Around the NHL 2023-2024

[Brian39]

Wrong, Brian. The team losing the coach/executive cannot request compensation, nor is it required from the acquiring team. That was the prior policy, that is the current policy. Nothing in the current policy prohibits the acquiring team from offering a draft pick(s) or players, freely and of its own accord, in order to induce another team to relinquish the rights to an executive or coach. The only thing that's strictly prohibited is the exchange of cash between franchises in a transaction involving team personnel or "future considerations."

Not allowed: "If we let [coach/executive] go over to you, we want [draft pick(s)] in return."
Allowed: "If you let [coach/executive] come to us, we'll give you [draft pick(s)]."
Not allowed: "No, we won't let [coach/executive] go for [draft pick(s)], we'll do it for [more/better draft pick(s)]."
Allowed [after request to hire away coach/executive in exchange for a draft pick(s)]: "No, no thanks" and then a freely given counter-offer by the desiring team.

I know the wording you're trying to seize on in that link, and you're being too anal in reading it. I'm telling you what the official league policy says and that it does not prohibit a team from offering compensation on its own, without being prodded by the other team.

Let me guess, you know exactly what the league policy says but can't or won't quote it? Any article supporting your position? Any league memo? Or should take your word for it because it is totally the league policy and it just so happens that in 9 years not a single team has engaged in such a transaction? And is also disputed by multiple reports.

You're claim that teams can transfer players to each other outside the context of a trade is absolutely bonkers. No, teams can not just transfer player contracts to each other outside of a CBA-defined trade. The league and the players have a CBA which dictates transactions of player contracts.

Here is the definition of 'trade' in the CBA:

"Trade" means the transfer, other than as a result of a claim by Waivers, from one Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List to another Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List of a Player's SPC, the rights to a Player (including his SPC, if applicable) on such Club's Reserve List or Free Agent List, and/or the rights to a draft choice in the Entry Draft.

Notice how coaches and executives aren't listed? What other mechanism are you suggesting exists for teams to give each other players or picks?

If you really want to dig in and go die on this hill, ... fine. Make it a player transaction, the Leafs will send [whatever player/prospect] over for "future considerations" or as part of some other trade, and then see how far up the hill you want to die on that, too.

So, circumventing the CBA. Neat.

 

[PocketNines]

Seeing Toronto coveting Armstrong is totally expected. He is a core Old Boys Club leader and Toronto is the HQ for that. Within the prism of Toronto's approach to hockey it makes sense they would not be bothered hiring a GM who has no concept of what a true #1 defenseman means to contending. They just see him as Canada GM, Cup winner, they have no Cup, it's done after that.

It was funny seeing Berube on the TNT pregame yesterday. They replayed his Game 7 locker room speech. Biz was amazed after Berube said he made zero prep for that speech, simply that he was so jacked up in that moment he wanted to fight somebody and just said what he said.

Also, after praising all the details of his game, he flat said of Pietrangelo, "when you have a player like that you have a chance to win something." That is correct, it is a damn-near prerequisite so why would you even waste time putting yourself in a position where you go from having one to needing one?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Wrong, Brian. The team losing the coach/executive cannot request compensation, nor is it required from the acquiring team. That was the prior policy, that is the current policy. Nothing in the current policy prohibits the acquiring team from offering a draft pick(s) or players, freely and of its own accord, in order to induce another team to relinquish the rights to an executive or coach. The only thing that's strictly prohibited is the exchange of cash between franchises in a transaction involving team personnel or "future considerations."

Not allowed: "If we let [coach/executive] go over to you, we want [draft pick(s)] in return."
Allowed: "If you let [coach/executive] come to us, we'll give you [draft pick(s)]."
Not allowed: "No, we won't let [coach/executive] go for [draft pick(s)], we'll do it for [more/better draft pick(s)]."
Allowed [after request to hire away coach/executive in exchange for a draft pick(s)]: "No, no thanks" and then a freely given counter-offer by the desiring team.

I know the wording you're trying to seize on in that link, and you're being too anal in reading it. I'm telling you what the official league policy says and that it does not prohibit a team from offering compensation on its own, without being prodded by the other team.

If you really want to dig in and go die on this hill, ... fine. Make it a player transaction, the Leafs will send [whatever player/prospect] over for "future considerations" or as part of some other trade, and then see how far up the hill you want to die on that, too.

Ted, I’m afraid you are barking up wrong tree here. Brian’s cba knowledge is consistently tops in this forum.

 

[ezcreepin]

Yes, we could (should) have beaten the Coyotes, Blue Jackets and Sharks all twice. We could (should) have lost to Carolina in regulation, Dallas another time, Edmonton another time, Minnesota another time, Vancouver at least one more time, ... that door swings both ways. And, it does so for other teams as well.

In the end, we were 4 points out of a playoff spot. We'd have needed to beat Vegas outright, we lost on the first tiebreak. Our record under Bannister worked out to 98.7 points over 82 games, which would have just barely put us into a playoff spot ... which, playing the "could have, should have" game would give Vegas an extra point to keep us out. We squeezed just about everything we could out of this roster, it arguably played over its head as it was given that it basically ran on the top line, a defensive pairing and the goaltending.

I’d have to check to see where those teams were at, because it may have been the case they were in a slump, not that I disagree with what you’re saying though. It's hard for me to advocate for Bannister despite his numbers with the team being good, but I think there should be some structure changes that I am not sure he can achieve. Parayko and Leddy are being used way too hard and the goalies are having to play at an unreal level to get this team to the postseason. Can this roster squeak out a few more points while changing up total team strategy? I think it's possible, but the defensive scheme may need to change to zones if they aren't using that already and the special teams will need some work. The d-corp isn't bad; I think they can do better, but that is all within a vacuum. At worst, I think they are in the same position next year as they were this year. At best, they are a Capitals/Isles team that puts up a fight but gets knocked out in the first round.

 

[BlueDream]

Cheering for Colorado would be even weirder.

You know you don’t have to cheer for either of them to go to the SC, right?

Ted, I’m afraid you are barking up wrong tree here. Brian’s cba knowledge is consistently tops in this forum.

Ted is usually barking up the wrong tree. He loves posting novels about things he doesn’t know that much about.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Ted, I’m afraid you are barking up wrong tree here. Brian’s cba knowledge is consistently tops in this forum.

I'm afraid this isn't a CBA thing and Brian is wrong here.

 

[Xerloris]

Wrong, Brian. The team losing the coach/executive cannot request compensation, nor is it required from the acquiring team. That was the prior policy, that is the current policy. Nothing in the current policy prohibits the acquiring team from offering a draft pick(s) or players, freely and of its own accord, in order to induce another team to relinquish the rights to an executive or coach. The only thing that's strictly prohibited is the exchange of cash between franchises in a transaction involving team personnel or "future considerations."

Not allowed: "If we let [coach/executive] go over to you, we want [draft pick(s)] in return."
Allowed: "If you let [coach/executive] come to us, we'll give you [draft pick(s)]."
Not allowed: "No, we won't let [coach/executive] go for [draft pick(s)], we'll do it for [more/better draft pick(s)]."
Allowed [after request to hire away coach/executive in exchange for a draft pick(s)]: "No, no thanks" and then a freely given counter-offer by the desiring team.

I know the wording you're trying to seize on in that link, and you're being too anal in reading it. I'm telling you what the official league policy says and that it does not prohibit a team from offering compensation on its own, without being prodded by the other team.

If you really want to dig in and go die on this hill, ... fine. Make it a player transaction, the Leafs will send [whatever player/prospect] over for "future considerations" or as part of some other trade, and then see how far up the hill you want to die on that, too.

After reading this post I have decided that I find it irrational for people to find me more annoying than Ted.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I’d have to check to see where those teams were at, because it may have been the case they were in a slump, not that I disagree with what you’re saying though. It's hard for me to advocate for Bannister despite his numbers with the team being good, but I think there should be some structure changes that I am not sure he can achieve. Parayko and Leddy are being used way too hard and the goalies are having to play at an unreal level to get this team to the postseason. Can this roster squeak out a few more points while changing up total team strategy? I think it's possible, but the defensive scheme may need to change to zones if they aren't using that already and the special teams will need some work. The d-corp isn't bad; I think they can do better, but that is all within a vacuum. At worst, I think they are in the same position next year as they were this year. At best, they are a Capitals/Isles team that puts up a fight but gets knocked out in the first round.

My whole point is this: as soon as you start saying "well, what if ....." and put up optimistic views and then draw conclusions, you should also consider "well what if ....." and the pessimistic views and then also draw conclusions.

And in the end, "well what if ....." really doesn't matter. What really happened does. Basing your future decisions off of what would have happened if _____ is exactly why Toronto is making golfing plans after the first round for the 7th time in 8 years. It's how we kept Davis Payne after his 42-game stint in 2009-10, only to cut him loose 13 games into 2011-12. It's why people went gaga over Sammy Blais late last season. It's how people and organizations end up making bad decisions, especially when they base it off of overly rosy scenarios.

 

[ezcreepin]

My whole point is this: as soon as you start saying "well, what if ....." and put up optimistic views and then draw conclusions, you should also consider "well what if ....." and the pessimistic views and then also draw conclusions.

And in the end, "well what if ....." really doesn't matter. What really happened does. Basing your future decisions off of what would have happened if _____ is exactly why Toronto is making golfing plans after the first round for the 7th time in 8 years. It's how we kept Davis Payne after his 42-game stint in 2009-10, only to cut him loose 13 games into 2011-12. It's why people went gaga over Sammy Blais late last season. It's how people and organizations end up making bad decisions, especially when they base it off of overly rosy scenarios.

I know Ted lmao, I realize that the "what if" scenario is a slippery slope, that's why I said it was hindsight and even if we should've won against those bad teams, Toronto should've won theirs (to say that we'd still probably be 10 points away from the Leafs). To refocus the argument, You were saying that Tavares probably isn't going to waive to go from a likely 100 point team for a while to a team that probably won't make the playoffs and is in a retool/rebuild. While I agree we are retooling, I think it's naive to say we probably won't make the playoffs, especially is someone like Tavares is anchoring the 2nd line. We ran out Schenn and Buchnevich on the 2nd line with mixed results, so allowing Buch to remain on the wing and sliding Schenn to the wing or down to the 3rd line to play with Hayes I think would give us better top end skill. I believe it would allow the bottom 2 lines to score a bit more than we had last year and it gives us legitimate center depth, defense, and penalty killing that this team is lacking. However you want to shake it up, you could roll:

Neighbours - Thomas - Buch
*player* - Tavares - Kyrou

or

Neighbours - Thomas - Kyrou
Buch - Tavares - *player*

I have to believe we will attempt to get another top 6 winger and shake up the defense a bit (less certain). I think that iteration of the top 6 is more than capable to making the playoffs, but I'd imagine you think otherwise? It's a moot point if Tavares blocks the trade, but that has to be something he considers no?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Wrong, Brian. The team losing the coach/executive cannot request compensation, nor is it required from the acquiring team. That was the prior policy, that is the current policy. Nothing in the current policy prohibits the acquiring team from offering a draft pick(s) or players, freely and of its own accord, in order to induce another team to relinquish the rights to an executive or coach. The only thing that's strictly prohibited is the exchange of cash between franchises in a transaction involving team personnel or "future considerations."

Not allowed: "If we let [coach/executive] go over to you, we want [draft pick(s)] in return."
Allowed: "If you let [coach/executive] come to us, we'll give you [draft pick(s)]."
Not allowed: "No, we won't let [coach/executive] go for [draft pick(s)], we'll do it for [more/better draft pick(s)]."
Allowed [after request to hire away coach/executive in exchange for a draft pick(s)]: "No, no thanks" and then a freely given counter-offer by the desiring team.

I know the wording you're trying to seize on in that link, and you're being too anal in reading it. I'm telling you what the official league policy says and that it does not prohibit a team from offering compensation on its own, without being prodded by the other team.

If you really want to dig in and go die on this hill, ... fine. Make it a player transaction, the Leafs will send [whatever player/prospect] over for "future considerations" or as part of some other trade, and then see how far up the hill you want to die on that, too.

This is a weird hill to choose to die on, but you're simply wrong. That type of compensation is not allowed, period. Parsing whether it was 'requested' 'required' or 'voluntarily offered' is a quagmire that no bargaining agreement would pretend to draw a distinction around.

After reading this post I have decided that I find it irrational for people to find me more annoying than Ted.

Its like a different thing than 'annoying'. You can each be kings of your own sphere there.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This is a weird hill to choose to die on, but you're simply wrong. That type of compensation is not allowed, period.

Yeah, it is. Unless, that is, everyone wants to seize on one word in an ESPN article and swear up and down that's conclusive.

Let me put this another way: nothing prior to 2015 prevented a team from offering compensation for hiring away another team's coaches or executives. It just wasn't required. The 2015 policy required draft pick compensation, which teams then leveraged to demand compensation for coaches and executives no longer employed but still under contract. That was the sticking point for teams, which is why they asked the league to get rid of the policy entirely. The NHL dropped the policy and reverted to the pre-2015 policy, which ... let me say it again ... allows teams to offer compensation, but doesn't require it.

Or, since we're citing articles and seizing on specific wording [all emphasis mine]:

Starting Jan. 1, the league goes back to the old policy that a team must grant permission to talk to an employee but isn't allowed to ask for compensation.

"What we had worked very well for 10 years," Bettman said. "When I discussed this with the executive committee they were all in agreement that going back to what we had was the correct thing."

And what they had ... allowed teams to give compensation, but didn't require it.

To refocus the argument, You were saying that Tavares probably isn't going to waive to go from a likely 100 point team for a while to a team that probably won't make the playoffs and is in a retool/rebuild.

I didn't say that.

 

[ezcreepin]

I didn't say that.

MY BAD, sorry Ted I'll take my demerit

 

[Ted Hoffman]

MY BAD, sorry Ted I'll take my demerit

That's OK, I just wanted to clarify that I didn't voice an opinion on whether Tavares would come here or not and I certainly didn't write paragraphs about it.

 

[Hrkac Circus]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

 

[jjniner]

Why not Armstrong for Marner?

 

[Drubilly]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

Because they’re a bunch of doucheybags. Duh! Come on Tony! Everyone knows this.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

Just a Boston sports in general. For me personally it’s mostly just jealousy. They had the probably the greatest 20 year run for a city’s sports team.

 

[Mike Liut]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

They stole 2 of our championships. The Rams were better than the Pats in 2001 and the Cards were better than the Sox in 2004.

 

[Majorityof1]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

I'm different than most and I base things on the players. For me, I can never like the Bruins with Marchand. I like PAsta and McAvoy. I loved Bergeron. I dislike Marchand more than I like the rest combined. He is one of my least favorite players in the league. dirty, dangerous and he has licked multiple people during games which is just really dumb.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Its like a different thing than 'annoying'. You can each be kings of your own sphere there.

It's like where I-35 splits so 35E goes to Dallas and 35W to Fort Worth and then reconvenes again on the other side of the Metroplex. But they're both 35. One of y'all can be Annoyinghe and one can be Annoyingue, but y'all both be annoying.

 

[The Note]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

I lived in Boston for 6 years. It’s a wonderful city and the people are, generally, quite welcoming. But when it comes to sports they are the most entitled, yet somehow aggrieved group of chuds on earth. They don’t deserve another championship in anything until the heat death of the universe

 

[TheDizee]

They stole 2 of our championships. The Rams were better than the Pats in 2001 and the Cards were better than the Sox in 2004.

2004, no team was beating them after that yankees series. the refs aka bernie kukar 100% stole that super bowl though. Ty Law's INT TD came off a massive blow to the head of Warner. and of course you had the constant holding on literally every play they got away with. one of the saddest officiated super bowls of all time.

2013 got Matheny'd with idiotic decisions and Kolten Wong being a moron to end G4.

 

[Reality Czech]

Why not Armstrong for Marner?

Post it on the trade board. Would be an entertaining read lol

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Seems like the majority of Blues fans dislike the Boston Bruins. I know I do. I’m curious what the main reason for that is. Does that usually happen between fanbases of Stanley Cup opponents? What’s your reasoning for disliking Boston?

I just don’t like Marchand, although he hasn’t been as much of a jerk recently so it’s not an intense dislike. But I like Shattenkirk, Maroon, Pasternak and a few other guys on their team.

In a weird way, I like them because they are the only other group who went through the ups and downs of the Finals with us that year. They know what those emotions were. Maybe it’s a distant cousin of Stockholm Syndrome, but I feel a connection with that fan base over that experience.

I also like their coach.

 

[joe galiba]

I just don’t like Marchand, although he hasn’t been as much of a jerk recently so it’s not an intense dislike. But I like Shattenkirk, Maroon, Pasternak and a few other guys on their team.

In a weird way, I like them because they are the only other group who went through the ups and downs of the Finals with us that year. They know what those emotions were. Maybe it’s a distant cousin of Stockholm Syndrome, but I feel a connection with that fan base over that experience.

I also like their coach.

I love Bobby Orr so I can never hate the Bruins