NHL teams to pay for raiding management from other teams - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

sureLoss · 03-31-2015, 04:13 PM

http://www.tsn.ca/video/insider-trad...ummit-1.244977

per LeBrun:

If it is an off-season hire of a head coach/GM/President of Hockey ops that is under contract, the team must give up a 3rd.

If it is an in-season hire of a coach/GM/President of Hockey ops that is under contract, the team must give up a 2nd.

Coach's season ends when his team's season ends.

A GM or President of hockey ops season ends after the draft.

Lord Carnage · 03-31-2015, 04:13 PM

huh...

kind of figured this may be coming... prices are reasonable.

alan21 · 03-31-2015, 04:20 PM

Those are very reasonable.
I would still have a hard time losing picks for off ice personnel.

jaikorven · 03-31-2015, 04:33 PM

Ya I can't see too many teams just not waiting, but you never know, I guess.

Resolute 14 · 03-31-2015, 04:53 PM

I would hope there is a caveat for fired coaches/gms under contract but not working with the team. Otherwise this essentially freezes several people out of getting new jobs.

Jacks · 03-31-2015, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would hope there is a caveat for fired coaches/gms under contract but not working with the team. Otherwise this essentially freezes several people out of getting new jobs.

I think a lot of times if a coach gets a new contact it cancels the old one, in that case teams should be happy to get out of the contract.

Locke · 03-31-2015, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would hope there is a caveat for fired coaches/gms under contract but not working with the team. Otherwise this essentially freezes several people out of getting new jobs.

But also freezes those coaches' compensation. They're out of work but under contract and still being paid.

So while it sucks it isnt draconian by any means.

Sylvanfan · 03-31-2015, 05:12 PM

Anything that provides incentive for the Oilers to continue recycling retreads from old boys club is a good policy in my books.

Hemi-Cuda · 03-31-2015, 05:14 PM

Can teams still get permission to hire from the club the person is under contract with and avoid losing any picks?

getbak · 03-31-2015, 05:15 PM

I wonder how this will work if a team doesn't have their pick available? Will it be like RFA offer sheets, where the compensation must be the team's own picks in specific years?

I don't know if fired coaches/GMs who are still under contract would require compensation (I'd think not), but the Kings might not have been able to hire Darryl if this rule had been in place. They had already traded their second rounder in 2012 to Philadelphia in the Richards trade.

Coach · 03-31-2015, 05:24 PM

what about for assistants (Gms and coaches)?

btimbit · 03-31-2015, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

what about for assistants (Gms and coaches)?

Also wondering this, for example, what would we have been required to pay for Treliving

Coach · 03-31-2015, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btimbit

Also wondering this, for example, what would we have been required to pay for Treliving

Yeah or other positions. What if you hire out someone's head of scouting as your GM and poof, they build you a winning team?

Seems like it would have to be black and white on what positions are fair game and not.

#-3 · 03-31-2015, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

what about for assistants (Gms and coaches)?

Same thought, there would be allot of movement with that, I bet it happens 5-10/ year. Teams rarely stand in the way of a assistant getting promoted.

Locke · 03-31-2015, 05:35 PM

Ultimately it seems as though they're trying to increase the cost of endlessly turning over coaches and management.

If this had been enacted a few years ago the Oilers wouldnt have had any draft picks!

getbak · 03-31-2015, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btimbit

Also wondering this, for example, what would we have been required to pay for Treliving

I assume the compensation would be based on the job the person is hired to do, not the one they're leaving. So, if you hire someone's AGM to be your GM, you'd owe the compensation (they mention Yzerman and Nill in the clip). It's very rare for someone to move from one team to another in a lateral move without having been fired by the first team, or having his contract expire.

If this rule was in place last season, Treliving's hiring would have been considered an in-season hire, so the Flames would have paid a second round pick (Mason McDonald, or this year's 2nd rounder, depending on how they decide which year's draft will be involved).

Coach · 03-31-2015, 05:45 PM

^^^ I don't like that. It prevents people from progressing in their professional lives. Brad Treliving's goal is to be an NHL GM, so he either has to out live someone (or multiple people) at his current team or another team has to take a risk and pay a penalty to try and attain him? These guys aren't players with a bunch of other spots to win if one is taken. There's one GM and one coach on each team, and they don't always last that long. Now they're getting barred from working elsewhere? And conversely, sometimes GMs can last forever. So a guy is a GM for 15 years and now anyone below him has to essentially be traded in order to get a job without having to outwait this other guy. It will slow down the occurrence of teams giving guys in lesser roles a chance, and will be much more likely to look internally, which is not necessarily a good thing when you're talking about change at the top.

Just seems weird.

D as in David · 03-31-2015, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

If this had been enacted a few years ago the Oilers wouldnt have had any draft picks!

Since the proposal doesn't include first round picks as compensation, it's not like they are doing anything useful with those other picks anyway.

D as in David · 03-31-2015, 05:59 PM

It would make it pretty difficult for teams that wanted to make wholesale changes in the off-season. They would only able be hire one of a coach, GM or President that was under contract. Hard for a new GM to pick his coach in the same off-season that he was hired.

sureLoss · 03-31-2015, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

^^^ I don't like that. It prevents people from progressing in their professional lives. Brad Treliving's goal is to be an NHL GM, so he either has to out live someone (or multiple people) at his current team or another team has to take a risk and pay a penalty to try and attain him? These guys aren't players with a bunch of other spots to win if one is taken. There's one GM and one coach on each team, and they don't always last that long. Now they're getting barred from working elsewhere? And conversely, sometimes GMs can last forever. So a guy is a GM for 15 years and now anyone below him has to essentially be traded in order to get a job without having to outwait this other guy. It will slow down the occurrence of teams giving guys in lesser roles a chance, and will be much more likely to look internally, which is not necessarily a good thing when you're talking about change at the top.

Just seems weird.

It used to be quite commonplace in the NHL that teams received compensation until Bettman banned compensation for executives a few years ago (the exact year escapes me). For example Burke, when he was with the Ducks, gave up a 2nd rounder to hire Carlyle from the Canucks organization.

In some ways it is very unfair that an organization hires and develops these guys only to have one of their rivals steal them away for nothing while they are still under contract with the team.