NHL Compensation Rule is really Stupid

[JackStraw]

And it's official. Not only did the Sabres hire Bylsma, they gave up a third rounder to the Pens to do it.

 

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/12970035/buffalo-sabres-hire-dan-bylsma-coach-pittsburgh-penguins-get-pick

 

I think Babcock, McLellan and Chiarelli also cost the teams that signed them a draft pick. What an incredibly stupid rule. Fire a guy, someone else hires him, and you get rewarded.

[AJgoal]

Yeah, that's dumb

[ruxpin]

I think Babcock, McLellan and Chiarelli also cost the teams that signed them a draft pick. What an incredibly stupid rule. Fire a guy, someone else hires him, gets his salary off your books! and you get rewarded.

It's ridiculous. Babcock I get. I don't like the McClellan thing. But I think Pittsburgh, in particular, is slimy with this. No respect for it.

[pilldoc]

@JackStraw

@ruxpin

 

I'll take that one step further...Dan the man was fires LAST YEAR..as in June 2014!!!  He was irrelavent to the Pens during this past season.    I could maybe buy the argument had he been fired during mid-season.....BUT not from last June.   What a sham....Buttman should be ashamed of himself.  STUPID RULE!!!!    

[ruxpin]

@JackStraw

@ruxpin

I'll take that one step further...Dan the man was fires LAST YEAR..as in June 2014!!! He was irrelavent to the Pens during this past season. I could maybe buy the argument had he been fired during mid-season.....BUT not from last June. What a sham....Buttman should be ashamed of himself. STUPID RULE!!!!

Exactly. It's not even as if he was still part of the brain trust [sic]. He was working as a broadcaster for God sake.

It's crap. The other two I kind of understand (McClellan is close to bad). But he Penguins come off like asses here. It's Clark/Homerish. It's technically the rule because the rule was written poorly by morons who didn't consider this situation. But classless.

[B21]

Exactly. It's not even as if he was still part of the brain trust [sic]. He was working as a broadcaster for God sake.

It's crap. The other two I kind of understand (McClellan is close to bad). But he Penguins come off like asses here. It's Clark/Homerish. It's technically the rule because the rule was written poorly by morons who didn't consider this situation. But classless.

 

Why?  If it's a rule, why not take advantage?  They would be stupid not to. No different than front-loading an offer to an RFA in hopes a small market team doesn't match.

 

I agree - certainly a dumb rule - but they are taking advantage of what they are allowed to do...as teams often do.  

[ruxpin]

Why? If it's a rule, why not take advantage? They would be stupid not to. No different than front-loading an offer to an RFA in hopes a small market team doesn't match.

I agree - certainly a dumb rule - but they are taking advantage of what they are allowed to do...as teams often do.

Mostly I'll just refer you to the post you quoted for why. It's classless. It actually briefly held up the hiring. You fired the guy (because he sucked) a year ago, he really has nothing to do with your organization, and some stupid team is trying to give your former employee the chance to get back into coaching (and screw up their team) and get you out of paying deadweight (speaking of, I wonder if Buffalo would take VLC). And you're going to hang your hat on a rule that is so poorly written that you have a technical right to but was clearly meant for a different circumstance.

Classless douchebaggery.

You'll notice that the Devils fired Deboer just this past December, he is still under contract until June 1 (or July 1,i forget which), but they did NOT demand a third from San Jose. .

Not douchebaggery.

I mentioned Clarke/Homer because they skated real close to the line of technicality vs. class too (and into douchebaggery).

In this case it's the Pens being classless with their former employee and general decency. You know I'm one of the few on this board not saying it simply because it's the Pens.

Just calling a spade a spade.

[B21]

Mostly I'll just refer you to the post you quoted for why. It's classless. It actually briefly held up the hiring. You fired the guy (because he sucked) a year ago, he really has nothing to do with your organization, and some stupid team is trying to give your former employee the chance to get back into coaching (and screw up their team) and get you out of paying deadweight (speaking of, I wonder if Buffalo would take VLC). And you're going to hang your hat on a rule that is so poorly written that you have a technical right to but was clearly meant for a different circumstance.

Classless douchebaggery.

You'll notice that the Devils fired Deboer just this past December, he is still under contract until June 1 (or July 1,i forget which), but they did NOT demand a third from San Jose. .

Not douchebaggery.

I mentioned Clarke/Homer because they skates real close to technicality vs. class too.

In this case it's the Pens being classless with their former employee and general decency. You know I'm one of the few on this board not saying it simply because it's the Pens.

Just calling a spade a spade.

 

Agree to disagree.  Not giving him permission to talk to other teams is classless douchbaggery (they of course did not do that).  Nothing more than taking advantage of a rule that I agree is poorly written.  That's not the Pens problem though. 

 

You know I'm one of the few on this board not saying it simply because it's the Pens.

 

Absolutely agree.

[B21]

@ruxpin

 

Sorry - but I have to be fair here. The Oilers "paid" draft pick compensation to both Boston (Chiarelli) and San Jose (McLellan).

 

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/05/21/edmonton-oilers-will-pay-draft-pick-compensation-for-gm-chiarelli-coach-mclellan/

 

No one said "boo" on either occasion.

 

Yet now the Pens do the same and it's "classic douchebaggery".

 

Not singling you out - it's been mentioned in the shoutbox - but anyone getting on the Pens for this is pure Pens hating.  If it's an issue, it should have been an issue over a week ago with McLellan or in April with Chiarelli. Not all of a sudden when the Pens do it.

[pilldoc]

@B21

 

yes but both of those individuals were employeed by their respective teams last year.  Bylsma was not.  That is the issue.  He was a non-factor for the team last year.  If he was still the coach last year and just  got fired this year no-one would have an issue.  I could careless then.  However since he was not employeed at all by the Pens at all during last season there should not be any compensation.  That is my only point. 

 

EDIT: I just read this....

 

"And his hiring was delayed briefly after the Sabres were required under NHL rules to give up a 2016 third-round draft pick as compensation because Bylsma's contract with Pittsburgh ran through June 2016."

 

Stupid rule...but the right call......IMO if you are fired then your contract should be null and void then......

 

that is all.....

[B21]

@B21

 

yes but both of those individuals were employeed by their respective teams last year.  Bylsma was not.  That is the issue.  He was a non-factor for the team last year.  If he was still the coach last year and just  got fired this year no-one would have an issue.  I could careless then.  However since he was not employeed at all by the Pens at all during last season there should not be any compensation.  That is my only point. 

 

So if a guy was fired after (or even during) this past season, it's OK.  If it was after last season, not OK?  Why should that even matter?  To me that's really nitpicking the whole issue.  Technically - this is me nitpicking - Bylsma was employed by the Pens as they were still paying him.  Semantics, sure.  But so is using a recent firing versus a firing one year ago.

[hf101]

Sorry - but I have to be fair here. The Oilers "paid" draft pick compensation to both Boston (Chiarelli) and San Jose (McLellan).

 

http://blogs.edmonto...coach-mclellan/

 

No one said "boo" on either occasion.

 

Yet now the Pens do the same and it's "classic douchebaggery".

 

 

The issue is Blysma was all ready fired before the stupid, dumb written rule was made.   He wasn't a coach anymore!

 

Elliotte Friedman 

 

✔@FriedgeHNIC

Today, NHL also approved compensation for a team losing someone hired to be head coach, GM or President/Hockey Ops with another club (1/2)

8:54 PM - 26 Jun 2014

 

 

[B21]

@B21

 

 

EDIT: I just read this....

 

"And his hiring was delayed briefly after the Sabres were required under NHL rules to give up a 2016 third-round draft pick as compensation because Bylsma's contract with Pittsburgh ran through June 2016."

 

Stupid rule...but the right call......IMO if you are fired then your contract should be null and void then......

 

that is all.....

 

Gonna make me disagree again?  

 

This I don't have a problem with. You offered the contract and fire before it expires - you are on the hook for the salary (unless someone else hires him).  I don't like letting a team off the hook in cases like these.  

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

Sorry - but I have to be fair here. The Oilers "paid" draft pick compensation to both Boston (Chiarelli) and San Jose (McLellan).

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/05/21/edmonton-oilers-will-pay-draft-pick-compensation-for-gm-chiarelli-coach-mclellan/

No one said "boo" on either occasion.

Yet now the Pens do the same and it's "classic douchebaggery".

Not singling you out - it's been mentioned in the shoutbox - but anyone getting on the Pens for this is pure Pens hating. If it's an issue, it should have been an issue over a week ago with McLellan or in April with Chiarelli. Not all of a sudden when the Pens do it.

In fairness, I did twice say I didn't like the McLellan thing either. I missed the Chiarelli thing to be honest but wouldn't have liked it either. I think it sucks.

What makes this different, though, is Bylsma wasn't JUST fired like the other two. He was already working elsewhere for God sake. It was over a year ago.

Douchebaggery.

The thing that makes it barely okay is the knowledge that Rutherford will be drafting and will screw it up.

So yeah, McLellan and Chiarelli examples of a silly application of a poorly written rule. And I hope it's changed.

The Bylsma thing is the above magnified. Within the current (dumb) rule. But Douchebaggery

And since it's glossed over I'll repeat: New Jersey did not demand a pick from San Jose for Deboer although within their rights under the dumb rule. Class.

[hf101]

Stupid rule...but the right call......IMO if you are fired then your contract should be null and void then......
 
that is all.....

 

Well it is guaranteed contract for the $$.  - As you know the rule is for coaches, GM's and company presidents -- once he was fired he wasn't a coach anymore.  thus the Sabres sending a pick is B.S.

[B21]

 

The issue is Blysma was all ready fired before the stupid, dumb written rule was made.   

 

Elliotte Friedman 

 

✔@FriedgeHNIC

Today, NHL also approved compensation for a team losing someone hired to be head coach, GM or President/Hockey Ops with another club (1/2)

8:54 PM - 26 Jun 2014

 

 

 

 

Did they specify that it was only for coaches/front office personnel fired June 26, 2014 or later? If not, the Pens are doing nothing wrong.

[B21]

In fairness, I did twice say I didn't like the McLellan thing either. I missed the Chiarelli thing to be honest but wouldn't have liked it either. I think it sucks.

What makes this different, though, is Bylsma wasn't JUST fired like the other two. He was already working elsewhere for God sake. It was over a year ago.

Douchebaggery.

The thing that makes it barely okay is the knowledge that Rutherford will be drafting and will screw it up.

So yeah, McLellan and Chiarelli examples of a silly application of a poorly written rule. And I hope it's changed.

The Bylsma thing is the above magnified. Within the current (dumb) rule. But Douchebaggery

And since it's glossed over I'll repeat: New Jersey did not demand a pick from San Jose for Deboer although within their rights under the dumb rule. Class.

 

I take you are your word on McLellan/Chiarelli.

 

Again - 1 year is the difference between "OK" and "classless".  That's nitpicking to me.

 

As for the Devils? Classy....and stupid.

 

I'll also add - this rule has stopped no one from hiring the coach they want.

[pilldoc]

@B21

 

see my EDIT on my post......i did not realize his contract was through 2016 when I typed my initial post

 

However, I agree with @hf101 ..... there should be no grandfathering of the new rule.  Bylsma was fired before that rule went into place.

 

So my question is...did the NHL state anywhere that they were gonna grandfather recently fired coaches.  If they did, then I will totally understand, if they did not then that is where many of us would have an issue. 

[hf101]

Did they specify that it was only for coaches/front office personnel fired June 26, 2014 or later? If not, the Pens are doing nothing wrong.

 

I don't know, I haven't found the actual written rule.  But the thing is Blysma was being paid "NOT to Coach"  once that rule was made.  The whole thing is just B.S.   This rule had to have been approved after Happy Hour at the Board of Govenors meeting last June.

 

The best ref I've found is http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24599205/report-nhl-teams-losing-staff-to-other-clubs-will-be-compensated

[ruxpin]

I don't think the year is nitpicking. It's an important distinction.

And you can take me at my word on McLellan or you can read the several times I've said it in this thread.

I think we're just going to disagree on this. It's okay.

[hf101]

Wanted:

 

A team to acquire the rights of the best of the Old School Hockey coaches still available.  Berube - Lappierre and Cote all can be given away for a third round pick.  Take em while you can.  This 3 for one deal won't last forever.

 

[JackStraw]

In fairness, I did twice say I didn't like the McLellan thing either. I missed the Chiarelli thing to be honest but wouldn't have liked it either. I think it sucks.

What makes this different, though, is Bylsma wasn't JUST fired like the other two. He was already working elsewhere for God sake. It was over a year ago.

Douchebaggery.

The thing that makes it barely okay is the knowledge that Rutherford will be drafting and will screw it up.

So yeah, McLellan and Chiarelli examples of a silly application of a poorly written rule. And I hope it's changed.

The Bylsma thing is the above magnified. Within the current (dumb) rule. But Douchebaggery

And since it's glossed over I'll repeat: New Jersey did not demand a pick from San Jose for Deboer although within their rights under the dumb rule. Class.

Because I take my responsibility as board contrarian seriously I am going to have to disagree with my Flyers brethren on this one. Following the rules is not d-baggerry. It's a GM doing his job to maximize his team's assets. Suppose it was the Flyers who were owed a draft pick, and Hextall told say, Pittsburgh, "forget it, we're all in this together". I think Flyers fans would be pretty damn unhappy about that and rightfully so. I want my team's GM to bring home a Stanley Cup... Multiple Stanley Cups in fact. I don't want him to break rules but I don't particularly care if he comes off as a nice guy or not.

[JackStraw]

And yes, it is an incredibly dumb rule.

[B21]

@B21

 

see my EDIT on my post......i did not realize his contract was through 2016 when I typed my initial post

 

However, I agree with @hf101 ..... there should be no grandfathering of the new rule.  Bylsma was fired before that rule went into place.

 

So my question is...did the NHL state anywhere that they were gonna grandfather recently fired coaches.  If they did, then I will totally understand, if they did not then that is where many of us would have an issue. 

 

I saw the EDIT - even responded to it.

 

As for "grandfathering" - I can make my same argument the same way. Did the NHL say the rule only applies moving forward?  If not, then you can't get on the Pens for getting that pick.

 

The NHL made this rule change almost a year ago.  Why didn't anyone take issue then.  Only now that the Pens get a 3rd round pick out of the deal has this become an issue.

[B21]

I don't know, I haven't found the actual written rule.  But the thing is Blysma was being paid "NOT to Coach"  once that rule was made.  The whole thing is just B.S.   This rule had to have been approved after Happy Hour at the Board of Govenors meeting last June.

 

The best ref I've found is http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24599205/report-nhl-teams-losing-staff-to-other-clubs-will-be-compensated

 

Bylsma was still being paid though.  Technically, an employee.  I'm not even using that to make my argument but if you want to go down that road, he is being paid as an employee as he is under contract.  

 

I agree it's BS and needs to change.  Until it does, I'm not going to get on any organization who takes advantage.