Leafs search for a new coach/GM
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
There have been quite a few articles written in last week about how bad this compensation thing for executives is working out for NHL. Teams are asking for compensation now for fired coaches and executives??? I expect the NHL to deal with this more very quickly and the silliness to be stopped instantly.
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Maybe, but is it any fundamentally different from a contract signed in another industry that would have a non-compete clause? How is it significantly different from, say, a team thinking they're entitled to compensation for a player they've put in the press box?
I agree with you that on the surface demanding compensation seems counter-intuitive for fired employees but my guess is that any team who does that knows that teams are so interested in getting their first choice in terms of coaches or GMs that they'd probably bite the bullet and sacrifice a pick. That, to them, is probably worth the money.
It's not the way I'd do things but, then again, it's not my business.
A team with a player in the press box has left open the choice of using that player again. Most NHL teams are barely making money. Someone rescuing them for contracts with both term and money left really should not be also paying compensation. As a side note it will have some really bad optics to NHLPA in next negotiation if teams would rather continue paying fired execs rather than let them walk away. To me it's just silly to expect something in return for someone you felt your team was better off without and have actually fired them. That's not even close to benching or putting on trade block.
Nik the Trik said:
Kin
New member
Bates said:
I'm pretty sure teams have that option with executives too. If the Leafs went to Nonis right now and said "Just kidding, we do want you to be GM" I'm pretty sure that if he wanted to keep getting paid he'd have to come in to work. I don't know how it might work if, say, the Leafs decided they wanted to employ Nonis in a different capacity(if, say, they wanted to demote him) but I think there's not much practical difference there.
Bates said:
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you from the perspective of what "should be" just that I'd guess that the league knew all of what you say here when they passed it and still wanted to pass it. Again, I'd think of it like you might a contract with a non-compete clause. You're paying someone that money not just so they'll help your team but also so they don't help another team. Being as these NHL teams are, in theory, in direct competition with each other it does make a certain amount of sense.
My guess is that the market will sort this out. I'd bet that eventually teams will realize that the difference between their #1 and #2 choices aren't worth a high round pick and as a result, will simply move on from executives where compensation is being demanded.
Highlander
Active member
Nik the reason I assumed that even if they signed Babcock after July 1 that he compensation would still be applicable. Although I am not 100% sure it would seem to me in a certain way like a Real estate prospect. If my agent introduces me to Nik the Trick a month before my listing expires and Nik comes back two months after the listing expires and buys my house then that Agent is still commissionable.
As T.O. negotiated with Babs during the alloted month of May then it probably works the same way.
As T.O. negotiated with Babs during the alloted month of May then it probably works the same way.
I think common sense will prevail and this compensation rule will come to be for what it was intended, that a team who hires and develops good executives, won't lose them for nothing. And let's not forget the very executives that make these rules will probably at some time be subject to them. And I doubt they would want to be out of work for the sake of a draft pick. And lastly is a 3rd rounder even worth fighting over??
Nik the Trik said:
Most of these guys are probably workaholics so it's more about staying business than getting paid. I don't think many would balk at a 3rd rounder for high end talent but I doubt many would be willing to pay it for Nonis, Eakins, half the Leafs currently being paid not to work and so on. That is who the fight would be for. If every exec fired was subject to a 3 round pick compensation not many teams will own their own 3rd round pick in the future. Anyway I know you like to argue so I'll leave it at that.
Nik the Trik said:
Kin
New member
Bates said:
But likewise I doubt that guys like Nonis or Eakins would be high on any team's list to come in and take one of the jobs that are subject to compensation before their contracts expire. Right now those guys have stink on them anyway.
Most teams won't want to hire someone unless they think they'll end up being "high end talent" and most executives probably think that if a team really wanted to hire them then, as you say, a 3rd rounder wouldn't be what held it up. That's why they probably approved the rule as is.
Bates said:
I think you're vastly overstating the issue. How many GM's get hired by other teams after having been fired with years still left on their deal? Not many.
mr grieves
New member
Tigger said:
Read about Futa and see the appeal. Not sure sure about Burke. What's the big deal other than he's been rumored to be connected to the Leafs and folks say he's an up and comer? Kinda reminds me of Joe Nieuwendyk -- tho with more domestic abuse -- but I have no idea really. What's he actually done that's so impressive?