2026 Around the League | Offseason Edition

[Pokecheque]

According to Oilers reporters, Babcock has supposedly divulged to the management and core players what this "other stuff" is and they are fully fine with moving ahead and hiring him.

Again, to me the Oilers are telling the league to f*** off and basically stop favouring the Vegas Golden Knights by doing this and potentially hiring Babcock.

I don't care for the Oilers and think Babcock has long been overrated, but good on them. F*** Vegas and f*** Gary for always catering to them.

I think you're giving Edmonton way too much credit, I don't think this is a spite move, I think this is pure, unadulterated desperation. They know damn well it all falls apart after next year if they can't convince McDavid to stay, and they ran out of ideas a long time ago. I simply don't think the current brain trust is smart enough to purposefully dredge up an old controversy in order to make like miserable for the league.

 

[Foppa2118]

According to several people, it absolutely is in pretty much every coach's contracts. The difference is, that nobody else will enforce that after firing the coach, because they want to get out of that salary obligation. Vegas on the other hand is doing it, either because they really want to take advantage of a competitive edge by keeping Cassidy from working, or the owner has a big personal issue with Cassidy and wants to keep him from working.

And again, they don't submit these contracts to the league. The contract between the coach and the club is only between them. This is different from the players, who have a CBA, and they are basically contracted to the league, not to the individual clubs.

If the NHL isn't involved then why did Edmonton ask them to get involved and the NHL approve what Vegas is doing?

There has to be a limit to what's in a contract that the NHL is willing to tolerate.

For instance, do we really think that if some coach got all the owners drunk and talked them into making them the head coach of all 32 teams, the NHL would just be like, "sorry we don't have oversight over coaches contracts."

Of course not. They would find some mechanism to prevent that, or levy a punishment enough so the teams didn't follow though with it. Citing some kind of "anti competitive" or "impact on the integrity of our league" or "reputational harm" argument.

They could threaten the team to make them forfeit all their draft picks for 20 years. That's something they can do and no court can step in to tell them how to run their league. Plenty of other ways, as long as it's not financial. They can prevent them from holding any league events or their players from playing in the All Star game indefinitely. They can ban them from GM meetings. They can cease all league promotion of the team and their players. They can do lots of things.

They need to make sure things are being run on the up and up in their company, and as you state, this is being done, "either because they really want to take advantage of a competitive edge by keeping Cassidy from working, or the owner has a big personal issue with Cassidy and wants to keep him from working."

Those are not legitimate reasons. That's a team with a history of shady behavior, acting like they can do whatever they want, and opening the league up to lawsuits, and negative PR that could affect their revenue, and TV deal negotiations, for allowing it.

 

[dahrougem2]

I think you're giving Edmonton way too much credit, I don't think this is a spite move, I think this is pure, unadulterated desperation. They know damn well it all falls apart after next year if they can't convince McDavid to stay, and they ran out of ideas a long time ago. I simply don't think the current brain trust is smart enough to purposefully dredge up an old controversy in order to make like miserable for the league.

They wanted Cassidy, and have for weeks. I believe they came to the realization Cassidy wasn't happening because of Vegas and the league, so they moved on to the next best asshole they could find.

This isn't a smart move by them because I find Babcock overrated. It is, though, potentially spiteful by Edmonton to send a message to the league.

Right or wrong, the Oilers have been on the wrong side of a lot of these bullshit calls by the league. Having to pay compensation for Peter Chiarelli only for that rule to immediately go away after his hire. Being investigated by the league for Evander Kane on LTIR only to play a Florida team that was nearly 20M over the cap. Now Cassidy. There's reasons for the frustration from them.

 

[Pokecheque]

I disagree.

The agent is at fault for not catching the clause in the contract, but writing in some language that prevents a fired employee from seeking employment, when this language isn’t in any other contract, is something that is well within the scope of what the league can, and should disallow, when they submit the contract for approval.

They just didn’t care. The NHL just lets Vegas play by their own rules.

It's absolutely in other contracts. It's as simple as this--he is still under contract, therefore he is still in the employ of the team. It's their decision whether he gets to interview somewhere else. This applies to front office staff as well, and players too when they allow a player and agent to speak to other teams so they can help arrange a trade. A prime example of this is when a team--can't remember who--wanted to talk to Chris MacFarland and Sakic denied the request, because he then promoted MacFarland to GM.

It's customary to allow a fired coach/GM/whatever to find gainful employment elsewhere, in fact it's in the employer's best interests since of course they can bail you out of some or all of the remaining contract. But they're well within their legal rights to prevent him from doing so. It's a dick move and we damn well know why they're doing it but there's no special language in the contract. It's just a contract.

People seem to forget that Pierre Lacroix presided over a far more contentious situation with Marc Crawford and the Vancouver Canucks. After the embarrassing 1st round exit in 1998 Lacroix purposefully lowballed Crow on an extension (a tactic he and later Francois Giguere used plenty) that caused him to balk and say he wasn't coming back. But Lacroix wouldn't let him interview anywhere else either unless they ponied up a draft pick (I think a second rounder, right?). Vancouver did so but IIRC Burke was not happy about that and in his usual fashion made it publicly clear that

 

[Foppa2118]

It's absolutely in other contracts. It's as simple as this--he is still under contract, therefore he is still in the employ of the team. It's their decision whether he gets to interview somewhere else. This applies to front office staff as well, and players too when they allow a player and agent to speak to other teams so they can help arrange a trade. A prime example of this is when a team--can't remember who--wanted to talk to Chris MacFarland and Sakic denied the request, because he then promoted MacFarland to GM.

It's customary to allow a fired coach/GM/whatever to find gainful employment elsewhere, in fact it's in the employer's best interests since of course they can bail you out of some or all of the remaining contract. But they're well within their legal rights to prevent him from doing so. It's a dick move and we damn well know why they're doing it but there's no special language in the contract. It's just a contract.

People seem to forget that Pierre Lacroix presided over a far more contentious situation with Marc Crawford and the Vancouver Canucks. After the embarrassing 1st round exit in 1998 Lacroix purposefully lowballed Crow on an extension (a tactic he and later Francois Giguere used plenty) that caused him to balk and say he wasn't coming back. But Lacroix wouldn't let him interview anywhere else either unless they ponied up a draft pick (I think a second rounder, right?). Vancouver did so but IIRC Burke was not happy about that and in his usual fashion made it publicly clear that

The CMac analogy is a bad one. He stayed with the team, he wasn't fired. The PL thing was eventually outlawed.

If the league can prevent teams from hiring Babcock, they can prevent Vegas from not allowing Cassidy to talk to the Oilers.

Babcock is a POS, but the league is essentially blackmailing him, by saying they'e going to do an investigation and release what they know he did wrong, if he tries to coach again. But won't if he stays retired. Those are the kind mechanisms they will resort to if they want oversight on coaches.

Babcock in the NHL hurts their reputation. They've made the calculation that Cassidy's situation does not.

This whole thing is about power. Vegas has demonstrated multiple times they have more power than the Oilers or any other team in the league.

The Oilers are trying and failing to flex their power by forcing the league to let Babcock back in the NHL.

The NHL is demonstrating they have the power to say who coaches where, and they alone choose whether or not, and whom to utilize that power for.

Everyone knows this is shady. The coaches are all up in arms about this precedent. Everyone outside Vegas wants the league to do something about it. But they won't. Because they're in power, and Vegas has more pull with them than any other team, likely because of how much money they have made them, and continue to make them.

 

[Balthazar]

Anyone who thinks what’s happening to Cassidy is because of a botched contract is out of their mind.

Teams are usually happy to let a fired coach speak to other teams because it gets them off the hook financially once he signs elsewhere. Vegas has decided they won’t let their fired coach speak to another team while they’re still in the playoffs. I’m sure they have their reasons, but it doesn’t look great.

 

[Balthazar]

The reason could be something as simple as them not wanting Cassidy to reveal team details while they’re still in the playoffs.

McCrimmon quote:

"Coaches, by definition, aren't real patient people, so I understand what he wants and why he wants it."

Him talking about patience here tells me that they'll let him talk to other teams once the playoffs are over.

 

[dahrougem2]

The reason could be something as simple as them not wanting Cassidy to reveal team details while they’re still in the playoffs.

McCrimmon quote:

"Coaches, by definition, aren't real patient people, so I understand what he wants and why he wants it."

Him talking about patience here tells me that they'll let him talk to other teams once the playoffs are over.

Wasn't there a report that came out the last couple of days suggesting Vegas is likely to pay Cassidy to sit at home next year, too?

I don't believe they'll casually allow him to interview once the SCF are done. I think they dug their heels in.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Wasn't there a report that came out the last couple of days suggesting Vegas is likely to pay Cassidy to sit at home next year, too?

I don't believe they'll casually allow him to interview once the SCF are done. I think they dug their heels in.

I think they will let him interview for any of the openings once the SCF is done.

I believe they were adamant in their stance of “not now, we are trying to win a Cup.”

 

[Alex Jones]

I think they will let him interview for any of the openings once the SCF is done.

I believe they were adamant in their stance of “not now, we are trying to win a Cup.”

Why would it matter if he interviews while they are still in the playoffs? I don't understand this argument. I don't think they will let him interview at all. Vegas obviously doesn't care at all about the unwritten rules of the league

 

[Foppa2118]

Anyone who thinks what’s happening to Cassidy is because of a botched contract is out of their mind.

Teams are usually happy to let a fired coach speak to other teams because it gets them off the hook financially once he signs elsewhere. Vegas has decided they won’t let their fired coach speak to another team while they’re still in the playoffs. I’m sure they have their reasons, but it doesn’t look great.

Anyone who thinks the league can't do anything to prevent Vegas from not allowing Cassidy to speak to other teams, or that they have legitimate "reasons", is out of their mind.

The reason could be something as simple as them not wanting Cassidy to reveal team details while they’re still in the playoffs.

McCrimmon quote:

"Coaches, by definition, aren't real patient people, so I understand what he wants and why he wants it."

Him talking about patience here tells me that they'll let him talk to other teams once the playoffs are over.

What team details is Cassidy gonna reveal to Edmonton that will help Carolina beat Vegas?

Quoting McCimmon is like quoting the devil on who should go to hell. He'll say anything.

 

[Lawrence Oates]

He'll be allowed to interview after the playoffs.
1. It's semi-logical for Vegas not wanting to deal with this during the playoffs, and had planned on allowing him to interview after their playoffs concluded all along.
2. It could also be that the media backlash has made a change and this allows them the perfect opportunity to use #1 as their reasoning, change course and actually allow Cassidy to get on with his life in a week or so.

I would not expect Cassidy to be on the outside looking in come fall.

 

[Foppa2118]

He'll be allowed to interview after the playoffs.
1. It could be logical that Vegas didn't want to deal with it while the playoffs were going on, and had planned on allowing him to interview after their playoffs concluded all along.
2. It could be that the media backlash has made a change and this allows them the perfect opportunity to use #1 as their reasoning, change course and actually allow Cassidy to get on with his life in a week or so.

Definitely #2 IMO if he's allowed to talk to them after all this. The backlash from everyone, including media, and other head coaches is something we've rarely seen.

They're not upset because they think Vegas would allow him to speak to Edmonton after the finals. They're upset because they think they won't.

Also, could have been hoping Edmonton got impatient and hired someone else, but they seem to be digging in, and trying other avenues of pressure.