Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[Bullfrog]

I would think it means that, though I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim.

If it was an out-clause, that would mean he's released from his contract, meaning he's no longer employed by them. Compensation would only be for individuals under contract (like Randy Carlyle, Dave Nonis, etc.)

 

[Kin]

I would think it means that, though I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim.

If it was an out-clause, that would mean he's released from his contract, meaning he's no longer employed by them. Compensation would only be for individuals under contract (like Randy Carlyle, Dave Nonis, etc.)

The question would be whether or not the new rule is applied retroactively to previously signed contracts. It sounds like it'll make those sorts of out clauses a thing of the past.

 

[cw]

Except in his time with the Leafs, he never wanted to be a player so badly that he spent big on the elite talent that made it to the UFA market. And, given how far from elite that talent was, I had no complaints.

Sure but despite whatever criticisms I may have had for Burke and the way he ran the team I don't believe for one second he'd have advocated or been complacent with the sort of mediocrity that his policy ultimately would have consigned the team to in the long run. Something would have changed, one way or the other.

I don't recall that Nonis didn't have the authority to fire his coach. As I understand it, the optics -- since the team had just made the playoffs -- would've been bad, but, more importantly, he was duly impressed with Carlyle's performance, what he got out of the team. He didn't want to fire the coach. In fact, as you noted above, he liked what he saw so much that he got the coach players who would excel in his system.

Saying he didn't have that authority may be supposition on my part but I think it's pretty reasonable considering that Nonis didn't get extended, and therefore confirmed as the full-time GM, until after that July rush was over. That month was basically a full-time audition for the job and I don't think it's crazy to suggest that the board wouldn't have been crazy with someone who they hadn't even confirmed would be running the team going forward making the sort of significant changes you're talking about.

Which, to be frank, is why I sort of have to dismiss the rest of what you say here as fairly meaningless. The team wasn't going to come out and say Nonis didn't have that authority just like if Nonis didn't have that authority he wasn't going to come out and say "I don't like having Carlyle as the coach but what can I do?". He had to work within the parameters of the situation he was in.

From what I've gathered, no one has the authority to fire a Leafs coach without getting the blessing of the MLSE board. I think it's been that way for some time ... 2003? when Peddie took over? - something like that. And it's not uncommon throughout the league - transactions of key personnel require approval of ownership.

Kind of like your notion:

The team wasn't going to come out and say Nonis didn't have that authority just like if Nonis didn't have that authority he wasn't going to come out and say "I don't like having Carlyle as the coach but what can I do?"The team wasn't going to come out and say Nonis didn't have that authority just like if Nonis didn't have that authority he wasn't going to come out and say "I don't like having Carlyle as the coach but what can I do?"

A GM isn't going to propose terminating a coach or do anything requiring approval of ownership if he doesn't think ownership will approve of it. It's kind of like a political vote of non confidence - except one might find themselves out of a job faster.

As for Nonis-Carlyle, I'm with mr grieves in that Nonis didn't mind Carlyle and like many things Burke, seemed to embrace him as coach. He may have been a touch careful with his words but he seemed pretty supportive.
http://www.thescore.com/news/497971

 

[Bullfrog]

I would think it means that, though I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim.

If it was an out-clause, that would mean he's released from his contract, meaning he's no longer employed by them. Compensation would only be for individuals under contract (like Randy Carlyle, Dave Nonis, etc.)

The question would be whether or not the new rule is applied retroactively to previously signed contracts. It sounds like it'll make those sorts of out clauses a thing of the past.

Does the NHL have a mechanism to control executive/coach to team contract terms?

 

[Highlander]

No like all business's Unions are separated from the Executive branch.

 

[Kin]

From what I've gathered, no one has the authority to fire a Leafs coach without getting the blessing of the MLSE board. I think it's been that way for some time ... 2003? when Peddie took over? - something like that. And it's not uncommon throughout the league - transactions of key personnel require approval of ownership.

Sure, but I think you'd agree that it's generally seen that who the coach of a team is is within the purview of the GM and that while he might have to run a change by a higher up, being overruled in that regard is a pretty strong indication that the GM isn't really making the "hockey decisions" as we like to say regardless of whether he's overruled by a board, an owner or a intermediary like a President.

Conversely, I don't think it's generally agreed that someone wearing the Interim tag would have the same level of sway. Admittedly the ham-fisted way that Burke was fired confused things but I don't think there's any doubt that Nonis in early July didn't have the most gravitas a GM could have(and deservedly so).

As for Nonis-Carlyle, I'm with mr grieves in that Nonis didn't mind Carlyle and like many things Burke, seemed to embrace him as coach. He may have been a touch careful with his words but he seemed pretty supportive.

Sure and, to be clear, I'm not really saying the opposite is true. What I'm saying is that if the opposite is true, he didn't really have the mandate or pull within the organization to make the sort of changes mr grieves advocated at the time(and still).

 

[Kin]

Does the NHL have a mechanism to control executive/coach to team contract terms?

Well, it doesn't have to be collectively bargained so I assume it's the same mechanism they would use to set any sort of league policy that the PA doesn't have input into.

 

[cw]

From what I've gathered, no one has the authority to fire a Leafs coach without getting the blessing of the MLSE board. I think it's been that way for some time ... 2003? when Peddie took over? - something like that. And it's not uncommon throughout the league - transactions of key personnel require approval of ownership.

Sure, but I think you'd agree that it's generally seen that who the coach of a team is is within the purview of the GM and that while he might have to run a change by a higher up, being overruled in that regard is a pretty strong indication that the GM isn't really making the "hockey decisions" as we like to say regardless of whether he's overruled by a board, an owner or a intermediary like a President.

Conversely, I don't think it's generally agreed that someone wearing the Interim tag would have the same level of sway. Admittedly the ham-fisted way that Burke was fired confused things but I don't think there's any doubt that Nonis in early July didn't have the most gravitas a GM could have(and deservedly so).

Shanahan was very new - been with the Leafs less than a month when Carlyle was extended. He didn't have enough time to get his head around all the issues and staff, etc. So it had to be left more to Nonis because of the timing.
Globe article on Carlyle extension May. 09 2014
If Leafs general manager David Nonis had not been able to persuade team president Brendan Shanahan to keep Carlyle, the Leafs would have had to pay Carlyle for the coming season.
...
So Shanahan came up with a clever compromise that gave Nonis his way, put pressure on Carlyle to turn things around and still allows the new president to force the hiring of his own coach as early as part way through next season if things do not improve. Or maybe Nonis laid it out as a way of saving Carlyle. Our sources weren?t clear on whose idea it was, just that this is the way it went.

From his remarks, Nonis was pretty supportive of Carlyle - that backs up the Globe article. I'm not convinced Nonis didn't get his way to retain his coach in May, 2014.

But Shanahan started to assert himself in other moves as time went along because the writing was on the wall: Nonis was not likely to remain long term in his position after his failures.

As for Nonis-Carlyle, I'm with mr grieves in that Nonis didn't mind Carlyle and like many things Burke, seemed to embrace him as coach. He may have been a touch careful with his words but he seemed pretty supportive.

Sure and, to be clear, I'm not really saying the opposite is true. What I'm saying is that if the opposite is true, he didn't really have the mandate or pull within the organization to make the sort of changes mr grieves advocated at the time(and still).

He certainly had a broad mandate between June-Dec 2013,  when Nonis spent all that money on locking up a core that can't deliver a playoff berth. If that crew had made the conference finals, there's a good chance MLSE doesn't bother hiring Shanahan. So Nonis' downfall was performance related. He effectively lost his GM mandate by the spring/summer of 2014. They just opted for a slower transition to help an inexperienced hockey executive (Shanahan) assume the reins of power.

 

[Kin]

What the discussion you quoted is in reference to is what went on in the summer of 2013 before he himself got extended, not the following summer or afterwards.

 

[cw]

What the discussion you quoted is in reference to is what went on in the summer of 2013 before he himself got extended, not the following summer or afterwards.

The Globe article I quoted is May 2014.

I'm a little dumbfounded at the notion that Nonis' mandate in 2013 would be in question.

At that time in 2013, Nonis was solidly in control. Burke had been recently fired in Jan 2013. The team had made the playoffs in Carlyle's first "full" (lockout shortened) season as Leafs coach - no big need to fire him at that point. No Shanahan on the horizon. They handed Nonis a pretty blank cheque book and he spent a couple of hundred million on that mandate.

I don't know how one could seriously question Nonis' authority around that time in 2013. Nonis committed an absolute mountain of dough to that roster.

 

[Kin]

The Globe article I quoted is May 2014.

Right, making it largely irrelevant to a discussion about what happened in the summer of 2013.

I'm a little dumbfounded at the notion that Nonis' mandate in 2013 would be in question.

At that time in 2013, Nonis was solidly in control. Burke had been recently fired in Jan 2013. The team had made the playoffs in Carlyle's first "full" (lockout shortened) season as Leafs coach - no big need to fire him at that point.

Again, it's a conversation about a very limited window of time. From the end of the Bruins series to late July in 2013 when Nonis got his five year extension.

I'm not 100% on who you mean by "him" in your second paragraph there, Nonis I'm guessing, but it's important to remember the circumstances there. Nonis had been hired without a full search for someone to replace Burke. Leiweke had just been brought in as President of MLSE which clearly was going to trigger a review of the organization. Clearly what Nonis did between Leiweke's hiring and July 25th convinced Leiweke that Nonis was the guy to be running the team long-term, hence the contract.

The issue is whether or not during that very brief window of time Nonis had the sway within the organization to have forced the sort of personnel decisions that mr grieves advocated at the time on Carlyle against Carlyle's pretty clear wishes/strategy.

 

[mr grieves]

As for Nonis-Carlyle, I'm with mr grieves in that Nonis didn't mind Carlyle and like many things Burke, seemed to embrace him as coach. He may have been a touch careful with his words but he seemed pretty supportive.

Sure and, to be clear, I'm not really saying the opposite is true. What I'm saying is that if the opposite is true, he didn't really have the mandate or pull within the organization to make the sort of changes mr grieves advocated at the time(and still).

I'd think that if there were any chance that opposite was true, Carlyle would've been fired last summer. Nonis had the support of the president then: Shanahan was talking to players and the media on behalf of what Nonis wanted to do -- and thank god those things (Gorges for Franson, Bolland contract) didn't work out. If Nonis ever had a thought that Carlyle wasn't the ideal coach, that would've been the time he had the juice to act on it.

Also, while I'm sure I said firing Carlyle would've been preferable to make the multiyear, big dollar commitments they made in the summer of 2013 in order to appease RC (if there were any space between what Nonis and Carlyle thought of players), I did say the preferred course of action was to roll over the roster as one normally would, and build the team as one would regardless of who the coach is, since coaches come and go. I don't think that would've been nearly as significant and adversarial a move as you're making it out to be.

 

[Kin]

I'd think that if there were any chance that opposite was true, Carlyle would've been fired last summer. Nonis had the support of the president then: Shanahan was talking to players and the media on behalf of what Nonis wanted to do -- and thank god those things (Gorges for Franson, Bolland contract) didn't work out. If Nonis ever had a thought that Carlyle wasn't the ideal coach, that would've been the time he had the juice to act on it.

Well that I just think you're wrong about. If there was a decision made on Carlyle last summer that was Shanahan making the call, not Nonis. Nonis may have had some latitude with regard to personnel decisions, so if you want to put the Bolland offer or the Robidas signing on him that would be fair(although I'd argue that what he actually did that off-season was net positive once you figure in the Gardiner deal, the Santorelli and Winnik signings, the Polak trade and so on) but I think you only have to go back and look at this board after Shanahan got hired to see who would have made that call.

Also, while I'm sure I said firing Carlyle would've been preferable to make the multiyear, big dollar commitments they made in the summer of 2013 in order to appease RC (if there were any space between what Nonis and Carlyle thought of players), I did say the preferred course of action was to roll over the roster as one normally would, and build the team as one would regardless of who the coach is, since coaches come and go. I don't think that would've been nearly as significant and adversarial a move as you're making it out to be.

Well, we clearly disagree on that last sentence but, again, my argument isn't really about what was/wasn't. It's just that the option you think Nonis should have taken wasn't really available to him regardless of what he actually wanted.

 

[rdowdall]

That may just have to be where we leave it then. I don't think the guy who prays for rain is doing much of use while the town is on fire but I'll take him over the guy with the fiddle.

What about a guy with a banjo?  Snappy fire putting out music may help.

What about a square dance announcer?  "Swing your bucket round and round, douse the fire watch it drown.  Look out boys that wall just fell, get some more water back at the well."

Organization at it's best.

 

[Bill_Berg]

That may just have to be where we leave it then. I don't think the guy who prays for rain is doing much of use while the town is on fire but I'll take him over the guy with the fiddle.

What about a guy with a banjo?  Snappy fire putting out music may help.

What about a square dance announcer?  "Swing your bucket round and round, douse the fire watch it drown.  Look out boys that wall just fell, get some more water back at the well."

Organization at it's best.

Agreed, the fiddle clearly has more use than the prayer guy, although if it rains the town will likely lynch the fiddler.

 

[Peter D.]

Alright, Detroit's toast...let the real speculation begin.

 

[Highlander]

Babcock, Leaf coach and GM (with Dubus and Hunter on his wings) by the end of next week.

 

[Bullfrog]

Does Babcock contribute on the management side in Detroit?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Does Babcock contribute on the management side in Detroit?

Not more than any other coach it seems. And that seems to be something Babs hasn't been too happy about, which is why he's looking for a Roy-type coaching deal. This is from the start of this season when Babcock wanted to keep defenceman Xavier Ouellet on the team but Holland sent him down:

At Monday?s practice, Babcock deployed Ouellet in his third defensive pairing with Kyle Quincey. After the skate, Babcock stated that this season, the best players would play, regardless of whether they were youngsters or veterans.

To keep Ouellet on the big club, the Wings would have been required to place either Jakub Kindl or Brian Lashoff on waivers to assign one of them to Grand Rapids.

It?s no secret that Kindl isn?t one of Babcock?s favourites, but overall, those in the organization are split on his potential.

Babcock suggested he?d been voted down when the decision came to send Ouellet back to the minor leagues.

?I got my two cents in, so I get one vote,? Babcock said. ?He (Holland) gets two, so he can win, 2-1.

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/sports/wings-babcock-upset-by-ouellet-demotion

There have probably been more instances of that type of thing too here. I'm pretty sure that Babcock wanted Nyquist with the team from the start of last season but cap problems kept him in the AHL for awhile. Like I said, this isn't really different than any other coach, management needs to manage the roster in ways that a coach doesn't. But Babcock probably feels that he isn't just any other coach.

 

[cw]

Does Babcock contribute on the management side in Detroit?

According to reports I've read/heard, more than the average NHL coach in terms of influencing player personnel decisions with his opinion. But that's it.

In his recent comments about the aging of their stars like Datsyuk, Zetterberg & Kronwall, I think he knows that if he wants to win another Cup any time soon, his best chance is to move on to a younger, talented roster. The Wings do not have young talent like that on it's way.

A key ingredient with Scotty Bowman's success was how shrewd he was picking his next destination. Buffalo was his only blemish in terms of not winning a Cup.  My guess is that Babcock is going to do something like that and therefore, Toronto has little chance of landing him. He's more likely to go to a club with a decent roster now that can contend (take Cup shots) for a number of years.