Columbus fires Richards, hires Tortorella

[bustaheims]

I think the biggest issue with the rule is how strictly defined the compensation is. I think limiting compensation to certain types of employees, but there should be more room for negotiation than a yes or no decision.

 

[Kin]

I think the biggest issue with the rule is how strictly defined the compensation is. I think limiting compensation to certain types of employees, but there should be more room for negotiation than a yes or no decision.

I think that's probably a good idea but I think that sort of goes against the NHL's desire to have everything as standardized as possible. Having non-negotiable compensation is probably there to protect the teams who want to hire people under contract from being taken advantage of more than the other way around.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That's my take on it, it's similar to the introduction of the Bosman ruling in European football.

You can't restrict a person's right to work.

Forgive me if I have this wrong but isn't the Bosman case one where teams were preventing player movement after a contract had expired?

Yes, however it led to an entire review of the power structure between employers/employees within sports.

Basically, you cannot bury a guy in the minors any longer in Europe, a person has the right to seek employment at the highest level available provided they are one, being prevented from doing so by their current employer and two, willing to forego whatever financial commitment their current employer may have made to them.

But I know Europe is entirely more liberal when it comes to these things, so I understand why it'd be a tough sell here.

I think they need to re-write the rule, it's too broad as it stands.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think they need to re-write the rule, it's too broad as it stands.

It'll almost definitely be changed for next season. Bettman never wanted to put it in in the first place, but says that he'll keep it for a year before making any adjustments.

 

[Frank E]

My understanding of NHL coach contracts was that once relieved of their duty, the pay continues, but only until they sign another NHL coaching contract.

 

[bustaheims]

I think they need to re-write the rule, it's too broad as it stands.

I actually don't think it's broad enough. There are some wrinkles they need to address, perhaps, but, as it is right now, it clearly defines which positions are eligible for compensation and what the compensation is. I don't know how much more specific they could make it without having it become irrelevant.

 

[Kin]

Yes, however it led to an entire review of the power structure between employers/employees within sports.

Basically, you cannot bury a guy in the minors any longer in Europe, a person has the right to seek employment at the highest level available provided they are one, being prevented from doing so by their current employer and two, willing to forego whatever financial commitment their current employer may have made to them.

But I know Europe is entirely more liberal when it comes to these things, so I understand why it'd be a tough sell here.

I think they need to re-write the rule, it's too broad as it stands.

I don't know if it's so much a case of Liberalism as it is the realities of Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga and the EPL co-existing without a real central governing structure. If the NHL had legitimate competitors who would hire away RFA's or coaches like Tortorella then they wouldn't have anywhere near the leverage they did in CBA negotiations and players and coaches would have a lot more options than they do.

Personally I'm with busta. I think teams should be allowed to decide on the compensation they want to get/give and negotiate accordingly. The only thing there is that I think teams can/should/will have the right to outright refuse.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So I forget about the reasoning at the time - why do the Leafs owe Detroit compensation for hiring someone whose contract expired?  Because they spoke to him before?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So I forget about the reasoning at the time - why do the Leafs owe Detroit compensation for hiring someone whose contract expired?

His contract expired at the end of June, Leafs hired him May 20th.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So I forget about the reasoning at the time - why do the Leafs owe Detroit compensation for hiring someone whose contract expired?

His contract expired at the end of June, Leafs hired him May 20th.

I couldn't remember the timeframe there, thanks.  That makes sense.

 

[bustaheims]

So I forget about the reasoning at the time - why do the Leafs owe Detroit compensation for hiring someone whose contract expired?

His contract expired at the end of June, Leafs hired him May 20th.

That, and as part of the agreement they made with Detroit to be able to talk to him before July 1st, they guaranteed the Wings compensation if they hired him at any point this past summer.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

That, and as part of the agreement they made with Detroit to be able to talk to him before July 1st, they guaranteed the Wings compensation if they hired him at any point this past summer.

Right, that just closed the loophole of the Leafs waiting until like a minute after his contract expired to officially hire him.

 

[L K]

That, and as part of the agreement they made with Detroit to be able to talk to him before July 1st, they guaranteed the Wings compensation if they hired him at any point this past summer.

Right, that just closed the loophole of the Leafs waiting until like a minute after his contract expired to officially hire him.

But expertly managed to keep open this "this is a stupid rule".  Maybe the Lou in Toronto as the GM, Bettman can feel bad for him and offer the Leafs a 60th overall pick instead of having to just give up their 2nd round pick like what they did with the Devils/Kovalchuk situation.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yes, however it led to an entire review of the power structure between employers/employees within sports.

Basically, you cannot bury a guy in the minors any longer in Europe, a person has the right to seek employment at the highest level available provided they are one, being prevented from doing so by their current employer and two, willing to forego whatever financial commitment their current employer may have made to them.

But I know Europe is entirely more liberal when it comes to these things, so I understand why it'd be a tough sell here.

I think they need to re-write the rule, it's too broad as it stands.

I don't know if it's so much a case of Liberalism as it is the realities of Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga and the EPL co-existing without a real central governing structure. If the NHL had legitimate competitors who would hire away RFA's or coaches like Tortorella then they wouldn't have anywhere near the leverage they did in CBA negotiations and players and coaches would have a lot more options than they do.

Just to clarify, this isn't entirely the case.

All of these countries do have their own FA, but they are all subject to UEFA's by-laws as they wish to participate in the Champions League. As such they follow UEFA to the letter and UEFA follows European employment law almost exactly to the letter.

It has become less about sport and more about each individual citizen's right to work and personal growth.

 

[Kin]

Just to clarify, this isn't entirely the case.

All of these countries do have their own FA, but they are all subject to UEFA's by-laws as they wish to participate in the Champions League. As such they follow UEFA to the letter and UEFA follows European employment law almost exactly to the letter.

It has become less about sport and more about each individual citizen's right to work and personal growth.

Except UEFA isn't a governing body for the various leagues the way the NHL is for its various clubs. It doesn't collectively bargain, it doesn't conduct a player draft and, most importantly, it doesn't operate under the impression that the financial health of European clubs is something it has a personal stake in.

I'm just saying that the sort of logical knots you have to tie yourself into to believe that the best young player in the world should be automatically contractually obligated to the worst NHL team until he's 25 because the League says so (and this coaching rule comes out of that same mentality) is a lot of things but I wouldn't describe it as being the result of a lack of Liberalism. Unless you mean Classical Liberalism in which case that's something that Europe is most definitely not.

A lot of North American sports fans just turn into die-hard socialists when it comes to sports for some reason.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And they lose to go 0-8-0 to start the season, joining the 1943/44 NYR as the only teams in NHL history to start the season with 8 straight regulation losses.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Man, if they have Johansen AND Matthews next season... does every team need to have two number 1 centres before we can have one?