Do GMs get a pass on their boneheaded NM clauses too?

    A bad amnesty could let badly run clubs with old players and cap constraints get younger by using new flexibility to pick off guys from the oilers with offer sheets.

  • An amnesty favours other teams over Edmonton. The Oilers didn’t sign devastating contracts. Those that did, attempting to circumvent the rules and fair play, should be forced to live with the consequences of their less than honourable actions. The league is responsible to set limits to contain those that will compete at any cost. This would be a good start.

    Why should the Flyers (who are a threat to the Oilers at some point) be allowed to get out of Pronger’s deal? They wanted the rake bad, they have him. Forever.

  • Both of your statements ARE insults.

    My comment wasn’t asinine – I’m merely trying to understand your perspective on this.

    As for “repeated references” to age, I asked age once. That’s it. So you know… pot->kettle->black.

  • As a fellow Basketball fail along with the El Tigre, being tall and invincible, I understand the internet tough guy thing TUG does. He/she/it (being a tiger) might whoop your ass any time, being tall (presumably) and invincible and not having to man up and that.

    The tough talk that hides as debate is your chance/warning to escape certain mental and intellectual devastation. Because he/she/it cannot by definition be physical. Lucky for you. Apparently bag licking for props from those he/she/it seeks approval from is quite nice.

    Maybe he/she/it should be in Oiler management. Fierce.

    • Tough talk? What in the world? Telling someone their comment was asinine is “tough talk” to you?

      I don’t think “tough” means what you think it means.

      Perhaps you could refer me to some comment I’ve made where I acted “tough”, because at this point I’m confused.

      I’ve got one guy who think calling his comment asinine is a personal attack, and another who believes it is the equivalent to flexing my muscles. This is so odd.

      The funniest part was your comments about my name. It is a (admittedly somewhat obscure) literary reference that couldn’t possibly be further from the suggestion of toughness.

      One last thing – what does basketball have to do with any of this and why do you believe it has to do with being tough?

    • For sure. I love to disagree with people. It makes for better conversation than agreement.

      I just get fed up when people start to take disagreement in a sports conversation personally….or post weird confusing comments that relate to nothing.