Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

@john_wawrow: Person familiar with talks tells AP that Dan Bylsma is having a second meeting with #Sabres as we speak.

Uh oh.

Posted (edited)

Hot Daniel definitely wouldn't be my choice, but I'll take him over Guy Boucher every day of the week.

 

I like Boucher. I would be very happy if he came on board to coach special teams. 

Edited by X. Benedict
Posted

Any assistant coaching position where he can't instate the trap is okay with me.

He's more than the trap. He had a very creative offensive system. Laviolette exposed his trap in that infamous game, but really what he tried was pretty innovative. 

I wouldn't dismiss him because of that. 

Posted

 

Flippant and dismissive I would have accepted.  I just didn't think it was unnecessary nor fairly obnoxious.  The voices in my head said it necessary and yes, sometimes the voices can be obnoxious.  You should try to live with them sometime.

 

So yu tuk hookt on fonnix too?

It's the burden for being pedantic.

 

 I have similar voices and ...yes Honey ....is usually what I answer to them.

Posted

As long as it's not a first, I'm ok with it. I'd also it rather not be a 30-45 pick either.

 

Maybe make it conditional? Fail to make playoffs in the next two years, PIT gets a 3rd rounder instead of a 2nd?

Posted

He's more than the trap. He had a very creative offensive system. Laviolette exposed his trap in that infamous game, but really what he tried was pretty innovative. 

I wouldn't dismiss him because of that. 

Can you explain what he did with his offensive innovations? Most of what I've learned about hockey tactics in that past couple years came from your breakdowns, so I'm always chomping at the bit for more.

Posted (edited)

If Rutherford digs in on this, he is just ###### with us and ###### with Bylsma.

How often has this happened with a fired coach?

 

Apparently they didn't ask for compensation for Shero.

Edited by dudacek
Posted

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how you can fire a coach and then because they still have time on their contract you can ask other teams for compensation.  I feel like if you fired him, he should be free to pursue other options.  Anyways, I don't think Bylsma would cost us more than a late round pick. 

Okay, the boys at WGR have suggested a press conference is coming.  Basically they just subtlety said before 1pm today there will be a press conference.  Don't know which guy it was but he indicated it was coming sooner rather than later.

I don't get it either. Are Pens still paying him? Doubtful

Posted

Compensation to the Pens holding things up? We owe them a 3rd apparently

Nobody is actually reporting this. The third is just what everybody is speculating on because that's what Babcock got.

 

I think the rule needs to be changed immediately, but it won't help here.

I don't get it either. Are Pens still paying him? Doubtful

Yes. They're paying him through next season.

Posted

As long as it's not a first, I'm ok with it. I'd also it rather not be a 30-45 pick either.

 

Maybe make it conditional? Fail to make playoffs in the next two years, PIT gets a 3rd rounder instead of a 2nd?

 

Woohoo!

 

Welcome Back.

 

So a Sabres choice of 2016 2nd round picks it is!

Has the ink dried?

Posted (edited)

Nobody is actually reporting this. The third is just what everybody is speculating on because that's what Babcock got.

 

 

The basis of the 3rd round pick may be the below quote from Lebrun:

If it’s an offseason hire for either a president of hockey operations, a GM or a head coach, it’s a third-round pick that goes the other way for a guy that’s under contract. If it’s an in-season hire, it’s a second-round pick.

For a coach, the season ends as soon as his season ends but for a GM or president of hockey operations, the draft is the cutoff for in-season/offseason.

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/31/nhl-bringing-back-draft-pick-compensation-this-offseason-for-hiring-away-coaches-gms/

Edited by Lanny
Posted

Nobody is actually reporting this. The third is just what everybody is speculating on because that's what Babcock got.

 

I think the rule needs to be changed immediately, but it won't help here.

 

Yes. They're paying him through next season.

Thank you. did not know that

Posted (edited)

It sounds as the 3 round pick is compensation.

 

CHZ has said Sabres have no third round pick.

 

Both the Sabres and Pens may be clarifying with the league whether a fourth round, or a 2016 third is acceptable as compensation.

Edited by Woods-Racer
Posted

Any possibility that the compensation issue isn't a draft pick from the Sabres, but the Pens wanting to be able to get out of paying him for the upcoming season if he's coaching elsewhere?

 

Maybe.  It's also possible, as the article we discussed the other day suggested, the Pens are trying to force the Sabres to make some sort of deal for a higher round pick. 

Posted

The Pens don't have to accept a pick as part of releasing Bylsma, it's just that since there is a rule, they are probably trying to take advantage of it.  If it were for a fourth or lower, my guess is Murray would have just said "whatever" and got this done.  But since there is some sort of delay, it suggests the Pens and Sabres are disputing something of more significance than a really low pick.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...