NHL Compensation Rule is really Stupid

[ruxpin]

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

Ultimately yes. And that's all @B21 is saying. I get that. And neither of you are wrong.

There was a bit of time where Bylsma's livelihood was being held up by it and that sucks.

Not that I ultimately care about Bylsma, but I think there are better ways to treat a guy you did fire (over a year ago) and who won a Cup for you.

It's by the rules. And it's business is business.

I really do hope, though, that they tighten up the language of that rule because it's really foolish as it is.

Not Pittsburgh. Any team getting compensation for a guy NOT working for them by their own doing and especially after a year... That's goofy.

I don't think it's realistically something to worry about but I suppose there could be some in an organisation that would be worried about someone being recently fired (like McLellan) giving up some "state secrets." I think that's overblown but maybe. After a year I don't think there's even that.

The rule needs to be tightened up.

[Polaris922]

Ultimately yes. And that's all @B21 is saying. I get that. And neither of you are wrong.

There was a bit of time where Bylsma's livelihood was being held up by it and that sucks.

Not that I ultimately care about Bylsma, but I think there are better ways to treat a guy you did fire (over a year ago) and who won a Cup for you.

It's by the rules. And it's business is business.

I really do hope, though, that they tighten up the language of that rule because it's really foolish as it is.

Not Pittsburgh. Any team getting compensation for a guy NOT working for them by their own doing and especially after a year... That's goofy.

I don't think it's realistically something to worry about but I suppose there could be some in an organisation that would be worried about someone being recently fired (like McLellan) giving up some "state secrets." I think that's overblown but maybe. After a year I don't think there's even that.

The rule needs to be tightened up.

 

 

The issue is the guy with the contract can't have it both ways either.  If you want to be eligible to be hired without a draft pick compensation, you should have the option to decline the remaining time on your contract when you are fired.  If they choose to opt out of the money they are owed then there would be no compensation pick.  As it stands though, I think the rule balances as if the coach refuses to coach for a franchise anymore, he can't just sign on elsewhere without the franchise receiving compensation.  Almost like losing an RFA.  

[JR Ewing]

It's an idiotic rule that should be changed, but I'm not bothered by a GM taking the pick. They'd be silly not to do that.

[ruxpin]

The issue is the guy with the contract can't have it both ways either. If you want to be eligible to be hired without a draft pick compensation, you should have the option to decline the remaining time on your contract when you are fired. If they choose to opt out of the money they are owed then there would be no compensation pick. As it stands though, I think the rule balances as if the coach refuses to coach for a franchise anymore, he can't just sign on elsewhere without the franchise receiving compensation. Almost like losing an RFA.

I'm sorry but I don't get that reasoning at all. The signing on ENDS the money, so what's the compensation for? For the employer paying money it promised, signed a contract for? Really? If the money isn't guaranteed, it's not a contract. Regardless of the NFL's interpretation.

No, I'm sorry, I don't agree here at all.

It's an utterly ridiculous nonsense rule that needs to be changed.

[Polaris922]

I'm sorry but I don't get that reasoning at all. The signing on ENDS the money, so what's the compensation for? For the employer paying money it promised? Really?

No, I'm sorry, I don't agree here at all.

It's an utterly ridiculous nonsense rule that needs to be changed.

 

As I said I agree it's a stupid rule.  But I'm trying to think of what they would've justified it with.  The team is not allowed to break the contract by saying we're not paying you.  So why can the guy no longer coaching break the contract at will without the team receiving some compensation?  If they truly honor the contract, fired or otherwise, that person is under contract and ineligible for ANY other job in the league (unless you're Chris Pronger), so there has to be something for the team having to abide by it but the person being able to breach it.  

[ruxpin]

As I said I agree it's a stupid rule. But I'm trying to think of what they would've justified it with. The team is not allowed to break the contract by saying we're not paying you. So why can the guy no longer coaching break the contract at will without the team receiving some compensation? If they truly honor the contract, fired or otherwise, that person is under contract and ineligible for ANY other job in the league (unless you're Chris Pronger), so there has to be something for the team having to abide by it but the person being able to breach it.

I don't think they actuality justified it. I'm betting the circumstance didn't occur to them when they wrote it (I agree unbelievable, but it wouldn't be the first instance). I think they were going for the instance life Babcock or like Hextall from LA to Philly.

They need to tighten this rule because this instance (and Chiarelli and McClellan) is just nonsense.

I think the team can fix it by not firing him. You give him some other ridiculous position like head of scouting in Guam (don't go literal with this). Then when some team comes calling it is an employee (in reality, not just payroll legalese) and you get your compensation.

[JackStraw]

I don't think they actuality justified it. I'm betting the circumstance didn't occur to them when they wrote it (I agree unbelievable, but it wouldn't be the first instance). I think they were going for the instance life Babcock or like Hextall from LA to Philly.

They need to tighten this rule because this instance (and Chiarelli and McClellan) is just nonsense.

I think the team can fix it by not firing him. You give him some other ridiculous position like head of scouting in Guam (don't go literal with this). Then when some team comes calling it is an employee (in reality, not just payroll legalese) and you get your compensation.

I suspect that what you suggest is more or less what happens. For example, I'm pretty sure that McLellan was never actually fired by SJ. They mutually agreed that he would not continue as coach after his contract was up, and gave him permission to talk to other teams. I think the same happened with Chiarelli. The only difference from your suggestion is that they probably didn't bother to give those guys any other title, ceremonial or otherwise. But they were all still employees because they were all still on the payroll.

[ruxpin]

I suspect that what you suggest is more or less what happens. For example, I'm pretty sure that McLellan was never actually fired by SJ. They mutually agreed that he would not continue as coach after his contract was up, and gave him permission to talk to other teams. I think the same happened with Chiarelli. The only difference from your suggestion is that they probably didn't bother to give those guys any other title, ceremonial or otherwise. But they were all still employees because they were all still on the payroll.

That's exactly what I was arguing for when I was talking about actual working employee vs. Payroll legalese (I know there is no legal distinction but bear with this in a practical level).

I completely understand that Bylsma, for example, was receiving compensation for the duration of his contact. So, in a technical sense (tax filings, etc.) he's an employee.

But on a practical level he's not working for them. He's actually broadcasting. What is Pittsburgh giving up in Buffalo hiring him that they need to be compensated for? They aren't losing any work being done. They're not losing any services. The only thing they're losing is the responsibility of paying salary and mandatory costs for absolutely nothing.

So, in reward for another team hiring someone not doing any work or providing any service AND for cessation of your paying for this lack of work and service (a situation that the organization brought by signing a long term deal and then not using the service) you get a third round draft pick.

I don't see any merit to this and have to assume the league or whomever weren't even considering this situation when they wrote it. I'm guessing they were intent on teams poaching other teams' active personnel at the end of contacts (a la Babcock) without some compensation. Or situations of one team hiring some other team's active assistant to get a promotion elsewhere. But in their haste to address this they wrote it in such a way as to not preclude what we have now.

At least give the guy "relieved of coaching duties" some other role (modified duty, if you will) if you really want to argue for compensation with a straight face.

I don't get why Pittsburgh (not picking on them. They just happen to be the easy current example) gets compensation for the trash they threw out last year and haven't even been using and that they were still making payments on that just stopped when someone else dumpster dived.

The rule really needs to be amended this summer.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

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.

So we finally figured out that Pods has a point!!! Does this mean I have to change my signature line??

[Podein25]

 So we finally figured out that Pods has a point!!! Does this mean I have to change my signature line??

 

Lol. That was good. I will let others furnish you with a new one.  Unless you want: "Podein is hungover again"

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Lol. That was good. I will let others furnish you with a new one.  Unless you want: "Podein is hungover again"

 

No.  It has to be random, not expected!

[Podein25]

@AlaskaFlyerFan

 

Ok then. When you least expect it, expect it. 

[JackStraw]

  

 

So we finally figured out that Pods has a point!!! Does this mean I have to change my signature line??

 

 

I dunno, one measly point in all these years? Even Rinaldo has done better than that.

[Podein25]

I dunno, one measly point in all these years? Even Rinaldo has done better than that.

 

 

Yeah, but I'm good in the locker room!

[JackStraw]

Yeah, but I'm good in the locker room!

Sheep are NOT allowed in the locker room!

[ruxpin]

Yeah, but I'm good in the locker room!

 

Ew.

[pilldoc]

Ew.

Bah ...Baa!

[J0e Th0rnton]

Ill chime in here.

 

I am obviously a sharks fan. Currently, the Sharks are set to get a 3rd for TMac, and the Devils seem to be not going after a pick for us taking Deboer.

 

Extremely favorable situation.

 

 

I think it is stupid as heck. The letter of the law being used instead of the spirit of the law.

 

The idea is to prevent teams from poaching good talent in another teams system. People are using it to charge for guys they fired. It is beyond ridiculous.

 

NHL will hopefully fix this rule and SOON.

[ruxpin]

Bah ...Baa!

LOL. I meant as in "yuk," but the "ewe" occurred to me as I was clicking enter.

That's funny.

[jammer2]

@pilldoc  I know it might be deemed kinda bush league, but when a 3rd round pick is involved, why would you EVER just terminate a coach?  Just relieve him of his duties and keep him on the payroll....and wait for a team to call. It might not be the best thing for the coach, but it's the best strategy for the team going forward. You have to pay up front for all the years you owed him anyways, so it's not like the coach is getting ripped off, he's still collecting his money. I'd say make this work for the team that is forking all the cash....it's a no brainier for me.