Torts Tossed

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Tue May 06, 2014 8:53 pm

SKYO wrote:wow craziness, wonder if the philanderer rumours are true.


*LOL* With C.Schneid's GF? :lol:
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby dbr » Wed May 07, 2014 7:45 am

Strangelove wrote:LOL Feschuk, if Babcock wants a BETTER ROSTER and MORE SAY IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISIONS

... he would most certainly NOT choose CRACKTOWN (where coaches go to die).


You have to give it to him though, he's really really trying to make it sound like a good opportunity.

"He might enjoy working in a place where playoff games aren’t taken as a ho-hum given."

:lol:
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Topper » Wed May 07, 2014 8:07 am

dbr wrote:
Strangelove wrote:LOL Feschuk, if Babcock wants a BETTER ROSTER and MORE SAY IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISIONS

... he would most certainly NOT choose CRACKTOWN (where coaches go to die).


You have to give it to him though, he's really really trying to make it sound like a good opportunity.

"He might enjoy working in a place where playoff games aren’t taken as a ho-hum given."

:lol:

Detroit City is getting so run down even the crack heads have left.

Thinking of Gilman for GM, that would leave much of the player talent decisions to the coach's, scouts and owners.

The added input on personnel could be plum for an experienced top level candidate. So who fits that description?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Wed May 07, 2014 3:01 pm

Strangelove wrote:LOL Feschuk, if Babcock wants a BETTER ROSTER and MORE SAY IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISIONS

... he would most certainly NOT choose CRACKTOWN (where coaches go to die).


There-in lies the Challenge. To be the first Coach since Pat Quinn to consistently get them to the Playoffs. I mean for Leafs fans, getting to the Playoffs is like a cause for celebration.

Also, Shanny and Babcock DESPISED EACH OTHER, which is why I BELIEVE Shanny chose to leave (Mo)town.


Where has this been documented?

Don't forget the Leaves would have to COMPENSATE the Wings as Babby is UNDER CONTRACT for one more year.


I THINK the NHL took away the ability for any team to be able COMPENSATE another team for losing an executive. But since he is still UNDER CONTRACT, the Red Wings would have to agree to letting him go.

But it could be similar to the situation with the Vancouver Giants where Toigo let Hay go back to Kamloops Blazers to be their Head Coach even though he was still under contract but wanted to be back there for lifestyle reasons.

Babs stated that, rather than sign an extension, he wants to sign one-year contracts MOVING FORWARD.

Much to GM Ken Holland's chagrin.

Sure that might mean he's THINKING about moving on SOONER-THAN-LATER.

But surely NOT to the PATHETIC LEAVES! :roll:

I'll bet any MAN JACK one of the readers of this here thread that he coaches THE WINGS next season!

IMHO as PUNISHMENT for this article, Feschuk should be made to wear his Leaf jersey

... with a 'KICK ME' sign attached...

down the streets of EAST VAN AFTER MIDNIGHT! :drink:

Crazy fucker...


Odds are he will stay ... but Babs has been with the Red Wings for almost a decade.

And let's remember, it's Detroit and it may be "Hockey Town" but Toronto is the "Hockey Universe" or as Burke once stated, the "Vatican of Hockey." 8-)
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Wed May 07, 2014 3:29 pm

Topper wrote:Thinking of Gilman for GM, that would leave much of the player talent decisions to the coach's, scouts and owners.

The added input on personnel could be plum for an experienced top level candidate. So who fits that description?


Thinking if Gilman is named GM for the Canucks, that would mean Linden will be more of a hands on type of guy and quite involved in hockey personnel decisions i.e. a "consensus builder" for significant roster moves.
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Strangelove » Wed May 07, 2014 11:12 pm

Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:LOL Feschuk, if Babcock wants a BETTER ROSTER and MORE SAY IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISIONS

... he would most certainly NOT choose CRACKTOWN (where coaches go to die).


There-in lies the Challenge. To be the first Coach since Pat Quinn to consistently get them to the Playoffs. I mean for Leafs fans, getting to the Playoffs is like a cause for celebration.


LOL, the pathetic Leaves wouldn't make the playoffs with 10 Babcocks!

I THINK Babs knows this.

Also, as stated, Babcock's (alleged) THIRST FOR POWER would never be quenched in PIGTOWN.

Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Also, Shanny and Babcock DESPISED EACH OTHER, which is why I BELIEVE Shanny chose to leave (Mo)town.


Where has this been documented?


Well I was going by memory but IF YOU INSIST...

http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/red_wings_overnight_report_the_benefit_of_ken_hollands_post-july_1st_doubt

Brendan Shanahan was allowed to avail himself of his options before leaving the Red Wings scrambling for a replacement when he signed with the New York Rangers on July 9, 2006 (despite rumors to the contrary, Shanahan, Mathieu Schneider and Robert Lang are the only Wings who explicitly or chose to leave Detroit because they didn’t take to Mike Babcock’s style of coaching)


http://onthewingsblog.com/2006/07/09/its-official-shanahan-now-a-ranger/

Since Shanahan went on the market last week, there had been many conflicting reports on where he was headed. Some thought he was just testing the market as a staunch union man or for kicks, to see what he would get, but that he always intended to sign with the Wings. Others said he was looking to leave the Wings because of Mike Babcock or because he wanted more money than the Wings were willing or able to offer him.

It was easy to believe Babcock and Shanahan had clashed due to the coach’s apparent distaste for the older players on the team but I remembered Shanny’s resurgence this past season and thought perhaps that Babcock made an exception with him. Therefore, I allowed myself to believe reports such as a blog post by Ansar Khan, which came late last night, that assured Wings fans that Shanahan wasn’t going anywhere


The logical conclusion, since Shanny obviously DID INDEED “go somewhere”

… is that the (alleged) clash with Babs was the LIKELY reason why.

See, the Rangers signed him as a UFA to a 1-year $4m deal

… which is 700K less than Shanny averaged over the previous 10 seasons

… PLUS Mr Shannyhanny had just scored 40 goals the previous season.

(obviously Shanny brought more to the table than just goal-scoring, JUST SAYING...)

POINT IS the Wings would have had NO PROBLEM matching that contract for STAR FORWARD Shanny.

Note the second article says Wings offered him “a two-year deal at $4 million in the first year”.

The first article says the Wings were left “scrambling for a replacement.”

BTW Bab’s “distaste for the older players” is a reference to Babcock’s TORTS-LIKE first season in Motown.

See, Babcock’s style was to DOMINATE THE ROOM, some of the older players didn’t respond well to that

(allegedly). :mrgreen:

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/10/pre-caps_game_red_wings-relate.html

Shanahan left Detroit in a huff and a hurry


These are the kinds of things WINGS FANS say about Shanny/Babby FWIW.

Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Don't forget the Leaves would have to COMPENSATE the Wings as Babby is UNDER CONTRACT for one more year.


I THINK the NHL took away the ability for any team to be able COMPENSATE another team for losing an executive.


I THINK it's YOUR turn for a link (or 3). :mex:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Thu May 08, 2014 9:25 am

Strangelove wrote:
Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Don't forget the Leaves would have to COMPENSATE the Wings as Babby is UNDER CONTRACT for one more year.


I THINK the NHL took away the ability for any team to be able COMPENSATE another team for losing an executive.


I THINK it's YOUR turn for a link (or 3). :mex:


Execs call for revival of team compensation
By Pierre LeBrun | ESPN.com
3/07/12

via: http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/1 ... mpensation\

As of 2006-07, teams could either release a coach or scout or management-type for a job in another organization or choose not to. But there would be no compensation.


hfboards, Business of Hockey Thread on The Prospects of Compensaion:

via: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showt ... p=77598533

hatterson on 01-07-2014, 09:06 PM wrote:

McKenzie tweeted the following after mentioning the Sabres probable new hiring. I thought it was interesting enough to discuss on its own.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Growing # of NHL GMs frustrated by NHL rules not permitting clubs to be compensated for losing off-ice personnel to other clubs.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
DET GM Ken Holland/CGY prez Brian Burke spearheading long-standing pro-compensation forces. Others joining in after lengthy BUF GM search.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
NHL commish Gary Bettman is adamantly opposed to even discussing notion of returning to days of clubs being compensated for lost employees.


So that's the question. Should an organization that losses an off-ice employee to another organization (as it appears Ottawa is about to do) be compensated in some way?

If they continue to not be does it mean that more teams will begin deny permission to speak with their employees in order to maintain a competitive advantage? Does it hurt the overall GM talent pool if qualified individuals are "stuck" in assistant jobs?

Or does an organization being compensated actually hurt the league? Would we see a team with massive financial resources sign unemployed guys just to "sell" them to other teams later and gain a benefit?


Calgary Puck:

liamenator on 04-28-2014, 08:46 AM:

via: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpost.p ... stcount=44

Just to clarify--Phoenix will receive no compensation. The NHL no longer allows teams to compensate for hiring away executives. Burke mentioned this several times when discussing the GM search.


8-)
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Strangelove » Thu May 08, 2014 6:47 pm

Betamax wrote:
As of 2006-07, teams could either release a coach or scout or management-type for a job in another organization or choose not to. But there would be no compensation.



Interesting.... INTERESTING.

Although one would imagine teams tend to "choose not to" release their head coaches.

Anyhoo, Old Fezzwig's fantasy won't be coming true though, seeing as how the Leaves just

... wait a minute...

... Image...

... AH HAHAHAHAHA...

... the Leaves just EXTENDED CARLYLE!!! :lol:

OMG, stupid fucking Leaves, put THAT in your pipe and smoke it Feschuk!

While we're still on the topic, IT APPEARS Babby is pretty comfortable where he is...

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Mike-Augello/Coaches-Shoots-Down-Toronto-Rumors-Prospect-Update/120/59928

I’m real comfortable with my situation(in Detroit). I’ve been working for an owner and a general manager for nine years. We have a good relationship.”

“I love what we’ve got going on in Detroit. I think we’re really building a program,” Babcock said. “I also think as a head coach, when you’re looking for opportunity out there and if you’re thinking of moving, you’d better make sure the grass is greener on the other side. What I’ve found in life is it usually is not.”


Figuratively speeking, I would say the grass at the Centre of the Universe is poopy-brown. :mex:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu May 08, 2014 8:33 pm

Most AGMs have out clauses that allow them to be interviewed for a promotional position, likewise assistant coaches. But it is up to the team to grant permission during the season or wait until the season ends, or so I have heard. It would probably be more unusual for head coaches to have such clauses. So the leverage a team has is in timing really and I think most organizations would grant permission in any event. It is the nature of the business and hard to attrack good people if you are known to create roadblocks to promotion.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Fri May 09, 2014 6:05 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Most AGMs have out clauses that allow them to be interviewed for a promotional position, likewise assistant coaches. But it is up to the team to grant permission during the season or wait until the season ends, or so I have heard. It would probably be more unusual for head coaches to have such clauses. So the leverage a team has is in timing really and I think most organizations would grant permission in any event. It is the nature of the business and hard to attrack good people if you are known to create roadblocks to promotion.


I think it has less to do with "out clauses" and more to do with being pragmatic. I mean if you have a Head Coach, the leader of your players, not 100% committed to the franchise, do you really want him guiding the team even though he has a legal obligation to fufill the last year of his contract?
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:03 pm

Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Betamax wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Don't forget the Leaves would have to COMPENSATE the Wings as Babby is UNDER CONTRACT for one more year.


I THINK the NHL took away the ability for any team to be able COMPENSATE another team for losing an executive.


I THINK it's YOUR turn for a link (or 3). :mex:


Execs call for revival of team compensation
By Pierre LeBrun | ESPN.com
3/07/12

via: http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/1 ... mpensation\

As of 2006-07, teams could either release a coach or scout or management-type for a job in another organization or choose not to. But there would be no compensation.


hfboards, Business of Hockey Thread on The Prospects of Compensaion:

via: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showt ... p=77598533

hatterson on 01-07-2014, 09:06 PM wrote:

McKenzie tweeted the following after mentioning the Sabres probable new hiring. I thought it was interesting enough to discuss on its own.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Growing # of NHL GMs frustrated by NHL rules not permitting clubs to be compensated for losing off-ice personnel to other clubs.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
DET GM Ken Holland/CGY prez Brian Burke spearheading long-standing pro-compensation forces. Others joining in after lengthy BUF GM search.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
NHL commish Gary Bettman is adamantly opposed to even discussing notion of returning to days of clubs being compensated for lost employees.


So that's the question. Should an organization that losses an off-ice employee to another organization (as it appears Ottawa is about to do) be compensated in some way?

If they continue to not be does it mean that more teams will begin deny permission to speak with their employees in order to maintain a competitive advantage? Does it hurt the overall GM talent pool if qualified individuals are "stuck" in assistant jobs?

Or does an organization being compensated actually hurt the league? Would we see a team with massive financial resources sign unemployed guys just to "sell" them to other teams later and gain a benefit?


Calgary Puck:

liamenator on 04-28-2014, 08:46 AM:

via: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpost.p ... stcount=44

Just to clarify--Phoenix will receive no compensation. The NHL no longer allows teams to compensate for hiring away executives. Burke mentioned this several times when discussing the GM search.


8-)


As of today, compensation returns for a team losing losing off-ice personnel, hired for top level positions, via:

[above comment edited to be a bit more clear]

https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/ ... 3964654593

Elliotte Friedman Verified account ‏@FriedgeHNIC

Today, NHL also approved compensation for a team losing someone hired to be head coach, GM or President/Hockey Ops with another club (1/2)

5:54 PM - 26 Jun 2014


https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/ ... 3728571393

Elliotte Friedman Verified account ‏@FriedgeHNIC

Generally, we're talking a third-round draft pick, and the club doing the hiring will have a window of three years to give it up.

5:56 PM - 26 Jun 2014


Good thing the Canucks' made their hires before this rule got approve. 8-)

We'll have to see when the new compensation rule comes into effect. :mex:
Last edited by Betamax on Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:16 pm

Interesting that the NHL back peddled on this. I don't see it as a huge issue either way. We did get a second when the Ducks hired Carlyle so all is fair I guess.

What is it with BB leading the charge on these things?
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:23 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Interesting that the NHL back peddled on this. I don't see it as a huge issue either way. We did get a second when the Ducks hired Carlyle so all is fair I guess.

What is it with BB leading the charge on these things?


Well, if these were pre-existing rules, the Canucks would have lost a pair of 3rd rounders over the next three seasons. I think it's a fair rule to have but happy it wasn't agreed upon until the Canucks' made their hires. :mex:
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Hockey Widow » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:44 pm

Betamax wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Interesting that the NHL back peddled on this. I don't see it as a huge issue either way. We did get a second when the Ducks hired Carlyle so all is fair I guess.

What is it with BB leading the charge on these things?


Well, if these were pre-existing rules, the Canucks would have lost a pair of 3rd rounders over the next three seasons. I think it's a fair rule to have but happy it wasn't agreed upon until the Canucks' made their hires. :mex:



Just two no. A coach and a GM. Who is the third?

As well, we would have picked up a third for Tambellini.

Ok, I'm outta here. Time for dinner.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Torts Tossed

Postby Betamax » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:53 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Betamax wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Interesting that the NHL back peddled on this. I don't see it as a huge issue either way. We did get a second when the Ducks hired Carlyle so all is fair I guess.

What is it with BB leading the charge on these things?


Well, if these were pre-existing rules, the Canucks would have lost a pair of 3rd rounders over the next three seasons. I think it's a fair rule to have but happy it wasn't agreed upon until the Canucks' made their hires. :mex:



Just two no. A coach and a GM. Who is the third?


Yeah, two 3rd round picks (a pair) over the next three years. So I guess if the rules were enacted before the Canucks' new hires, the Canucks could keep the 2014 3rd round pick but then would have to relinquish the 2015 and 2016 3rd round picks as per the "3 year window" comment by EF in his tweet :mex:
Betamax
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: @betamax1080p

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], rats19 and 6 guests