[News] NHL abolishes compensation for hiring executives

[sureLoss]

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Brian Burke says there was no opposition to abolishing the executive compensation rule once the Govs heard the league's reasoning for it

Any team that hired a coach/executive under the rule is still obligated to give up compensation.

No more compensation after January 1st.

[Locke]

Haha! Stupid Oilers!

[Coach]

I think this is better than the way they were doing it, but I still feel like there are situations that it should be used. How hard is it to have "If you fired them, you get no compensation" as part of the rule. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think this is better than the way they were doing it, but I still feel like there are situations that it should be used. How hard is it to have "If you fired them, you get no compensation" as part of the rule. Seems pretty simple to me.

I agree, if you poach an executive you should pay compensation. But if they're under contract but 'fired' then no way.

Its bad for teams and its bad for the Coaches/Managers.

"I'd love to hire *whomever* but hes under contract and not worth a 2nd/3rd rounder."

Although, to be fair, it was a pretty stupid rule to begin with.

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think this is better than the way they were doing it, but I still feel like there are situations that it should be used. How hard is it to have "If you fired them, you get no compensation" as part of the rule. Seems pretty simple to me.

I agree. Seems pretty ridiculous that they didn't cover this when they first implemented the compensation rule.

But now after the Torts hiring, they have totally scrapped it? Jeez, like you said, keep the rule, but have a part in there that says if the coach/GM/whatever is no longer in his job, even if he still has a contract, then compensation rules don't apply. It really isn't that difficult.

[codynw]

I think they should have just removed compensation for guys who got fired. A team that loses a currently employed guy (example, Treliving to Calgary) should be compensated.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think they should have just removed compensation for guys who got fired. A team that loses a currently employed guy (example, Treliving to Calgary) should be compensated.

A guy in a power position like Treliving isn't likely to get poached. The other big problem with this rule was that it could effectively block a highly rated assistant GM or assistant coach from opportunities to advance their careers because other teams could hesitate to pay that price.

Most teams have policies that say they will not grant permission for other teams to talk to managers under contract if it would only represent a lateral move. That was fine. This compensation rule was a solution in search of a problem.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think they should have just removed compensation for guys who got fired. A team that loses a currently employed guy (example, Treliving to Calgary) should be compensated.

I would then just changed the title of the fired guy to "change in position to consultant" to get the compensation

[OutOfTheCube]

As usual, a dumb rule is around long enough for the Sabres to get screwed before they got rid of it.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I would then just changed the title of the fired guy to "change in position to consultant" to get the compensation

Right.

Technically Craig MacTavish was re-assigned, not fired.

[albertGQ]

Same with Dallas Eakins for a bit. He was working as an Oiler scout. So he wasn't "fired", just re assigned.

[albertGQ]

That 2nd rounder Nucks got for Tortis could be in the 35-45 range. Not bad.

[sureLoss]

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
NHLPA played a role in the decision to kill the compensation policy. PA filed a grievance in the summer.

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
The PA believes the original adoption of compensation needed their approval. Also use of draft picks impacts players...offer sheets, etc.