Coaching Carousel

[Kin]

I guess. You'd figure Pittsburgh would want Buffalo's pick though.

Probably, but maybe this was a situation where they'd rather get something instead of nothing. I don't know how much remained of his contract with the Pens, but if Buffalo was willing to walk away from him if they had to give up their own pick (which, granted, is speculation on my part), they could have been left with his contract running out in a few weeks and nothing in return.

Boy, that would seem like one heck of a game of chicken Buffalo's playing though. I mean, if that held things for like, even a day or two the message to Bylsma is a pretty clear "Yeah, we want you to coach but we're talking about the difference between the #80 pick and the #68 pick here!"

 

[bustaheims]

Boy, that would seem like one heck of a game of chicken Buffalo's playing though. I mean, if that held things for like, even a day or two the message to Bylsma is a pretty clear "Yeah, we want you to coach but we're talking about the difference between the #80 pick and the #68 pick here!"

Yeah, but that's just another reason why this rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, but that's just another reason why this rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Except to me the arguments that it doesn't make sense seems to be along the lines of more of that "Teams can't effectively manage themselves" stuff. Buffalo had to weigh the benefits of Dan Bylsma vs. his costs which are financial and, now, a mid round draft choice.

Either they can make that decision or they can't. But to think it's some sort of horrible travesty that needs immediate remedy...I can't see how you get there without somehow thinking that NHL fans as a whole have a vested interest in Dan Bylsma coaching in the NHL.

 

[bustaheims]

Except to me the arguments that it doesn't make sense seems to be along the lines of more of that "Teams can't effectively manage themselves" stuff. Buffalo had to weigh the benefits of Dan Bylsma vs. his costs which are financial and, now, a mid round draft choice.

I disagree. I think there's a significant problem with a rule that allows teams to seek compensation for former coaches and executives. Once you no longer wish to have that individual do that job for you, you should no longer have influence over whether or not another team does. They're getting compensation in the form of no longer having to pay the contract. That's enough.

 

[Kin]

I disagree. I think there's a significant problem with a rule that allows teams to seek compensation for former coaches and executives. Once you no longer wish to have that individual do that job for you, you should no longer have influence over whether or not another team does. They're getting compensation in the form of no longer having to pay the contract. That's enough.

Ok so, let's operate under a couple of assumptions here. For starters:

1. The men who sign on to be Hockey Coaches in the NHL are grown men, presumably intelligent, most likely with very well educated lawyers as agents and are well aware that by signing a 4 year(or however long) deal with a NHL team it means that NHL team gets to decide whether or not that person is a NHL coach for those 4 years. Also, they're getting paid very, very well regardless of whether they're actively coaching or have been relieved of those duties.

2. The teams in question are multi-million dollar businesses that are run by similarly intelligent men(or women, fingers crossed one day) who make dozens of decisions on a day to day basis that are at least as tricky as "Would I prefer that this fired coach that I still have under contract come off the books by taking a job or would I rather insist on paying him to not work for me in the hopes that another team wants him so bad they'll give me a third round pick for him".

Now, if we're operating under those assumptions it doesn't mean I think those teams will always act prudently and it doesn't mean I think a third round pick is the "right" compensation. But I do struggle to see where I as a hockey fan should think that this conglomeration of multi-million dollar businesses shouldn't be allowed to choose this policy if they think it's collectively in their best interests even if I disagree with them. It seems to me that's just a fairly standard non-compete clause pretty common to some industries.

I mean I might missing it but the way I see it the worst case scenario for me as a fan is that it might, might, keep some coaches on the sidelines who otherwise might be employed in the NHL and as a result the NHL might have, say, 30 of the 50 best hockey coaches in the world employed for them as opposed to what they have now which might be...30 of the top 40.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

 

[Kin]

How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

Because these teams are saying that, if they want, they can hold up someone who they have under contract from working for another team(or a business in a similar field) unless they're compensated.

I mean if what you guys are saying is that this doesn't make sense because having a uniform compensation makes for a possibly inaccurate reflection of how valuable a team might say their coach is I would get that I suppose.

 

[caver]

How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

It's not the same and I think that is where the executive compensation is difficult to swallow. There is no business being set up in the same territory to take dollars away from the former employer... or no wooing of clients to purchase from Business B instead of Business A...just another team getting guidance from an executive that Team A is paying to stay away. Except for the possibility of hiring another team's exec just before the draft ( and his knowledge of Team A's intentions could be harmful ) I don't see a conflict.

 

[L K]

How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

Because these teams are saying that, if they want, they can hold up someone who they have under contract from working for another team(or a business in a similar field) unless they're compensated.

I mean if what you guys are saying is that this doesn't make sense because having a uniform compensation makes for a possibly inaccurate reflection of how valuable a team might say their coach is I would get that I suppose.

I guess I don't really get the whole non-compete aspect if you get fired.  I think at the very least you should be obligated to show that the person is still doing work for your team to be eligible for that kind of compensation.  To me, you are hired to perform a specific task by the team, and if you are relieved of that role they shouldn't be eligible to demand compensation for another team offering you that role.

 

[herman]

I agree with L K. There should be an 'Active' clause or stipulation to waive compensation for inactive executives.

I agree with the spirit of the compensation rule to penalize outright executive poaching; there just some details to iron out.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

Because these teams are saying that, if they want, they can hold up someone who they have under contract from working for another team(or a business in a similar field) unless they're compensated.

I mean if what you guys are saying is that this doesn't make sense because having a uniform compensation makes for a possibly inaccurate reflection of how valuable a team might say their coach is I would get that I suppose.

Ah, I didn't realize they could hold up a move.  I thought they were allowed to ask for compensation if they so choose.  But I guess who wouldn't if that were the case.

 

[Kin]

I guess I don't really get the whole non-compete aspect if you get fired.  I think at the very least you should be obligated to show that the person is still doing work for your team to be eligible for that kind of compensation.  To me, you are hired to perform a specific task by the team, and if you are relieved of that role they shouldn't be eligible to demand compensation for another team offering you that role.

I guess where I'm coming from is that there's so much about how the NHL controls the movement of its players that they "shouldn't" be able to do from a fair employment practices standpoint that it's really hard for me to look at this relatively minor example and say it's out of the ordinary or unexpected.

The owners have proven they were willing to throw away whole seasons to get more control over the guys who they had under contract to play the game. As we move towards coaching becoming more important because of restricted player movement as well as hockey becoming more like other sports with the introduction of proprietary data collection and perhaps data use, it seems to make perfect sense that they'd give themselves more control over another group of their employees just by a simple vote. To be honest, I'm surprised it's only a third.

 

[Kin]

Ah, I didn't realize they could hold up a move.  I thought they were allowed to ask for compensation if they so choose.  But I guess who wouldn't if that were the case.

Well, it's like busta said. If Pittsburgh had insisted on Buffalo's third instead of the Vancouver one they got it might have gummed things up.

That's where I come down a little. I think this policy, which is again solely intended to protect club interests, is actually super mild and an attempt to head off a reasonable problem. If you were Detroit right now and your guys kept getting poached to go work for other teams and those other teams started, you know, knocking you out of the playoffs wouldn't you maybe think about putting into your coach's and executives contracts that you could demand compensation if they wanted to leave early? I mean, why wouldn't you?

So insisting on a league wide policy where the compensation is so minor seems pretty, I don't want to say reasonable, but a lot more reasonable than the NHL usually is.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Here's a good write up from Pierre Lebrun on it:

There has been confusion in NHL circles about where exactly fired coaches/executives fit into all this if they remain under contract.

The initial explanation I was given from someone in the know was that if a coach/executive was fired, even if still under contract, the team in question did not qualify for draft pick compensation from the team hiring the fired person. That was also what most team executives I had spoken with thought.

However, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, who authored the memo on this, told ESPN.com Monday that for coaches, general managers or presidents of hockey operations who are fired but remain under contract, their teams are privy to draft pick compensation if they choose to pursue it.

But the team can also waive the draft pick compensation if it wants, Daly said.

The reason many teams would waive in most cases is they're more interested in getting the person who is under contract but no longer working for the team off the books. So why discourage a hire elsewhere.

Still, it certainly adds a new wrinkle to it all.

Let's take fired Boston Bruins general manager Peter Chiarelli as an example. He has three years left on his deal. As per Daly's interpretation of the rule, the Bruins do in fact have the right to draft pick compensation if they want it.

Now, you would think the Bruins wouldn't want to block any attempt by another team to hire Chiarelli since they owe him a salary for three more years. But the point is, they apparently could demand a pick if they wanted.

What's interesting about all this is that it runs counter to what many team executives believed was the original point of wanting to bring back compensation. One executive told ESPN.com Monday he had always thought the rule was just to protect, for example, a team like the Detroit Red Wings when they allow Steve Yzerman or Jim Nill to go elsewhere for better opportunities, not to try to squeeze a pick out of someone you fired.

Which is why this has the potential now to be very intriguing -- and potentially contentious -- moving forward. We shall see.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35839/teams-can-seek-draft-pick-compensation-for-fired-coaches-gms-executives

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Brian Burke is going to fight someone in a barn over this.

 

[Kin]

I buy that confusion 100%.

GM's on compensation for their underlings: Well, that only seems right. We invest a lot in these guys and deserve compensation if they go to help our competition.

GM's on compensation for fired GM's and coaches: Wait a second, that might affect MY career. Hold the phone!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I still find issue with it.  If it is just a standard "non-compete clause" - aren't these types of things negotiated as part of an employment contract?  How can they be retroactively applied to people already in a job?  Do all the GMs/coaches in the league sign one whenever they are hired?  If so, why has it never been brought up before?

Just on a quick search this comes up from the Globe and Mail regarding non-compete/restrictive covenants in Canada:

The Mason case demonstrates the customary approach courts take to deciding whether a restrictive covenant should be upheld:

First, does the contract form part of the employment relationship? This is critically important but often overlooked by employees and employers ? and sometimes by inexperienced lawyers. As with an employment contract, a restrictive covenant must be agreed to by the person before he or she accepts employment.

If the clause is provided to the employee after work begins, even if on the first day, it will not be enforceable unless it is provided along with something of value in exchange for signing it, such as a bonus, raise or promotion. If an employee is required to sign the clause mid-tenure, it is sometimes wise to not even protest it, since it will never be enforced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/can-my-employer-force-me-to-sign-a-non-compete-clause/article533688/

 

[Kin]

I still find issue with it.  If it is just a standard "non-compete clause" - aren't these types of things negotiated as part of an employment contract?  How can they be retroactively applied to people already in a job?  Do all the GMs/coaches in the league sign one whenever they are hired?  If so, why has it never been brought up before?

Oh heck, if you want to say this might of dubious legality you might be right but, you know, that's part and parcel with the very weird "We're competitors for the purposes of talent and revenues but not for the purposes of interstate commerce" thing that sports leagues do on the regular and which anti-trust courts should take their pants for. Imagine a business or a professional industry getting together to try and introduce an entry draft for the most talented engineers or something coming out of college. It would be insane. It would die in the courts in a day.

But I understand why the league wants it.

 

[lamajama]

If the NHL changes it so fired exec's are not eligible, teams will simply re-assign the fired
coach to a eg scout and ask him to work from home and email his reports in to the janitor.

Therefore, he is still considered an employee and the team will try and get compensation.

They have to write pretty specific language to prevent even this.

 

[Bullfrog]

It's not so simple to simply re-assign someone if their contract terms are for a specific position. It would have to be agreed upon, I assume.