Goon42
Registered User
- Apr 12, 2013
- 2,454
- 1,843
Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CBJ] John Tortorella for a 2nd Round Draft Pick
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
- Aug 24, 2009
- 942
- 76
Oh man, my mind is in the gutter because when I first saw this thread; I just quickly read the thread title and thought something else...
Great move by Benning (as I assumed he pushed for this compensation).
No, Benning had no hand in this. The pick was automatically given to us as a result of Torterella's hiring. I believe Benning doesn't even have to give permission for teams to speak to a coach he fired.
me2
Go ahead foot
You mean CBJ got Benning to pay them cash for a pick they had to give up anyway?
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
When fired coaches get hired usually the teams split the contract. It happened this way before the compensation rule, too.
That doesn't make any sense. Getting compensation for a fired employee would give management another reason to fire people.
This is obviously going to get fixed....too many members of the media and owners have complained....just hope they don't make the rule change retroactive and the 'Nucks lose that Jackets' second rounder.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,837
- 16,326
i don't think that's the point. and i don't think that's true, either. i mean, i don't think any owner or GM is going to hire a bunch of good coaches and fire them hoping some other team is going to hire them and give up a bunch of free second round picks. that's insanity.
i believe the compensatory pick rule is because if you want to talk to another team's fired coach, or assistant coach, or minor league coach, all of whom are under contract, you have to ask permission first or it's tampering. the compensatory pick is to encourage teams to let their guys take those meetings.
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
Obviously not, I never said that.
Obviously yes. The compensatory pick is compensation for having to let go of a valued employee. It hurts your organization, so you get a draft pick in return.
Fired employees aren't valued employees. Receiving compensation for someone you don't want and have let go makes no sense, and like I said, it's baffling how they botched the rule.
I don't know how the NHL defines firing, but if a coach is still being paid, they're not so much "fired" as simply relegated to other (probably non-existent) duties within the organization. A fired coach still drawing a salary wouldn't be able to collect (un)employment insurance, for example (ignoring the question whether they are employees or contractors). So if a team is paying a fired coach, the team presumably should have a right to them as an asset.
Now whether trading NHL currency (in the form of draft picks) is the appropriate mechanism for purchasing that asset is another question, since presumably releasing the team from their financial obligation (which is what I had always assumed happened until now) is probably payment enough. In a free market, though, the teams would simply negotiate whatever agreement they could come to, whether it was nothing, a lump sum of cash, a draft pick, or even a roster player (like the Keenan for Nedved trade!)
Yeah, you take someone I'm gainfully employing I want compensation.
If I fire a coach, I think the best way would be for the coach (or GM) and team to be able to mutually agree to waive future payments, and then the former employee can sign with whomever without further involvement of the past team. But if the fired coach/GM insists on collecting the rest of his contract fee, then sure, forbid any discussion from other teams unless they pay up if a new job emerges.
If I fire a coach, I think the best way would be for the coach (or GM) and team to be able to mutually agree to waive future payments, and then the former employee can sign with whomever without further involvement of the past team. But if the fired coach/GM insists on collecting the rest of his contract fee, then sure, forbid any discussion from other teams unless they pay up if a new job emerges.
But this isn't even a good example.
In the Luongo incident, the league punished us retroactively for a NON-existing rule.
Here, I can see the league retroactively clawing back the draft pick.
Either way, BS, and it's highly likely to happen IMO.
they're still employees. its not really the canucks fault that there's some ******** stigma against re-purposing multi-millionaire qualified failures
Not having us keep the pick would be a mess, because the compensation was part of a more complicated agreement (we agreed to pay part of Torts's salary in order to encourage the hire, so we'd obviously want our money back from CBJ, etc).
Now that's the answer to a future NHL trivia question.....which team in the NHL was the last one to be awarded a compensatory draft pick for the signing of a failed coach/gm?...almost makes up for flushing away second rounders on Vey-Baertschi.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 16,580
- 15,518
Easy now.
There's still time for Jim "I love picks" Benning to swap that 2nd for a 3rd.
NoShowWilly
Registered User
there you guys go. something in the Canucks favour. good to see the league rid of this bs compensation for fired personnel though.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Bad News Benning
Fallin for Dahlin?
If they could award us a 1st overall pick that would be nice.
Oh and maybe take a couple teams away rather than add two more teams to get in our way of a cup. Guarantee you Vegas or Quebec will win a cup before us just like Anaheim, Tampa, Carolina, and Colorado.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
They awarded the Oilers with a slew of 1st overall pick, they seem just as far from cup contention as they did before they got all those picks. If the NHL wants to award us with something I'd hope for a good management group.
It actually gets better...I understand the Leafs had to surrender third-rounders to get Babcock and Lamoriello....while we got a second for Torts....go figure.
