Oilers to Hire McLellan
- Thread starter Fanatic
- Start date
bustaheims
Active member
Real_ESPNLeBrun: The expectation by the way is that San Jose will indeed seek a third-round pick compensation for Todd McLellan as per the new rule
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
This rule is so stupid.
You fire someone, yet expect to be compensated when they are hired elsewhere?
I can see it if the staff member is still in a job, Mike Futa for example being poached away while still under contract with LA, sure LA deserves some compensation.
But even then, if it's for a promotion, then I don't think that's the greatest rule either.
How long before stockpiling the best young coaches and AGM's is a viable part of a rebuild strategy?
You fire someone, yet expect to be compensated when they are hired elsewhere?
I can see it if the staff member is still in a job, Mike Futa for example being poached away while still under contract with LA, sure LA deserves some compensation.
But even then, if it's for a promotion, then I don't think that's the greatest rule either.
How long before stockpiling the best young coaches and AGM's is a viable part of a rebuild strategy?
bustaheims
Active member
Patrick said:This rule is so stupid.
You fire someone, yet expect to be compensated when they are hired elsewhere?
I can see it if the staff member is still in a job, Mike Futa for example being poached away while still under contract with LA, sure LA deserves some compensation.
But even then, if it's for a promotion, then I don't think that's the greatest rule either.
How long before stockpiling the best young coaches and AGM's is a viable part of a rebuild strategy?
Well, technically, McLellan is still under contract to the Sharks. He wasn't fired in the conventional sense. Coaches and GMs are really just relieved of their duties. I agree that it's stupid, though. The Sharks are getting out of having to pay McLellan the balance they owe him on his contract. Unless they legitimately had another position in the organization in mind for him, they shouldn't be rewarded for that.
Kin
New member
Patrick said:This rule is so stupid.
You fire someone, yet expect to be compensated when they are hired elsewhere?
I can see it if the staff member is still in a job, Mike Futa for example being poached away while still under contract with LA, sure LA deserves some compensation.
But even then, if it's for a promotion, then I don't think that's the greatest rule either.
How long before stockpiling the best young coaches and AGM's is a viable part of a rebuild strategy?
I've asked this before but how is it any different from any standard non-compete clause?
One of the things I think we might forget is that these teams are technically in competition with each other, even if they forget that at CBA time and one of the things that separates a good team from a bad team is proprietary information. Any executive that switches teams, fired or otherwise, will have had access to a team's information like that. Scouting reports are the main source, yeah, but increasingly that's going to be analytics. Try asking a basketball team what specific ways they analyze information and they act like a cold war spy master.
Take Dave Nonis(please!) and think of all the work the Leafs have done in the last year establishing their own analytics department. Nonis, if hired by another team, can go into work on his first day and say "Hey guys, this is what the Toronto analytics department was up to, let's react to it".
Now, maybe you think Nonis isn't that guy or that he didn't have a head for analytics to begin with but this rule has to apply going forward to everyone and I think the trend that it's going to be less and less likely for coaches and GMs not to be aware of that stuff. Sure, you might think "Nonis is a good guy, he wouldn't do that" but, again, it has to apply to everyone in the future and firings create bad blood all the time.
So, yeah, I think it's pretty reasonable for a team to weigh something like "Does this guy have a lot of information that our scouts and analytics people cooked up and that might apply to this year's draft or UFA signings" against whether or not they want to get his salary off the books. A 3rd round pick, honestly, might be low for what that could be worth one day.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
bustaheims said:Patrick said:This rule is so stupid.
You fire someone, yet expect to be compensated when they are hired elsewhere?
I can see it if the staff member is still in a job, Mike Futa for example being poached away while still under contract with LA, sure LA deserves some compensation.
But even then, if it's for a promotion, then I don't think that's the greatest rule either.
How long before stockpiling the best young coaches and AGM's is a viable part of a rebuild strategy?
Well, technically, McLellan is still under contract to the Sharks. He wasn't fired in the conventional sense. Coaches and GMs are really just relieved of their duties. I agree that it's stupid, though. The Sharks are getting out of having to pay McLellan the balance they owe him on his contract. Unless they legitimately had another position in the organization in mind for him, they shouldn't be rewarded for that.
Yeah, I think Nik makes a valid point, but I still think this is a little bit like teams wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If you are treating the compensation like a non-compete, the teams should have to pay-off the coach's contract to be eligible for the compensation.
