Xbox Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 People need to chill. What will probably happen is the rule will be abandoned but we retain Columbus's pick. I'd be very shocked if we lose the pick as CBJ knew the rules when doing it. That shouldn't be altered. The rule itself is stupid though. It just makes it harder for the coach to find a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 People need to chill. What will probably happen is the rule will be abandoned but we retain Columbus's pick. I'd be very shocked if we lose the pick as CBJ knew the rules when doing it. That shouldn't be altered. The rule itself is stupid though. It just makes it harder for the coach to find a team.Luongos contract was approved by the league at one point. Then the "Luongo Rule" came into play. I am not here to say that there is a bias against the Canucks. I think, and there has been evidence of it that the league is way too inconsistent with the way things are carried out. The Kings just got away with robbery on the Mike Richards (and Voynovs) settlement. The NHL decided to give back New Jersey their draft pick they had to forfeit for their contract with Kovalchuk after the ruling.The league isn't out to get the Canucks, it's just starting to become a joke at how inconsistent they can be when applying disciplinary action. The rules are there but in many cases are changed, ignored or used in complete different ways depending on the situation.It's a joke. I am hoping they don't go back and punish the Canucks for something that was within the rules when the move was done. History is a good indication of the future, I wouldn't be shocked at all if the 2nd round pick turns into a 5th or vanishes completely. The league has done it before and are just as likely to do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 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.I doubt any coach would choose to settle. Who would give up guaranteed money for a chance at it?Any team that can afford to pay a coach to do nothing would definitely prefer to keep him as property in hopes of someone else wanting him. I think this rule was simply not thought out fully when created. I'd prefer it only applied to active coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I think we need the rule to protect Coach Green I saw there were teams interested in him. Or does the rule apply with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industrious1 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I'd say its probably about 50/50 considering league history on whether or not the Canucks hold onto that 2nd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.