missioncanucksfan Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Reading the best hack writer Ottawa has to offer and I came across this "The Buffalo search for a GM this winter when former president Pat LaFontaine interviewed about 15 people before settling on Ottawa assistant Tim Murray has got the NHL rethinking allowing executives to just move out of their current roles because theyre getting a promotion. That means not only will the Canucks have to pay off former GM Mike Gillis after giving him the boot, theyll also likely have to surrender a draft pick if president Trevor Linden doesnt choose either of the clubs assistants Laurence Gilman and Lorne Henning as one of the replacments." does this mean that if we gas both of them then our draft pick is safe? When did this rule come into effect? And why was it made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguez Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 What the.... I'm going to have to do some reading. Did not see this rule. Yet and addendum to the existing rules? Have the Luongo rule, now the Gillis rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Pat Quinn, on the Bill Goode show the other day made the comment:"The league seems intent on not having GMs anymore". Did anyone else hear that. He did not go on to explain the comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metroneck Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Without reading the entire article it's tough to figure out the context, but it used to be that teams could 'poach' managers from other teams, and then compensate those teams with picks. That is no longer the case. Now most guys have windows during the year, in which they can talk to other teams about employment, unless their team gives the hiring team permission to chat. This is the case for a few teams right now. This is why the usual suspects in 'Next GM' talks, Futa, Benning etc have not been hired. As far as having to continue to pay Gillis, that is contract law 101. There is no lets screw Vancouver conspiracy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Without reading the entire article it's tough to figure out the context, but it used to be that teams could 'poach' managers from other teams, and then compensate those teams with picks. It's never been allowed, explain more or give an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 It's never been allowed, explain more or give an example. Some close calls... Quinn from L.A. to the Canucks. It wasn't so much a compensation as it was a penalty. Banned from coaching for signing with Vancouver while under contract with L.A. The frontier of what is allowed and not allowed was surfed again by Burke, another lawyer, when Burke was in Anaheim and "rumored" to be going to the Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Some close calls... Quinn from L.A. to the Canucks. It wasn't so much a compensation as it was a penalty. Banned from coaching for signing with Vancouver while under contract with L.A. The frontier of what is allowed and not allowed was surfed again by Burke, another lawyer, when Burke was in Anaheim and "rumored" to be going to the Leafs. I remember Quinn was under contract when Canucks signed him, that wasn't allowed then or now so I'm not sure where the op is going with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 The Canadian teams should separate from the "NHL". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 The article is by Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun: http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/04/12/buffalo-sabres-gm-tim-murray-open-for-business-when-it-comes-to-dealing-playersIt's also talking about a proposed rule change, not an existing rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguez Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Without reading the entire article it's tough to figure out the context, but it used to be that teams could 'poach' managers from other teams, and then compensate those teams with picks. That is no longer the case. Now most guys have windows during the year, in which they can talk to other teams about employment, unless their team gives the hiring team permission to chat. This is the case for a few teams right now. This is why the usual suspects in 'Next GM' talks, Futa, Benning etc have not been hired. As far as having to continue to pay Gillis, that is contract law 101. There is no lets screw Vancouver conspiracy here. The article talks about a possible rule change that would see any team that hires a GM from the lower ranks of any other team pay a fine of a draft pick. Example, Canucks offer any assistant GM who isn't already working for the Canucks, they would lose a draft pick. If the timing of this rule happens in the same fashion of the Luongo rule, ie, immediately before a trade happens (as rumored a trade was in place just waiting for the CBA to be agreed upon) then this would put a significant wrench in the Canucks ability to fill a very important role on their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred65 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I believe in most Asst GM contracts they have a clause allowing them to take an advancement in their careers...no guy worth his salt would want to be tied as an assitant when there is the opportunity to be the head man. This is why Linden, rightfully so, has to SEEK permission to speak to...say Jim Benning... from Boston before he can actually offer the man an interview. If Boston refuses they have a disgruntled Asst GM on their hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I believe in most Asst GM contracts they have a clause allowing them to take an advancement in their careers...no guy worth his salt would want to be tied as an assitant when there is the opportunity to be the head man. This is why Linden, rightfully so, has to SEEK permission to speak to...say Jim Benning... from Boston before he can actually offer the man an interview. If Boston refuses they have a disgruntled Asst GM on their hands Exactly. No half-competently run organization would say "No, you can't speak to another team about a better job. You're stuck here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.