DeltaSwede Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 TORONTO -- NHL general managers are aligned with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman in being unhappy with the ramifications of the League's executive and coach compensation policy.The policy enables a team to receive draft-pick compensation when a coach or executive under contract, even one who has been fired, is hired by another team.The GMs are hopeful the policy will be further discussed by the Board of Governors when it meets in Pebble Beach, Calif., on Dec 7 and 8. The GMs would like the policy to be amended or eliminated.The point of contention among the GMs is that they are finding themselves sacrificing draft picks in exchange for a coach or executive who is no longer working for another organization. The Columbus Blue Jackets surrendered a second-round pick in one of the next three NHL Drafts to the Vancouver Canucks for hiring John Tortorella in-season. Tortorella was fired by the Canucks after the 2013-14 season with four years remaining on his contract. "I just think what was intended when it was first brought up and discussed for a couple years and the way it's ended up, I'm not sure that's what we all wanted," New Jersey Devils general manager Ray Shero said. "It's something for further review by the Commissioner and the ownership at the Board of Governors. What the right balance is, I'm not sure. What's transpired over the last year or so is maybe not what was intended, so we'll see what happens."Shero wouldn't rule out the possibility of the policy being eliminated, but NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said Monday that no changes will take place before Jan. 1, 2016."You do things for a reason, you think you've dotted the I's and crossed the T's in all of the situations that could come up, but in speaking for myself and talking to some of my colleagues, this was probably not the intended result for a person in John Tortorella's situation, a person who had been fired, and then for a team like Vancouver to receive compensation," Nashville Predators GM David Poile said. "Right now, there is nothing happening with it, but I think somewhere down the line, at [Commissioner Gary Bettman's] level, at the owners' level, this is something that we should readdress and get this in a situation where you get the right and correct result for all employee-compensation situations."First it was the Luongo contract and now this. Will there be any complications for the Canucks if the rules indeed are changed? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=787282&navid=nhl:topheads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I wouldn't at all be surprised if they change the rule and take away the pick.It's a stupid rule, but it is a rule and we should be compensated for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 We can close any loophole in the NHL, all we have to do is take advantage of the favourable rules and BAM! Changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It's not a good rule. Surprised they didn't have the foresight to see the problem with it.Should only receive a pick when an active coach is hired by another team (assistants, ahl, etc.).That said, we should still receive our pick, since I don't think we're the first team to be in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 watch them retroactively change the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 We won't lose our Tortorella pick.Bylsma to BUF paid PIT a 3rd. That went to us in the Sutter trade. It would screw things up, therefore we won't lose the Torts pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It's a conspiracy against the Canucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 First it was the Luongo contract and now this. Will there be any complications for the Canucks if the rules indeed are changed? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=787282&navid=nhl:topheadsYou never know. The league changed the rules retroactively to penalize the Canucks for Luongo contract after they'd already approved it years earlier. So it wouldn't be absolutely shocking if they were to turn around after the fact and penalize the Canucks once again by returning that second rounder back to Columbus.If I owned the team, I would sue the pants off of The Count if he tried any of this stuff. Problem is, the league has ways to make your life miserable should you try to sue so owners tend to just let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 /\Also, Canucks agreed to pay part of Torts' salary for the next two years to make this deal happen (less than what we were paying him before though). That wasn't for fun and games - it was to get the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It's not a good rule. Surprised they didn't have the foresight to see the problem with it.Should only receive a pick when an active coach is hired by another team (assistants, ahl, etc.).That said, we should still receive our pick, since I don't think we're the first team to be in this situation.I don't know. It seems that he's only removed from the coaching position, so technically he's still an employee getting paid by the Canucks. A second rounder, while a steep price, might be worth it for a team like Columbus trying to desperately salvage their season and fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I don't know. It seems that he's only removed from the coaching position, so technically he's still an employee getting paid by the Canucks. A second rounder, while a steep price, might be worth it for a team like Columbus trying to desperately salvage their season and fan base.I understand he's still technically an asset, but we're not using him in any way. It also could make it harder to land another job for some coaches, since not every team will part with their 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It is worth looking at. It is basically logic vs political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I understand he's still technically an asset, but we're not using him in any way. It also could make it harder to land another job for some coaches, since not every team will part with their 2nd.I think the way it works is that if Torts wanted to be released from his deal, then he would have negotiated a settlement with the Canucks, then allowing him to pursue another opportunity. He obviously was enjoying his rather large pay-cheques for doing nothing so never probably never tried to negotiate a settlement. Canucks were smart about it, probably looking ahead realizing that they could hold out for a second rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I don't think it is completely wrong to have compensation, even for a deadweight like Tortorella. Firstly, CBJ had plenty of options and decided to pay a 2nd round pick to acquire Torts services. Secondly, if a team did not have to give up any compensation then a coach would have the easy decision to keep collecting a salary until they get hired. With the second rounder in place, it forces to the coach to decide whether to settle (thus saving the team money), making his services more readily available or continue getting paid, and therefore diminishing their chances of an NHL coaching job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Another Canuck inspired rule change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 It's a conspiracy against the Canucks!Something benefited the Canucks?!?!?! Quick Change the rule!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-PatLostInEdm Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Something benefited the Canucks?!?!?! Quick Change the rule!!! Conversely, if a dumb rule is not on our favour, don't change it until it's done bending us over. It's the NHL way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 crap wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I think this is a dumb rule but if this is charged and the canucks dont get the pick... I am pretty much done with the NHL. Nothing at all was said when Pittsburgh got a pick for Bylsma and now its like oh the canucks might get a great pick for a coach lets change that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tavrohorvat53 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Pretty sure nobody thought torts would coach again, torts included. Like a few have mentioned, he chose to not settle and continue to get paid so he remained Canucks property. Regardless of being fired the reality of the situation was that he was still getting paid and there had to be a reimbursement of some sort for the salary paid to torts from the nucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.