Paul McCann: Help me understand something...

This recent development (or at least recent publicity) in the NHL about teams getting compensation or giving permission to a fired coach for him to pursue new employment is frankly… crazy.

It's a terrible rule, but technically he's still an employee of the Pens, permanently suspended until his contract runs out. Technicalities my friend.

Paul McCann: Help me understand something...
- pmccann

This compensation rule was never used before the Bruins decided to apply it for Chiarelli.


That being said , I'm guessing this is sort of like a no competition clause in someone's contract that forbids them to go work for a competitor for X number of years even after they do get fired (or their contract is terminated ,etc).

Its called contract law. As long as the Penguins are paying him a guaranteed contract, they don't have to let him coach anywhere else. Yes, they would likely be just as happy to get the salary off their books, but if for some reason they don't want him going to a certain team (say Philly or the Caps last year), that's their prerogative. I'd sure DB was quite content getting paid while he sat on a warm beach somewhere over the winter. I'd highly doubt that the Pens would stand in the way of him going to Buffalo.

I'd also advise you to take a deep breath simmer down about the compensation rant. The Penguins didn't ask for any from NJ when Shero was allowed to go there, and I'd doubt the Penguins would ask of anything from Buffalo if they hire DB.

I hope he ends up there. He has his flaws, but I think he's a good human, and would do well with the Sabres.

Pens pay him his salary.

Hes currently suspended from his job.

Other teams must request permission to speak with a contracted employee.

Simple to understand.

I don't like the rule. But I don't like Detroit and SJS getting picks for coaches on contracts that are expiring in 6 weeks either.

I'm with Paul on this one. It's dumb. NOW, I get that it's all in fairness. He is still being paid by the Pens, and he is their employee. I think it should just work that they can stop paying him when he takes another job, so let him go try to find another job. Tell him there's a few teams you won't let him go to (just like the above mentioned non-compete clause).

The law has to be there, otherwise it's unfair to the employer, but there should be some unwritten rules here.

I don't like the rule. But I don't like Detroit and SJS getting picks for coaches on contracts that are expiring in 6 weeks either.
- jfkst1

I am less against this one (even though the Leafs are giving up a pick). They are giving up a pick for the ability to talk to Babcock while he was still under contract, and compete with the Red Wings for their own coach. He wasn't fired, it wasn't certain he was leaving, so the Wings said yes, you can come in and compete with us for our own coach, but if you win we want something in return for letting you do that.

As someone else already mentioned, it's contract law. As dumb or unfair as it may seem, it's a legally enforceable contract unless both parties agree to sever it.

I am less against this one (even though the Leafs are giving up a pick). They are giving up a pick for the ability to talk to Babcock while he was still under contract, and compete with the Red Wings for their own coach. He wasn't fired, it wasn't certain he was leaving, so the Wings said yes, you can come in and compete with us for our own coach, but if you win we want something in return for letting you do that.
- SolidGoldBricks

That's fine. But legally speaking, there is absolutely nothing Detroit could do if Babcock wanted to wait until July 1 (when I believe his contract expires) to begin openly negotiating with teams. Had Detroit made a SC finals appearance, that's likely what would have happened. I don't think relieved or expiring contracts should warrant a pick in return.

Pretty sure Nashville had to ask Philly to speak to Lavy a year ago?

I'm with Paul on this one. It's dumb. NOW, I get that it's all in fairness. He is still being paid by the Pens, and he is their employee. I think it should just work that they can stop paying him when he takes another job, so let him go try to find another job. Tell him there's a few teams you won't let him go to (just like the above mentioned non-compete clause).

The law has to be there, otherwise it's unfair to the employer, but there should be some unwritten rules here.
- SolidGoldBricks

I'm also for enforcing the contract for both sides, otherwise you get what we see in college football where coaches just jump from program to program while still under contract. That's insane, and it all starts when you don't enforce the contracts.

Pens are paying salary, he's still under contract, so Pens are SMART to choose when/if they allow other teams to talk to him.

I'm sure Bylsma is doing just fine

I guess my view may be a little too simple, but I do believe, you fire a coach, you move on… permission and compensation be damned.

I agree 100%. You fire a dude but still have "control"? that's (frank)ing stupid.

I agree 100%. You fire a dude but still have "control"? that's (frank)ing stupid.
- benjichronic

they are still paying him. If Byslma said to the Pens, "Quit paying me so I can talk to other teams", no compensation would be warranted.

I would laugh hardily if Buffalo had to give up a few picks because they hired Bylsma.

It's been a tough few months for the sabres. This would be another kick in the groin.

I agree 100%. You fire a dude but still have "control"? that's (frank)ing stupid.
- benjichronic

The price you pay for a guaranteed contract. Dump the guarantees and viola, free man.

It's the guaranteed contracts that are (frank)ing stupid.

The price you pay for a guaranteed contract. Dump the guarantees and viola, free man.

It's the guaranteed contracts that are (frank)ing stupid.
- bloatedmosquito

Bylsma had every right to quit and refuse his 2mil salary. He didn't. He's happy to sit around and get paid, therefor the Pens have every right to control his future.

Bylsma had every right to quit and refuse his 2mil salary. He didn't. He's happy to sit around and get paid, therefor the Pens have every right to control his future.
- madmike71

I agree. I just hate those guaranteed contracts.

I agree 100%. You fire a dude but still have "control"? that's (frank)ing stupid.
- benjichronic

Absolutely. Totally stupid. Reminds me of NFL contracts. Player signs a 5 year contract but can be cut after a year and the rest of the contract negated. Or a player can sign a 5 year contract and hold out after the 1st year and demand more money. Stupid. A contract is a contract.