NHL Compensation Rule is really Stupid

[AJgoal]

The thing is, the NHL execs who agreed to the rule didn't even think it would be enforced this way. Daly is the one who made this interpretation. I thought it was ridiculous when I read that, and that applies to McClellan, Chiarelli, and Bylsma, as well as anyone else who comes along. It'd still be ridiculous if the Flyers got compensation for Berube. McKenzie said it well earlier - the compensation a team gets for someone hiring their fired exec or coach is that they get out from under the financial stipulations of the contract. It should end there.

 

Here's the espn article describing the confusion: http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35839/teams-can-seek-draft-pick-compensation-for-fired-coaches-gms-executives

 

and McKenzie's response: Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie  9h

9 hours ago

Clearly, there shouldn't be compensation for "fired" coaches/execs. "Compensation" is getting out from under remaining financial obligation.

[B21]

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.

 

I'll take it a step further and bring and old dead horse into the mix.

 

The Flyers got a 2nd and 4th for Kimmo with the 4th turning into another 2nd if the Hawks made the Conference Finals, right?

 

Let's say Kimmo tore his ACL in the final regular season game. Would the Flyers have told the Hawks to keep the 2nd and take the 4th since Kimmo had no bearing on them getting to the WCF? Hell no.

 

Apples and oranges comparison....but still fruit.

[hf101]

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.

 

Ok we agree on the rule needs to change, and yeah a lot of teams have been known to take advantage of poorly written league rules, but Employee's weren't written as apart of the Rule.  The rule was for Coaches, GM's and Exec's of which none of the above was Blysma when the rule was made.

[AJgoal]

First, I disagree with the rule, and agree that in some ways, it's crappy to ask for compensation to hire a guy you didn't want. Mostly because it could, in theory, prevent guys from getting hired until after their contract runs out. The rule was intended to prevent the poaching of coaches under contract, spearheaded in part by the Red Wings due to their fear that someone would hire Blashill out from under them. Teams that have fired their coach are losing out on absolutely nothing when someone hires them. In fact, it appears by league rules they are relieved of the financial obligation to pay them once someone else hires them, unlike the NFL where fired coaches get paid until the end of their term. However, the Pens, Sharks, and Bruins still acted within the rules. Just because someone acts in a way that we frown upon, doesn't mean that they're wrong to do so.

 

Now, we can take this further in a couple ways. What if, say, Bylsma (or anyone else) was hired to replace a coach fired in the middle of next season? Would the team that fired them be entitled to a 2nd round pick? You're talking about there being literally no difference to the "losing" team, but by the rule, a coach hired in-season is worth a 2nd. How in any way does that make sense?

 

Secondly, what happens if some enterprising team hires 5 head coaches and fires them, one after the other, in the course of a week in the offseason? Are they entitled to draft pick compensation for each one of them hired before their term expires? Cause if I'm the Leafs, that's a play I'd make. It's an extreme example, but currently possible under the rule. 

 

I stated when it was first implemented that I thought it was a dumb rule because it had the potential to limit the upward mobility of coaches. I now think that it's ludicrous as implemented.

[pilldoc]

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.

 

The thing is I don't think the NHL really clarified it either way.  The reason it never came up before / no one took issue...is well... there was no situation like this until today.  Like I said before, I did not know he was under contract until 2016.  The NHL really should have made many clarifications regarding this rule and they didn't.  

 

You interpret it one way...and I interpret another way......

 

I can careless about the Pens getting a 3rd round pick.  If Bylsma was under contract say for the Panthers and was fired by Panthers and say the Stars hire Bylsma a year later..... I still don't think the Stars owe the Panthers anything.  I'm arguing against the ruling not the team that is involved.  

 

So let me ask you this...why didn' the Pens just terminate his contract when he was fired?  I surely don't want to be paying someone who is no longer working for me. 

[B21]

Ok we agree on the rule needs to change, and yeah a lot of teams have been known to take advantage of poorly written league rules, but Employee's weren't written as apart of the Rule.  The rule was for Coaches, GM's and Exec's of which none of the above was Blysma when the rule was made.

 

From your link, the rule is losing someone "hired to be head coach, GM or President/Hockey Ops with another club."   I'm assuming it says something along the lines of that happening while said someone is still under contact.  It's a loop hole.  It should specify "under contract and in an active role..." or something of the sort.  But it doesn't.  Loopholes are meant to be exploited.  Just ask Chris Pronger's agent or the Nashville Predators.  

[hf101]

So let me ask you this...why didn' the Pens just terminate his contract when he was fired?  I surely don't want to be paying someone who is no longer working for me. 

 

I don't think that is possible as these likely are guaranteed contracts for total compensation unless they sign with another team via permission.  

[B21]

 

So let me ask you this...why didn' the Pens just terminate his contract when he was fired?  I surely don't want to be paying someone who is no longer working for me. 

 

My guess is that it was a guaranteed contact and that most if not all coaches' contracts are written as such. Chiarelli was still under contract, too.  I though McLellan left on his own accord but I guess that was not the case either as both hires cost the Oilers picks.

 

 

The thing is I don't think the NHL really clarified it either way.  The reason it never came up before / no one took issue...is well... there was no situation like this until today.  Like I said before, I did not know he was under contract until 2016.  The NHL really should have made many clarifications regarding this rule and they didn't.  

 

You interpret it one way...and I interpret another way......

 

I can careless about the Pens getting a 3rd round pick.  If Bylsma was under contract say for the Panthers and was fired by Panthers and say the Stars hire Bylsma a year later..... I still don't think the Stars owe the Panthers anything.  I'm arguing against the ruling not the team that is involved.  

 

 

I don't like the rule either.  What I really don't like though is my team being the only team getting taken to task for it when it happened at least two other times in the last month.  Only then does all this other information about when the rule took effect versus when Bylsma was hired come up.  Bylsma had one year left on his deal when the Sabres hired him. Chiarelli had three. 

 

Bottom line - no one here (save for Rux of course) had an issue when the Bruins or Sharks got their compensation.  Noooooooo one.

[pilldoc]

I don't think that is possible as these likely are guaranteed contracts for total compensation unless they sign with another team via permission.  

 

A most logical answer...thanks for the clarification.

 

I agree with @B21, the wording should have said "under contract AND in an active role with the team".....therefore it is a loophole and loopholes are meant to be exploited...just ask Congress. 

 

Only in the NHL can they screw something like this up....

[pilldoc]

My guess is that it was a guaranteed contact and that most if not all coaches' contracts are written as such. Chiarelli was still under contract, too.  I though McLellan left on his own accord but I guess that was not the case either as both hires cost the Oilers picks.

 

 

 

I don't like the rule either.  What I really don't like though is my team being the only team getting taken to task for it when it happened at least two other times in the last month.  Only then does all this other information about when the rule took effect versus when Bylsma was hired come up.  Bylsma had one year left on his deal when the Sabres hired him. Chiarelli had three. 

 

Bottom line - no one here (save for Rux of course) had an issue when the Bruins or Sharks got their compensation.  Noooooooo one.

 

See my post above to HF......my only argument is both the Bruins and Sharks had individuals who where in ACTIVE roles with their teams last season.  Bylsma was in a NON-ACTIVE role (only because I did not realize he was under contract until 2016).  If Bylsma was in an ACTIVE role with the Pens last year, IMO it is a non-issue.  Since he was not, I can see why some would question this.  The NHL did a poor job wording this.  Like you said it boils down to ACTIVE vs NON-ACTIVE.......... only in the NHL.

[ruxpin]

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.

By the way, it doesn't have to matter, but it's not just Flyer fans. I was on the road pretty much all day (which sucked) but listened to NHL Home Ice pretty much all day. Seriously, every host and Co-host and usual guests railed on this one. There's usually someone who offers an opposing point of view but I didn't hear any (there may have been at some point but I really didn't hear it).

I do think there's a difference between someone who's just left the team and someone who's been away a year.

Not trying to reopen this (certainly feel free to respond) but the flyers thing kind of bothered me.

[pilldoc]

I do think there's a difference between someone who's just left the team and someone who's been away a year.

 

 

That is the crux of my argument too!

[B21]

@ruxpin

@pilldoc

 

My last $.02 on this. Fired is fired. It should not matter if it was one month ago or 1 year ago.  The NHL rule has nothing to do with being "fired". It has to do with still being under contract with a team and everyone in question here....Bylsma, Chiarelli and McLellan...were under contact with one team when they were hired by another.  

 

Fault the NHL for the loophole. Don't fault teams for exploiting it.

[pilldoc]

@ruxpin

@pilldoc

 

My last $.02 on this. Fired is fired. It should not matter if it was one month ago or 1 year ago.  The NHL rule has nothing to do with being "fired". It has to do with still being under contract with a team and everyone in question here....Bylsma, Chiarelli and McLellan...were under contact with one team when they were hired by another.  

 

Fault the NHL for the loophole. Don't fault teams for exploiting it.

 

have you not seen my earlier post...i am siding with you...I have said numerous times I don't care about the Pens...it could have happened with the Panthers and I would feel the same way....you don't have to convince me.  I agree the wording is horrific.  I even said I did not know he was under contract.   I am just saying the NHL needs to clarify their wording.  What's done is done. 

 

But come on even though he was technically still under contract...he had no interaction with team and for all intent of purpose he was fired as a coach.......even you have to admit that...but yes the NHL wording is different.

 

Agree this has been beaten to death....time to move on

[JackStraw]

By the way, it doesn't have to matter, but it's not just Flyer fans. I was on the road pretty much all day (which sucked) but listened to NHL Home Ice pretty much all day. Seriously, every host and Co-host and usual guests railed on this one. There's usually someone who offers an opposing point of view but I didn't hear any (there may have been at some point but I really didn't hear it).

I do think there's a difference between someone who's just left the team and someone who's been away a year.

Not trying to reopen this (certainly feel free to respond) but the flyers thing kind of bothered me.

Point taken.

[Podein25]

Point taken.

If you take his point, won't rux be left pointless? Just trying your thought process out. I like it!

[JackStraw]

If you take his point, won't rux be left pointless? Just trying your thought process out. I like it!

He said before that he didn't have point, so I think he's in the minus now.

[Podein25]

He said before that he didn't have point, so I think he's in the minus now.

Minus you say? Is he angling for a job on the Flyer blueline or what?

[JackStraw]

Minus you say? Is he angling for a job on the Flyer blueline or what?

What does fishing have to do with anything?

[Podein25]

What does fishing have to do with anything?

Well a nice poached Halibut can please the palate and soothe the soul. Like when you're having a bad day, the Lumina won't start, you lost the lottery and you live on the shore of Lake Erie. It helps with the pain.

[Polaris922]

Stupid rule.

Length of termination doesn't matter one bit. Fired is fired.

Under contract is under contract. If the team has to pay him to not work thanks to the contract, then they deserve something for their money spent if he's picked up. That third round pick cost the Pens a couple million dollars.

Also to consider, when Shero signed with the Devils the Pens declined to take advantage of the rule. It wasn't until Boston took advantage of it that they made the decision to do so going forward. Maybe a "well if others are gonna do it so are we" type thing?

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

@pilldoc

My last $.02 on this. Fired is fired. It should not matter if it was one month ago or 1 year ago. The NHL rule has nothing to do with being "fired". It has to do with still being under contract with a team and everyone in question here....Bylsma, Chiarelli and McLellan...were under contact with one team when they were hired by another.

Fault the NHL for the loophole. Don't fault teams for exploiting it.

Fired may be fired. But there are a lot of companies out there with one year non-competes that sometimes are applied regardless of reason for separation.

There is a difference between several weeks and a year (52-x=difference).

A coach has been gone a year and is actually working elsewhere, be glad as hell he's off your books and be happy for your former Stanley Cup winning employee. They almost derailed it quibbling over which draft pick.

Classless. Don't worry though. Next week I'll be kvetching about the next Classless move by someone else and completely forget... What were we talking about?

[ruxpin]

Lol @JackStraw & @Podein25

[JackStraw]

Well a nice poached Halibut can please the palate and soothe the soul. Like when you're having a bad day, the Lumina won't start, you lost the lottery and you live on the shore of Lake Erie. It helps with the pain.

You've got a point there, I have to admit.

[Polaris922]

Rutherford taking heat for not collecting the pick on Shero.  Business is business.  LOL