League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2025-26 Free Agent Frenzy

[Kazer]

He is still under contract to VGK.

That's all that needs to be said.

Vegas legally has every right to keep him on board without letting him talk to anybody. They're being nice and letting him talk to other teams.

All Bruce has to do to be able to talk to any other team he wants to, is give up the contract.

As long as Cassidy is under contract, Vegas has 100% right to tell him where he can and cannot go.

If it was the Caps and not VGK, everybody would have a different tune.

And the coaches association isn't raising a stink about it because they know they have no case.

I agree with this part. If that's not part of the equation, then I'm with Vegas. If Cassidy is willing to waive his 1 year left to talk with other teams, then he should be allowed to have those conversations.

Vegas, rightfully, said "Yeah, no. You're not in charge here." and shut Edmonton down. Edmonton's the problem here. And they're the only team Vegas has said no to.

I don't believe this part is accurate. I believe the reporting is that three teams have asked and two have been denied. The only one confirmed is Edmonton. And I agree FWIW that Edmonton with Bowman in charge deserves bad things, but that also doesn't change how I feel about the situation. It's not about defending Edmonton. It's about blocking a HC you fired from pursuing other HC jobs. (And to whoever said it, yes, he should fire his agent). I'm also not a fan of Bruce Cassidy either.

 

[Calicaps]

Popcorn.gif

I wonder what the 2nd investigation was about

And i wonder what the 3rd and 4th will be this time next year

Not a second investigation. The first investigation never happened because he resigned from CBJ so the league deemed it unnecessary. But now that he's potentially back in rotation, they needed to complete it.

 

[Calicaps]

The Trotz situation isn't relevant - he wasn't fired.

"It has to be mutual, Vegas would have to agree to mutually terminate the contract. That's what Vegas is refusing to do. "

Honestly, I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that Cassidy agreed to terminate his contract to go to another team, and VGK didn't let him? VGK would love to be rid of his salary. If there's any indication that Cassidy has agreed to terminate his current contract, I'd need to see a source. Because Vegas would love that and there wouldn't be any discussion around it. Cassidy would be free.

Edmonton tried to force VGK to allow Cassidy to speak to EDM via the press.

Vegas, rightfully, said "Yeah, no. You're not in charge here." and shut Edmonton down. Edmonton's the problem here. And they're the only team Vegas has said no to.

Again if it was a Caps' coach in this situation, everybody here would be ragging on Edmonoton, too.

This is not an emotional issue - it's a business one. Fairness has nothing to do with it - it's about what Cassidy negotiated.

And fwiw, the only alignment with the Trotz thing is that he ALSO had a contract, and the Caps could've done the same thing with him that VGK is doing with Cassidy and they chose not to. But instead of realizing how generous they were, many fans (and it seems Barry himself) continue to act as if he got f***ed.

 

[qcal1427]

Who cares what is or isn't in his contract. It is longstanding practice in the NHL that you allow your employees to interview for jobs that would be upward moves, and going from fired and not working at all to being a head coach is about as upwards a move as you could possibly make. Vegas hired Cassidy when he was still technically under contract with Boston, they hired Torts when he was still technically under contract with Philadelphia. They are just being dicks to Cassidy, and for what? To make the Oilers marginally worse???

TLDR: "well within their legal rights" != "right thing to do" and I fundamentally believe that when you treat people poorly it will come back around to you

 

[Kalopsia]

The Trotz situation isn't relevant - he wasn't fired.

"It has to be mutual, Vegas would have to agree to mutually terminate the contract. That's what Vegas is refusing to do. "

Honestly, I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that Cassidy agreed to terminate his contract to go to another team, and VGK didn't let him? VGK would love to be rid of his salary. If there's any indication that Cassidy has agreed to terminate his current contract, I'd need to see a source. Because Vegas would love that and there wouldn't be any discussion around it. Cassidy would be free.

Edmonton tried to force VGK to allow Cassidy to speak to EDM via the press.

Vegas, rightfully, said "Yeah, no. You're not in charge here." and shut Edmonton down. Edmonton's the problem here. And they're the only team Vegas has said no to.

Again if it was a Caps' coach in this situation, everybody here would be ragging on Edmonoton, too.

This is not an emotional issue - it's a business one. Fairness has nothing to do with it - it's about what Cassidy negotiated.

Firing a coach isn't the same thing as terminating their contract, it just means they're not coaching the team. It's roughly equivalent to sending a player to the minors, just without the waiver process. That player's still contracted with the team even if they're not on the roster. The exception is if they're fired for breaching their contract, then the team can unilaterally terminate it (i.e. the Jim Montgomery situation in Dallas). From a purely legal perspective, there's no distinction between the Trotz and Cassidy situations in terms of the team's rights with respect to the coaches.

Coaches can't be contracted to two teams at once. The fact that Cassidy is looking for jobs implies that he's willing to terminate the contract provided another team intends to hire him. Vegas clearly is *not* in a hurry to be rid of Cassidy's salary, because it's what allows them to be in charge in the process. Neither side is going to blanket-state they're willing to terminate, it's gonna be contingent on Cassidy having a deal lined up with a team that Vegas is comfortable with him coaching.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point here. There's nothing unfair about this. It's maybe a little bit rude of Vegas to not give Cassidy free reign to sign on with whatever new team he wants, but they could also bar him from speaking to any teams and pay him to sit out a year, so allowing him to speak to teams they're ok with is pretty reasonable.

 

[Calicaps]

First of all, treating people poorly has been Vegas' MO all along if it gets them what they want. It's not a secret. Cassidy knew who he was getting into business with.

But also, folks seem to really not understand contract negotiations. When you sign a contract you AGREE to a thing. It's not "well sure we're saying X, but it'll end up being Y." NO. It's X. Cassidy agreed to these terms.

Vegas isn't just "within their rights." They have important reasons to insist on the terms they negotiated. If teams/people/businesses/whoever don't adhere to the contracts they sign then they become doormats in future negotiations and other people with whom they have contracts will similarly expect that the negotiated terms aren't real. That's just bad policy.

 

[qcal1427]

First of all, treating people poorly has been Vegas' MO all along if it gets them what they want. It's not a secret. Cassidy knew who he was getting into business with.

All the other times they treated people poorly was at least in service of making their team better. They're doing this to maybe make Edmonton slightly worse.

But also, folks seem to really not understand contract negotiations. When you sign a contract youu AGREE to a thing. It's not "well sure we're saying X, but it'll end up being Y." NO. It's X. Cassidy agreed to these terms.

I think that's a pretty naive view of contracts and employment

Vegas isn't just "within their rights." They have important reasons to insist on the terms they negotiated. If teams/people/businesses/whoever don't adhere to the contracts they sign then they become doormats in future negotiations and other people with whom they have contracts will similarly expect that the negotiated terms aren't real. That's just bad policy.

Except this specific scenario is very much in line with accepted policy and practice within the league. Vegas is the one breaking norms here, not Cassidy. The only thing they risk by letting Cassidy do what every other team and coach does is making themselves look like dicks and making future negotiations with coaches more difficult for themselves

 

[Marshall]

"Coaches can't be contracted to two teams at once. The fact that Cassidy is looking for jobs implies that he's willing to terminate the contract provided another team intends to hire him. Vegas clearly is *not* in a hurry to be rid of Cassidy's salary, because it's what allows them to be in charge in the process. Neither side is going to blanket-state they're willing to terminate, it's gonna be contingent on Cassidy having a deal lined up with a team that Vegas is comfortable with him coaching.

Wow. Couldn't disagree more. Vegas will happily move off the salary - they've shown that becasue Cassisdy talked to Toronto. EDM just pissed them off. If Vegas was doing what you've said, why did Vegas allow Cassidy talk to Toronto? And have said they will allow other teams to talk to Cassidy on a case-by-case basis?

There is no 'implies' in contracts. It's black and white.

Cassidy has a decision - sit and make $4.5 million, or go to a new team (and likely made whole, coaches can be paid twice from two different teams) and coach. That is ALL he is owed.

The fact that you let Edmonton off scott-free for their behaviour is also something I'll disagree on. Edmonton made their own bed. If they had tried to play the Caps that way to force the Caps to let EDM talk to Carberry (were he in a similar situation) everybody here would be screaming for Edmoton's head.

"A bit rude" - yeah, no. They're within their rights. They're paying Cassidy $4.5 million as we speak.

Trotz was the outlier - now maybe some fans will realize how screwed Trotz DIDN'T get by the Caps.

 

[Calicaps]

All the other times they treated people poorly was at least in service of making their team better. They're doing this to maybe make Edmonton slightly worse.

I think that's a pretty naive view of contracts and employment

Except this specific scenario is very much in line with accepted policy and practice within the league. Vegas is the one breaking norms here, not Cassidy. The only thing they risk by letting Cassidy do what every other team and coach does is making themselves look like dicks and making future negotiations with coaches more difficult for themselves

What's naive? You think Cassidy and his reps had no say in their contract terms? That's naive, IMO.

I am not at all convinced that every team lets every coach talk to whoever. The only difference in this story is that EDM publicized the refusal to try and strong-arm Vegas. I'd bet similar things happen fairly regularly behind the scenes.

 

[Marshall]

"All the other times they treated people poorly was at least in service of making their team better. They're doing this to maybe make Edmonton slightly worse."

Completely clearing Edmonton of any wrong-doing. Which is naive.



"I think that's a pretty naive view of contracts and employment"

Uh, you can think that all you want. It's how contracts work though.



"Except this specific scenario is very much in line with accepted policy and practice within the league. Vegas is the one breaking norms here, not Cassidy."

Gonna need to see these Accepted Polivy and Practice in black-and-white, on a legal document. Otherwise, it means nothing. And how are people giving the Stan Bowman-led, Mike Babcock-hiring Oilers any sympathy here? They started it, and Vegas made them look like the fools they are.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Im sure coaches would like to keep their guaranteed contracts. Most NHL teams let ex coaches go to new teams. What Vegas is doing is within the rules but its a pretty bad look.

Look at Babcock who is about to get the Oilers job and his contracts.

AI:
Current Employment and Contract Status

• Pending Deal: Following the June 2026 completion of an NHL investigation, the Edmonton Oilers are formally negotiating a contract with Babcock. [1, 2, 3]
• Previous Deal: Before resigning from the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2023, he had signed a two-year, $8 million contract. [1, 2]
• Prior Buyout: He is also famously tied to an eight-year, $50 million contract signed with the Toronto Maple Leafs in 2015, which the franchise eventually bought out after firing him in 2019

He got bought out from the leafs and left money on the table to coach again.

 

[Calicaps]

Im sure coaches would like to keep their guaranteed contracts. Most NHL teams let ex coaches go to new teams. What Vegas is doing is within the rules but its a pretty bad look.

Look at Babcock who is about to get the Oilers job and his contracts.

AI:
Current Employment and Contract Status

• Pending Deal: Following the June 2026 completion of an NHL investigation, the Edmonton Oilers are formally negotiating a contract with Babcock. [1, 2, 3]
• Previous Deal: Before resigning from the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2023, he had signed a two-year, $8 million contract. [1, 2]
• Prior Buyout: He is also famously tied to an eight-year, $50 million contract signed with the Toronto Maple Leafs in 2015, which the franchise eventually bought out after firing him in 2019

He got bought out from the leafs and left money on the table to coach again.

Not sure what this Babcock example is meant to show. As you say, he made that choice with TML and gave up millions. Cassidy could potentially negotiate the same with Vegas. What he's not entitled to is to both keep the money from VGK and get a new job. That's a choice he has to make.

These franchises agree to pay their coaches whether they are working or not. And in exchange, they own the rights to those coaches for the duration of the contract. How/when/whether they agree to release those rights is entirely within their discretion. There's no bad look here no matter how Edmonton or even Cassidy want to try and spin it.

 

[qcal1427]

Completely clearing Edmonton of any wrong-doing. Which is naive.

What wrong-doing? Wanting to hire a coach that is not working???? How is Edmonton doing literally anything wrong here?

Uh, you can think that all you want. It's how contracts work though.

Gonna need to see these Accepted Polivy and Practice in black-and-white, on a legal document. Otherwise, it means nothing. And how are people giving the Stan Bowman-led, Mike Babcock-hiring Oilers any sympathy here? They started it, and Vegas made them look like the fools they are.

Contracts are not some ironclad, black-and-white thing that take precedence over all else. Certainly not in a moral or ethical sense, and not in a legal sense either. There are clauses in contracts that are unenforceable all the time, there are clauses that parties insert knowing they'll be broken, parties go back to re-negotiate contracts all the time.

Take non-compete clauses, for example, which are not the exact same but kind of spiritually what Vegas and Cassidy are arguing about here. They still exist in all kinds of contracts, people sign contracts with them, and yet they are completely unenforceable or even illegal in most cases.

Anyways, I hope all you "it's in a contract he signed" people read through every EULA and Terms and Conditions very carefully before you do anything!

 

[Kazer]

One other thought (and then I'll move on) - it's incredibly ironic to me that Vegas almost won the cup with a coach who is still under contract with Philly until June 30 (Tortorella) while simultaneously blocking Cassidy from interviewing with Edmonton.

I'll end with this:

If Cassidy is willing to waive his final year in order to coach another team, then Vegas sucks here.
If Cassidy expects to get his final year pay + wants to coach another team, then he can kick rocks.

That's the bottom line for me.

 

[Marshall]

Today I learned:

NDAs? Unenforceable
Contracts? Mean
"Spirit of" and "implies" are legal language

Good luck in the business world.

 

[Calicaps]

What wrong-doing? Wanting to hire a coach that is not working???? How is Edmonton doing literally anything wrong here?

Contracts are not some ironclad, black-and-white thing that take precedence over all else. Certainly not in a moral or ethical sense, and not in a legal sense either. There are clauses in contracts that are unenforceable all the time, there are clauses that parties insert knowing they'll be broken, parties go back to re-negotiate contracts all the time.

Take non-compete clauses, for example, which are not the exact same but kind of spiritually what Vegas and Cassidy are arguing about here. They still exist in all kinds of contracts, people sign contracts with them, and yet they are completely unenforceable or even illegal in most cases.

Anyways, I hope all you "it's in a contract he signed" people read through every EULA and Terms and Conditions very carefully before you do anything!

IMO, if Cassidy and his legal team thought there was something to challenge legally, they wouldn't be trying to use public opinion to pressure Vegas. They'd challenge it in court--or at least threaten to.

 

[qcal1427]

IMO, if Cassidy and his legal team thought there was something to challenge legally, they wouldn't be trying to use public opinion to pressure Vegas. They'd challenge it in court--or at least threaten to.

I don't think what Vegas is doing is illegal, just pointing out that "it's in a signed contract" often means a lot less than what it seems. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it's right for Vegas to do or wrong for Cassidy to feel aggrieved at what's happening

 

[Marshall]

Now signed contracts are worthless.

That's new.

 

[Calicaps]

Another factor to consider here is that VGK isn't owned by some random family. MGM is a publicly traded company. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to enforce contracts and not just throw money away.

And while of course Cassidy is free to feel however he feels, he's operating in a multibillion dollar business. He may need to pull on his big-boy pants.

 

[qcal1427]

Now signed contracts are worthless.

That's new.

Now "means a lot less" means "totally worthless" or "non-compete" means "NDA"

I have said the entire time that what Vegas is doing is legal, and thus technically within their right. I think this is a right they should not exercise, as doing so means they are being massive dicks to a former employee all for the sake of a gain so marginal I don't even know it's a gain.

Another factor to consider here is that VGK isn't owned by some random family. MGM is a publicly traded company. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to enforce contracts and not just throw money away.

And while of course Cassidy is free to feel however he feels, he's operating in a multibillion dollar business. He may need to pull on his big-boy pants.

VGK is not owned by MGM. Even if they did have a responsibility to their shareholders, surely those shareholders would recognize that letting a former employee that you fired go work somewhere else is more fiscally responsible than paying them $4.5M to sit around all day

 

[Marshall]

Wow.

The shareholders would tell Cassidy to go kick rocks and demand their dividends.

 

[Calicaps]

VGK is not owned by MGM. Even if they did have a responsibility to their shareholders, surely those shareholders would recognize that letting a former employee that you fired go work somewhere else is more fiscally responsible than paying them $4.5M to sit around all day

Huh... My mistake. Not sure where I got that.

 

[Threetrees]

Don’t understand why people are ignoring the massive elephant in the room that McDavid is going to leave if Edmonton has a bad year. Y’all are saying you would want Chris Patrick to let a former Stanley Cup winning coach try and save Edmonton if the Caps were in that position? The lack of strategic thinking is bizarre.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Vegas doesn’t care if anyone thinks they’re dicks. Get over it.

If the end result is CMD is gone soon, Knights profit…

 

[Calicaps]

Don’t understand why people are ignoring the massive elephant in the room that McDavid is going to leave if Edmonton has a bad year. Y’all are saying you would want Chris Patrick to let a former Stanley Cup winning coach try and save Edmonton if the Caps were in that position? The lack of strategic thinking is bizarre.

This is a good point. Every time some team helps TML or another horribly managed team by taking their awful player contracts or whatever, people rightly criticize it. But with coaches, we expect teams to just give their opponents a lifeline to be nice or something.