Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Palmateer29]

Peter Laviolette
Kevin Dineen
Guy Boucher

Sorry we only recycle from Anaheim...

 

[losveratos]

Theres no caphit or limit on a coaches salary... this is one area we should be able to take advantage easily.

Whatever the BlackHawks coach is getting now or whoever else is the best coach currently in the world... Offer that man 5 times what his current contract is to steal him away. Can't be that hard.

Now theres probably some rules on when we can make that kind of offer, but I can't understand for the life of me why we don't. Coaches aren't that loyal to a team that they all just quit coaching forever when they're fired.

 

[Kin]

Sorry Nik, lost track of this yesterday and only now had time to finish reading the thread.

To answer your question: No, I don't think there's a set minimum time that should be given a coach.  If a new coach turns out (somehow) to be just terrible, and you figure it out after his first game, then why handcuff yourself?  You asked about Gordon or a new hire and how much time in a new season.  Who was that guy who got fired in Chicago after like 3 games at the start of the year?  He was a returnee but there's a precedent anyway.

Well, that happened to Laviolette this year but it might have happened before.

Anyways, I think the "somehow" in your post is where your argument falls apart a little. I think the fundamental point Cox is trying to make is that there's a learning curve with a new coach. Both in terms of getting the team to buy into what he wants to do but also in terms of a coach really learning the team and trying to make the most out of what he has(or, if he's set on what he's doing, identifying what the team needs to the GM).

So I think it's reasonable to suggest that some sort of time is needed to learn if a coach is a good coach(and, let's be fair, nobody is going to be a NHL coach if they've got no clue how to coach hockey players) and that giving a coach that time is sort of a prerequisite to attracting a talented person to the job. Nobody wants to live week to week thinking that if they don't make lineup decisions that certain people agree with they'll get canned. Were I a highly sought after coach I'd much prefer going somewhere that knew that whatever I would be able to do wouldn't happen overnight and that, long term, they believed in my abilities or else they wouldn't be offering me the job.

So, sure, a GM can fire a coach all he wants. George Steinbrenner was well within his rights to fire Billy Martin if he thought he wasn't using the line-up correctly. Doing that can sabotage an organization's credibility though, disrupt team chemistry and severely hurt your chances of building a successful longterm strategy but, yes, that's up to the GM.

How many more points ahead would we need to be to make Carlyle's job inarguably safe?  Good question.  What was the record of the guy in NJ (sorry I forget names) who got fired a week before the team went into the playoffs (I think Larry Robinson took over)?  It was pretty good IIRC.

Robbie Ftorek. But I think we can agree that was a pretty unusual situation.

 

[Kin]

Theres no caphit or limit on a coaches salary... this is one area we should be able to take advantage easily.

Whatever the BlackHawks coach is getting now or whoever else is the best coach currently in the world... Offer that man 5 times what his current contract is to steal him away. Can't be that hard.

Now theres probably some rules on when we can make that kind of offer, but I can't understand for the life of me why we don't. Coaches aren't that loyal to a team that they all just quit coaching forever when they're fired.

Although a lot of them do like where they're living, might have kids in school, earn a lot of money and probably wouldn't take the job regardless.

But more to the point I'd guess that the people actually writing the checks would severely question whether or not a coach would be worth that kind of money and, honestly, I think they'd be right.

 

[Champ Kind]

Robbie Ftorek.

My vote for the next Leaf's coach, for no other reason that to revel in the way this forum butchers the spelling.

 

[Corn Flake]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.

Maybe Jimmy Sutter. He's been working at a gas station in Red Deer for the last 30 years but they're all good hockey people, right?

 

[nutman]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.

Maybe Jimmy Sutter. He's been working at a gas station in Red Deer for the last 30 years but they're all good hockey people, right?

????????. are you losing it?  you don't know who the Hockey Sutters are, if not why answer my question.

 

[Champ Kind]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.

Maybe Jimmy Sutter. He's been working at a gas station in Red Deer for the last 30 years but they're all good hockey people, right?

????????. are you losing it?  you don't know who the Hockey Sutters are, if not why answer my question.

Yeah!  You're out to lunch - they're from Viking, not Red Deer!!11!!1

 

[Corn Flake]

Although a lot of them do like where they're living, might have kids in school, earn a lot of money and probably wouldn't take the job regardless.

But more to the point I'd guess that the people actually writing the checks would severely question whether or not a coach would be worth that kind of money and, honestly, I think they'd be right.

The last several seasons seem to really point to coaches being just another interchangeable part - almost like a depth player, which a GM can in theory fiddle with until the chemistry is finally right.  Heard yesterday there have been 29 coaching changes in the last (I think it was) 3 years. 

Most coaches lasting more than 3 seasons seems to be a thing of the past.  Spending some kind of crazy money to lure a certain coach away from another team seems like a complete waste of time and would invariably backfire.

 

[losveratos]

Theres no caphit or limit on a coaches salary... this is one area we should be able to take advantage easily.

Whatever the BlackHawks coach is getting now or whoever else is the best coach currently in the world... Offer that man 5 times what his current contract is to steal him away. Can't be that hard.

Now theres probably some rules on when we can make that kind of offer, but I can't understand for the life of me why we don't. Coaches aren't that loyal to a team that they all just quit coaching forever when they're fired.

Although a lot of them do like where they're living, might have kids in school, earn a lot of money and probably wouldn't take the job regardless.

But more to the point I'd guess that the people actually writing the checks would severely question whether or not a coach would be worth that kind of money and, honestly, I think they'd be right.

A fair amount of them are ex players and moving is part of there job. I wouldn't think about that all that much. Most core players stay with teams considerably longer than most coaches do with theirs.

And if 4x more is too crazy, then something else. 2x more or 3x... guaranteed contract lengths and payment even if fired... a new house for his family is own boat... I don't really care. With the TV connections Bell and Roger have, why not have a rider on the contract guaranteeing a sports personality job after they retire from coaching.

All I'm trying to say is that our organization has some incredible muscle in the world of the NHL outside of the Salary cap. Why the hell don't we ever really seem to use it?

I would get the higher ups to OK a fairly large internal yearly budget that I could use to schmooze people into making our team better. I feel like one of our only big advantages is that our AHL team is also in Toronto. Not a lot of teams can afford that benefit.

 

[Corn Flake]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.

Maybe Jimmy Sutter. He's been working at a gas station in Red Deer for the last 30 years but they're all good hockey people, right?

????????. are you losing it?  you don't know who the Hockey Sutters are, if not why answer my question.

Yeah!  You're out to lunch - they're from Viking, not Red Deer!!11!!1

Jimmy moved to Red Deer after mom kicked him out of the house at age 37.

 

[Corn Flake]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.

Maybe Jimmy Sutter. He's been working at a gas station in Red Deer for the last 30 years but they're all good hockey people, right?

????????. are you losing it?  you don't know who the Hockey Sutters are, if not why answer my question.

Are they from the AHL or something?

 

[Corn Flake]

Robbie Ftorek.

My vote for the next Leaf's coach, for no other reason that to revel in the way this forum butchers the spelling.

You just love cardigans. Admit it!

 

[bustaheims]

Theres no caphit or limit on a coaches salary... this is one area we should be able to take advantage easily.

Whatever the BlackHawks coach is getting now or whoever else is the best coach currently in the world... Offer that man 5 times what his current contract is to steal him away. Can't be that hard.

Now theres probably some rules on when we can make that kind of offer, but I can't understand for the life of me why we don't. Coaches aren't that loyal to a team that they all just quit coaching forever when they're fired.

There are very much rules. One in particular that prevents it from happening, and it's pretty simple and straight forward. Teams are not allowed to offer/negotiate contracts to anyone another team has under contract without that team's consent. There's no window or anything like that. If the team that has said employee under contract says no, then it's no until such a time as the contract expires.

 

[losveratos]

Although a lot of them do like where they're living, might have kids in school, earn a lot of money and probably wouldn't take the job regardless.

But more to the point I'd guess that the people actually writing the checks would severely question whether or not a coach would be worth that kind of money and, honestly, I think they'd be right.

The last several seasons seem to really point to coaches being just another interchangeable part - almost like a depth player, which a GM can in theory fiddle with until the chemistry is finally right.  Heard yesterday there have been 29 coaching changes in the last (I think it was) 3 years. 

Most coaches lasting more than 3 seasons seems to be a thing of the past.  Spending some kind of crazy money to lure a certain coach away from another team seems like a complete waste of time and would invariably backfire.

I agree it could backfire. But that would depend on the team/coach/timing/amount of money and a lot of other factors. If approached appropriately, I could see it being a muscle worth flexing.

 

[losveratos]

Theres no caphit or limit on a coaches salary... this is one area we should be able to take advantage easily.

Whatever the BlackHawks coach is getting now or whoever else is the best coach currently in the world... Offer that man 5 times what his current contract is to steal him away. Can't be that hard.

Now theres probably some rules on when we can make that kind of offer, but I can't understand for the life of me why we don't. Coaches aren't that loyal to a team that they all just quit coaching forever when they're fired.

There are very much rules. One in particular that prevents it from happening, and it's pretty simple and straight forward. Teams are not allowed to offer/negotiate contracts to anyone another team has under contract without that team's consent. There's no window or anything like that. If the team that has said employee under contract says no, then it's no until such a time as the contract expires.

Can you trade a prospect for "Future Consideration" and get a coach talked to? (Just kidding of course. But what the hell is FC anyway?)

Then we send the offer the day it expires. Though if the coach is the best they might not ever be made available

 

[Champ Kind]

Robbie Ftorek.

My vote for the next Leaf's coach, for no other reason that to revel in the way this forum butchers the spelling.

You just love cardigans. Admit it!

 

[Kin]

A fair amount of them are ex players and moving is part of there job. I wouldn't think about that all that much. Most core players stay with teams considerably longer than most coaches do with theirs.

Well, yeah but that usually isn't by a coach's choice.

And, admittedly I'm basing this off of pretty much every athlete I've ever read on the subject, but moving tends to be a part of the job that they actively don't like. So it is a consideration, even if there's probably some sort of financial incentive that would make anyone re-think their position. My point is that the point where you could probably lure someone away is probably right at that point where it doesn't actually make sense and, well, that's probably why you don't see it.

And to be fair you don't see it in any sport really. It's not like the Yankees or Lakers or Man United pay their coaches some outlandish number compared to other coaches in their respective leagues.

All I'm trying to say is that our organization has some incredible muscle in the world of the NHL outside of the Salary cap. Why the hell don't we ever really seem to use it?

Well, like I said, I think the reasoning there is that while there are areas to pour money into, there's really not any actual evidence that pouring money into those areas yield anything in the way of tangible results.

 

[bustaheims]

Can you trade a prospect for "Future Consideration" and get a coach talked to? (Just kidding of course. But what the hell is FC anyway?)

No, there's rules against that, as well. There's no compensation allowed to be transferred for coaches or front office personnel. As for what future considerations are . . . well, they've included things like agreements to make other deals in the future and agreements not to draft specific players.

Then we send the offer the day it expires. Though if the coach is the best they might not ever be made available

That's just it - if a team wants to keep a coach, they'll just keep negotiating extensions with him and never allow other teams to talk to him while he's under contract. They won't risk the very scenario you're proposing until either they're ready to move on or the coach has informed them he's ready to.

 

[losveratos]

A fair amount of them are ex players and moving is part of there job. I wouldn't think about that all that much. Most core players stay with teams considerably longer than most coaches do with theirs.

Well, yeah but that usually isn't by a coach's choice.

And, admittedly I'm basing this off of pretty much every athlete I've ever read on the subject, but moving tends to be a part of the job that they actively don't like. So it is a consideration, even if there's probably some sort of financial incentive that would make anyone re-think their position. My point is that the point where you could probably lure someone away is probably right at that point where it doesn't actually make sense and, well, that's probably why you don't see it.

And to be fair you don't see it in any sport really. It's not like the Yankees or Lakers or Man United pay their coaches some outlandish number compared to other coaches in their respective leagues.

All I'm trying to say is that our organization has some incredible muscle in the world of the NHL outside of the Salary cap. Why the hell don't we ever really seem to use it?

Well, like I said, I think the reasoning there is that while there are areas to pour money into, there's really not any actual evidence that pouring money into those areas yield anything in the way of tangible results.

I watched Moneyball! Apparent;y he was offered the most money ever to leave

But admittedly... he did turn it down >_>