Leafs search for a new coach/GM

[Bates]

It was tweeted by some sports guy yesterday.

I would assume if any team enters into negotiation with Babs before the end of May then the 3rd would probably still apply even if he signs after the 1st of July.

Why in the world would you assume that?

 

[Kin]

It was tweeted by some sports guy yesterday.

Someone tweeted that if Babcock signed a deal after his contract expired the Wings could still demand compensation?

 

[Bates]

Anyone who wants to talk to Babcock while he is under contract this month must sign an agreement that they will compensate Detroit with a 3rd round pick in any of next 3 drafts should they sign him, even if signing occurs after his contract expires.

It was tweeted by some sports guy yesterday.

Someone tweeted that if Babcock signed a deal after his contract expired the Wings could still demand compensation?

 

[Kin]

Anyone who wants to talk to Babcock while he is under contract this month must sign an agreement that they will compensate Detroit with a 3rd round pick in any of next 3 drafts should they sign him, even if signing occurs after his contract expires.

And who tweeted this? Seems pretty crazy if it's true.

 

[Bates]

I follow a lot of people so can't really look back but a simple google found me this:


  Helene St. James
✔  ‎@HeleneStJames 
NHL teams would have to sign compensation letter to talk to Babcock. If hire him, would owe Wings draft pick.

Anyone who wants to talk to Babcock while he is under contract this month must sign an agreement that they will compensate Detroit with a 3rd round pick in any of next 3 drafts should they sign him, even if signing occurs after his contract expires.

And who tweeted this? Seems pretty crazy if it's true.

 

[Bates]

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]

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.

They might tweak it but I'd guess that at some level executive compensation will stick around.

 

[Bates]

I agree but I think compensation for fired executives will be eliminated.  Someone is taking away a dead salary in the millions and you seriously want a draft pick as compensation??  It would make more sense for signing team to ask for a pick.

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.

They might tweak it but I'd guess that at some level executive compensation will stick around.

 

[Kin]

I agree but I think compensation for fired executives will be eliminated.  Someone is taking away a dead salary in the millions and you seriously want a draft pick as compensation??  It would make more sense for signing team to ask for a pick.

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.

 

[Bates]

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.

I agree but I think compensation for fired executives will be eliminated.  Someone is taking away a dead salary in the millions and you seriously want a draft pick as compensation??  It would make more sense for signing team to ask for a pick.

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.

 

[Kin]

A team with a player in the press box has left open the choice of using that player again.

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.

  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.

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]

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.

 

[Bates]

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??

A team with a player in the press box has left open the choice of using that player again.

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.

  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.

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.

 

[Kin]

And I doubt they would want to be out of work for the sake of a draft pick.

Well, keep in mind that if they're "out of work" and still subject to the rule then they're still being pretty generously compensated so there's a limit to my sympathies.

  And lastly is a 3rd rounder even worth fighting over??

If it weren't, why would teams balk at paying it?

 

[Bates]

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. 

And I doubt they would want to be out of work for the sake of a draft pick.

Well, keep in mind that if they're "out of work" and still subject to the rule then they're still being pretty generously compensated so there's a limit to my sympathies.

  And lastly is a 3rd rounder even worth fighting over??

If it weren't, why would teams balk at paying it?

 

[Kin]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

 

[Bates]

Just on your last part Nik, there have been 2 GM's hired in last month that this applies to. That's fairly significant in my book. And it's not just for gms, it's for all executive staff.

 

[Kin]

Just on your last part Nik, there have been 2 GM's hired in last month that this applies to. That's fairly significant in my book.

It's also fairly unusual. There's probably only...5 or 6 teams that change GM's per year? Maybe a few more? There's just not the sort of turnover that you're implying there.

 

[Tigger]

If the Leafs could get him I'd love to see Mike Futa for GM and Sean Burke as an assistant.

 

[mr grieves]

If the Leafs could get him I'd love to see Mike Futa for GM and Sean Burke as an assistant.

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?