Value of: Mike Sullivan

[Empoleon8771]

From Weekes just a bit ago:



I don't think there is any precedent for this in the NHL, but let's say the Penguins are going to trade Sullivan to be the coach of another team (such as the Devils). What would teams realistically be paying for that?

Based on the old NHL compensation for coaches hired being a 3rd, I'd guess a 2nd would be reasonable? But other sports (namely the NFL with Sean Payton) have had coaches go for 1st round picks.

Edit: Seravalli also adds some fuel to the fire:

Click to read more...

 

[66-30-33]

Bidding starts at a 1st round pick.

 

[Vector]

I do not believe you can receive compensation for coaches anymore.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Not a trade but there used to be compensation for teams signing coaches still under contract. I recall the Canucks getting a 3rd?(maybe 2nd) when Columbus signed Torts.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I do not believe you can receive compensation for coaches anymore.

That had to do with coaches being hired from your organization, I don't know if there is any clear ruling on whether coaching trades are permitted.

It has happened in the NHL before (1987 the Nordiques traded their coach to the Rangers), but the league was fundamentally different 40 years ago.

 

[Vector]

That had to do with coaches being hired from your organization, I don't know if there is any clear ruling on whether coaching trades are permitted.

It has happened in the NHL before (1987 the Nordiques traded their coach to the Rangers), but the league was fundamentally different 40 years ago.

My line of thinking is that if the league purposefully removed compensation system for coaches and have been trying to keep transactions for only on-ice moves then they won't permit a transaction that involves a coach. If that's correct, then they would investigate any lop-sided deal where Sullivan joins the other team.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Does Weekes explain how that would happen? Cause I believe they eliminated that possibility. I remember the Torts to Columbus thing as well and I looked up some story that said it's no longer possible.

EDIT: sportsnet.ca linking is broken, keeps trying to embed a video that's irrelevant the link is

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-receive-compensatory-pick-blue-jackets-john-tortorella

Teams receiving compensation for hiring coaches or executives who had recently been fired wasn’t a particularly popular rule and it ended up being a relatively short-lived one. The policy went into effect on Jan. 1, 2015 but by that December the NHL’s Board of Governors had decided to eliminate it.

 

[66-30-33]

Even if we get nothing, he's gone so he can be another teams problem.

 

[The Great Mighty Poo]

Trade for Sullivan get free shipping ,as a added bonus you can add to your collection by hiring freshly fired Bald Todd sold separately, dont delay, act now, supplies are running out! Add a whatever the f*** you can win a free Ryan Graves, Matt Nieto, or Noel Accari value at this magnitude doesnt come along very often. Were totally not being carnies and selling you defective magic beans.

 

[Lt Dan]

From Weekes just a bit ago:



I don't think there is any precedent for this in the NHL, but let's say the Penguins are going to trade Sullivan to be the coach of another team (such as the Devils). What would teams realistically be paying for that?

Based on the old NHL compensation for coaches hired being a 3rd, I'd guess a 2nd would be reasonable? But other sports (namely the NFL with Sean Payton) have had coaches go for 1st round picks.

Edit: Seravalli also adds some fuel to the fire:

Mike Sullivan for PLD

 

[SomeDude]

My line of thinking is that if the league purposefully removed compensation system for coaches and have been trying to keep transactions for only on-ice moves then they won't permit a transaction that involves a coach. If that's correct, then they would investigate any lop-sided deal where Sullivan joins the other team.

I’m pretty sure they eliminated the compensation for a fired coach/executive because it was creating a barrier for guys to get new jobs.

Trading a coach is a completely different scenario. I hope Weekes is right because some team would pony up for Sully due to his undeserved reputation.

 

[Icarium]

How do you spell worthless? Asking for a friend.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I’m pretty sure they eliminated the compensation for a fired coach/executive because it was creating a barrier for guys to get new jobs.

Trading a coach is a completely different scenario. I hope Weekes is right because some team would pony up for Sully due to his undeserved reputation.

NJ would absolutely trade for Sullivan, in fact if it's possible I think it's incredibly likely, tons of rumors saying that NJ wants him.

 

[66-30-33]

NJ would absolutely trade for Sullivan, in fact if it's possible I think it's incredibly likely, tons of rumors saying that NJ wants him.

I'd offer him to you for free.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

If trading for Sullivan is possible NJ would absolutely offer one of its 3rd rounders for him I think without question. The highest they'd go is maybe Winnipeg's 2025 2nd rounder. It just seems like they want him badly and feel the team is at an inflection point and needs the right coach in the locker room.

 

[HBK27]

Seems rather stupid to trade for Sullivan.

Either Pittsburgh decides he's their coach or he's not. It shouldn't be such a toss-up that a draft pick will sway things. If he is, then that's that. If he's not, is Pittsburgh going to sit around waiting for a trade to materialize and be willing to pay him his contract to not coach if something to their liking doesn't materialize?

Would think he is either coaching in Pittsburgh next year or they mutually agree to part ways.

I'm assuming that Sullivan would have to have a say in all this as well and that he'd only agree to go to one team. Not like teams are going to get in a bidding war for him. Also not sure this is a precedent that the NHL wants to get into, otherwise maybe the Devils should've just traded Ruff to Buffalo.

 

[Nikolajs Sillers]

There's no such thing as a coach trade.

 

[SomeDude]

Also not sure this is a precedent that the NHL wants to get into, otherwise maybe the Devils should've just traded Ruff to Buffalo.

Not really sure why the NHL would care. Other leagues allow trades of coaches. It would be nearly impossible to pull off mid-season when Ruff was fired.

 

[66-30-33]

There's no such thing as a coach trade.

Pens will make it a thing. Once we do it other teams start doing it right after.

 

[stempniaksen]

Dreger was on the radio in Ottawa and this question came up and he said the league is trying to move away from this type of compensation and that even if it wasn't outright barred that's it's also not kosher and something the league would try and prevent from happening. Interesting to see where this goes from here as it could set a precedent in the league.

I'm sure the Senators will be sniffing around and/or grant him an interview if he's let go. Jacques Martin coached under him in Pittsburgh and is involved in the search for his successor as he's staying on with the organization in a consultant role. All the smoke coming out of the team lately has been about adding an experienced NHL head coach who has been there and done that and despite his flaws that's Sullivan to a tee.

 

[HBK27]

Not really sure why the NHL would care. Other leagues allow trades of coaches. It would be nearly impossible to pull off mid-season when Ruff was fired.

I wasn't suggesting a mid-season trade of Ruff. He was still under contract with NJ this offseason, so why wouldn't they have been able to trade him if this is a thing now - because he was not longer in the head coach role? In that case, maybe they should've kept him in the role all season to get something of value from him in the offseason.

What about assistant coaches? Why shouldn't they have trade value - just because they're getting a promotion?

I don't think the NHL wants to see teams start playing games and deny coaches opportunities which would be the case if you can start trading for coaches.

What if Pittsburgh doesn't get an offer they like for Sullivan? Will they just decide to pay him to not coach for the remainder of his contract? Or what if they don't want him going to a division rival? Force him to accept a trade somewhere else or have to not coach for the remainder of his contract? Can get into a bunch of messy situations that I'm sure the NHL would rather avoid.

 

[The Great Mighty Poo]

Dreger was on the radio in Ottawa and this question came up and he said the league is trying to move away from this type of compensation and that even if it wasn't outright barred that's it's also not kosher and something the league would try and prevent from happening. Interesting to see where this goes from here as it could set a precedent in the league.

I'm sure the Senators will be sniffing around and/or grant him an interview if he's let go. Jacques Martin coached under him in Pittsburgh and is involved in the search for his successor as he's staying on with the organization in a consultant role. All the smoke coming out of the team lately has been about adding an experienced NHL head coach who has been there and done that and despite his flaws that's Sullivan to a tee.

Dreger also claimed Malkin was 100% getting traded to LA ever from 08-2011, so I wipe a monkey ass with that that gnarl little turd says.

 

[SomeDude]

I wasn't suggesting a mid-season trade of Ruff. He was still under contract with NJ this offseason, so why wouldn't they have been able to trade him if this is a thing now - because he was not longer in the head coach role? In that case, maybe they should've kept him in the role all season to get something of value from him in the offseason.

What about assistant coaches? Why shouldn't they have trade value - just because they're getting a promotion?

I don't think the NHL wants to see teams start playing games and deny coaches opportunities which would be the case if you can start trading for coaches.

What if Pittsburgh doesn't get an offer they like for Sullivan? Will they just decide to pay him to not coach for the remainder of his contract? Or what if they don't want him going to a division rival? Force him to accept a trade somewhere else or have to not coach for the remainder of his contract? Can get into a bunch of messy situations that I'm sure the NHL would rather avoid.

You realize that most coaches have no trade value to another team. That is why, if it is still legal to trade a coach, it hasn’t been done in 30 years or so.

Because another team didn’t think to try doesn’t mean others can’t.

If a team wants to fire a coach and nobody wants to trade for them, they’ll still fire them. Then the coach can seek employment with no compensation being due to his former team. Just like now.

You’re making a big deal out of nothing.

 

[HBK27]

You realize that most coaches have no trade value to another team. That is why, if it is still legal to trade a coach, it hasn’t been done in 30 years or so.

Because another team didn’t think to try doesn’t mean others can’t.

If a team wants to fire a coach and nobody wants to trade for them, they’ll still fire them. Then the coach can seek employment with no compensation being due to his former team. Just like now.

You’re making a big deal out of nothing.

I highly doubt no other team just never "thought to try it".

And it does become a big deal if this is allowed, as it would absolutely have long-term ramifications for how teams approach coaches.

I just don't see it happening, but I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

 

[SomeDude]

I highly doubt no other team just never "thought to try it".

And it does become a big deal if this is allowed, as it would absolutely have long-term ramifications for how teams approach coaches.

I just don't see it happening, but I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

I think the fact that a guy like Weekes suggested it as a possibility shows it likely is allowable. He’s not some hack beat reporter.