Using the Flames to Burn a Contract

Posted by Drew Mindell in Cold Hard Rants,Columns on July 15, 2009 — 14 Comments

I am amazed that in this world of instant information and constant communication be it through Facebook, Twitter, Blackberry Messenger or text messaging no one, anywhere, is talking about the fact that the NHL has granted a tremendous competitive advantage to the Calgary Flames by permitting them to play all of their games on home ice this coming season. How else to explain the fact that new coach Brent Sutter violated the terms of his contract to coach the New Jersey Devils for one more season because he wanted to spend more time at “home” and with his family?

We have been hearing this a lot lately in sports. The desire to leave one team, often even while under contract to go to another team, in a specific market, because it is closer to home and to family. Personally, I am sick and tired about hearing about this nonsense. When a player, or in this instance, a coach signs a contract with a club, they should be obligated to stick with that club for the duration of the contract. Nowhere else in society are employees permitted the type of freedom and ability to break binding contracts as they are in the world of professional sport. Can you imagine if you tried to pull these shenanigans in your workplace? You would be out on your ass so quick you wouldn’t have time to gather up the picture of your family that theoretically adorns your desk.

I don’t doubt Brent Sutter’s sincerity when he says he wants to spend more time with his family. I am sure being out there in New Jersey was very difficult for him, with all his twelve hundred siblings and wife and kids in Red Deer and surrounding areas. I also don’t think that missing his family was a brand new revelation, one he could not have predicted prior to signing on for three years with the New Jersey Devils. Anyone with a little bit of foresight should have seen this coming (in fact people began to predict this scenario unfolding early this past season), and if Brent Sutter had been truthful and honest with the New Jersey Devils from the outset he would have only signed a one year contract. Of course, he didn’t, because like everyone else in life he wanted the job security that comes with a binding contract. Had he been fired prior to exhausting his contract, I guarantee you he would have demanded the salary he had expected to come to him.

It is beyond me why athletes/coaches in professional sports are granted this latitude to freely break contracts, when no one else is availed the same opportunity. If there is any karma in sports, the New Jersey Devils, led now by Jacques Lemaire who returns to the Devils after his mutually agreed upon departure from the Minnesota Wild, will do better than the Calgary Flames this coming season. Why do I think that this would be fair karma wise? Because I am fairly certain the soldiers serving overseas would too rather be closer to their families.

For Illegal Curve, I am Drew Mindell.

Please join the discussion below. Your comments are always welcome.

Remember to listen to the Illegal Curve.com radio show every Wednesday night on 92.9 KICK FM in Winnipeg or by clicking the Illegal Curve Radio link in the top right corner.

Cameron

My understanding of how the Sutter situation came about is this;

- Brent is hired by Lou Lamouriello to coach the Devils, and they develop a great personal relationship.

- Brent is above board about the strain coaching in New Jersey puts on him, and Lou being a family guy is understanding. From the interviews so far, it is clear Brent was above board about the family issues from day one.

- After two years, Brent informs Lou that he would prefer to move on and return to Alberta where his daughter is going to school, where his ranch is, and where his hockey team (the Red Deer Rebels) are located.

- Lou being understanding of the circumstances, gives Sutter his walking papers.

- The Flames who are looking for a new coach, approach Lou to ask permission to talk to Brent about the vacancy. Given the Oilers have already hired their coach, Calgary is the only head coaching option that Brent would – for reasons of geography – consider.

- Lou, perhaps as a favour to Brent – a guy he has never given anything but praise, agrees to give Darryl Sutter the permission.

At no point is anything done below the belt or without Lou’s explicit permission.

As someone who worked in an industry where contracts were commonly negotiated as part of my job, I can say that even when you have an ironclad contract if the two parties no longer see eye-to-eye on things it isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.

The cost of trying to enforce a contract on someone by crying foul and going to court is frequently way way more than the hassle of simply negotiating (typically from a position of strength) on the terms of departure. I can think of dozens of occasions where it was just better business to tear things up reach a settlement and move on than try to pursue all the legal remedies available. Over 15 years and 1000+ contracts we only once ended up in court.

Which is to say, there is a big difference in being technically ‘in the right’ and doing things ‘on principle’ and doing things that are right for the business and the people involved.
http://www.illegalcurve.com david

Robert J. Romano, Esq wrote a very interesting piece regarding the remedies available when a coach, who is currently under contract, breaches and leaves for the “greener pastures”. His focus was on Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo who fired head football coach Jeff Jagodzinski after he interviewed for the head coaching vacancy with the New York Jets but it can apply to this situation as well.

That said, I agree with IC reader Cameron’s comments. Some things are best done without the involvement of lawyers.
http://www.illegalcurve.com Richard

I have no problem with Sutter leaving his deal. The fact is, if Lamoriello wanted compensation he could have asked for it. Just because he chose not to, is not Sutter’s fault. If Lamoriello had asked for high compensation, then Sutter wouldn’t have gotten paid this season because he walked away from the contract. In the end, he has the freedom of choice, and I see no reason why there should be a big problem with his move.
http://www.illegalcurve.com Drew

I am not saying that anything that Brent Sutter did was not on the up and up. What my chief complaint is, and this applies to most sports not just hockey, is the lack of commitment that an athlete or coach assumes when signing their name on the dotted line. The Dany Heatley saga is another example of this. It takes a great deal of nerve to demand a trade when he has no right to do so, and then nix a trade when it has been completed because you don’t like the destination. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The solution (at least when it comes to athletes–coaches are harder to determine) is that if you demand a trade while under contract AND that contract you are breaking provides you with a no trade clause is that the no trade clause becomes null and void.
http://www.illegalcurve.com Kyle

I am with Drew on this one. The instances we see in the sports world are mirrored in everyday life. It seems that it has become far too easy to go back on your word. No one is ever to blame, people are always portraying themselves as victims (I miss my family, I want more PP time, etc) and the public laps it up.

The precedent has already been set in sports, and teams are now at the whim of every cry baby they have under contract. If you don’t want to be somewhere, don’t sign the contract. Every adult should know that not everything is set in stone, so if you aren’t prepared to roll with the punches, perhaps making millions playing or coaching professional sports is too much you and your delicate constitution.
http://www.illegalcurve.com david

I agree with you Drew that Heatley should have voided the no-trade option once he demanded a trade but unfortunately same wasn’t written into the language of the contract that was signed.
Calihockey

While on its face Heatley and Sutter have both refused to honor contracts I can’t see how you can lump the two together. Sutter’s reasons for leaving are a lot more ‘honor’able than Heatley’s.
Cameron

To put a different perspective on this, think of the NHL as a giant parent company, the teams as different internal companies and Heatley as a star contract employee who is simply awesome at sales.

In the last four years, star employee has had four different bosses, each worse than the last. The latest boss is a young guy with no management experience at this level and he turns out to be a complete jerk. Star employee is yanked off his regular sales duties, told to shut up at meetings, ordered to refill the copy machine, forced to watch silently as the new boss scapegoats the innocent for the declines in productivity, and meanwhile everybody in the division has to bite their tongue about the fact that upper mgt still hasn’t filled key areas of the team with competent members like the new accountant they have been waiting for, or the replacements for the sales force that were allowed to leave, etc.

In short, the company is now trending downwards, mgt is increasingly incompetent, and the star employee is miserable.

So he goes to his boss to try to work things out. No go.

Then he goes to his bosses boss (for my analogy the VP of the division) and lets him know how unhappy he is and that he wants a transfer to another division of the mega-corps. He gives the VP a list of the divisions where he would prefer to be which is aprox. 1/3 of the entire company. He then shuts his mouth and waits.

And waits. And waits. And nothing happens.

So then he (or someone else) lets everyone in the company know about the fact he wants to transfer. And the crap hits the fan. In a fit of pique, the VP of his division tries to transfer him to the hinterlands of the company, to a division not on his list, and for which he has no interest – in defiance of his contract.

So he declines, but otherwise says nothing. Meanwhile the VP drags his name through the mud, questions every facet of his character (and encourages others to do so too) and then insists ‘we tried out best to work something out, he’s always welcome back’.

Who would want to work for that company?

Lets also be clear that the star employee is REALLY good at his job. In fact he’s among the best there is at what he does, with maybe only a handful of guys who can produce the kind of sales he does, and his track-record for his abilities is well known.

Sure there are things he doesn’t do well like accounting, and marketing, but they typically fall to others better suited to doing those jobs. He may not fill the copier as well or as fast as others, but he wasn’t earning his salary because he was good with the copy machine, and until he asked for the transfer, nobody ever questioned his worth.

All in all, he should be the kind of employee that an employer would value keeping, and would make an effort to keep happy – but they don’t and he isn’t.

And ultimately, who is fault for that?
http://www.illegalcurve.com Kyle

Cameron,

While I see where you are going, I think the analogy fails somewhat because hockey teams are (and should be) run like a dictatorship. Heatley was moved to the 2nd PP unit because the 1st wasn’t working. Lo and behold, the Sens had some moderate success under Clouston, and Heatley’s ego was bruised but he wasn’t exactly doing menial labour out in Kanata, either.

If the inmates start running the asylum, then the team concept is out the window, and while your analogy suggests the stars should drive the bus, I point you to nearly every Team USA entry at the World Juniors for an example of just how successful a team can be when the stars call the shots.
Cameron

Kyle: While I see where you are going, I think the analogy fails somewhat because hockey teams are (and should be) run like a dictatorship.

I guess this is where we disagree. Once upon a time teams were run like dictatorships and players could be sent to the salt-mines, err, minors to be punished, but those days are gone along with Alan Eagleson and fighting in the stands.

The ultimate truth is that these teams are actually a business, and Heatley is (and should be) considered nothing more or less than a valuable employee.

But I think you hit the nail on the head – Murray is (and perhaps Clouston as well) acting like it still is a dictatorship.

And this kind of meltdown is what you get. Any business that fails to understand its employees wants and needs is going to lose its best employees.

My former boss once told me how to calculate the worth of your job;

1/3 is pay.
1/3 is how much you enjoy your work
1/3 is your boss.

You need at least two out of three to be content to stay where you are. If you have 1/3 (or less) its time to find new work because if you continue to stay where you are you will be miserable. This calculation was something we often did with our employees, and because we were a mid-line payer in terms of salary, we often knew going in that money wasn’t going to be one of the plusses – so to keep our people happy, we made conscious efforts to ensure the work and the environment they worked in was fun, and that their boss (me) was communicative, understanding and progressive.

The result was we could pay less than others and still keep our people. (also see Detroit Red Wings for a hockey example)

In Heatley’s case, the pay isn’t the issue. But he hates his boss, and they have made it so his job sucks (There were close games he received 12min total ice-time.. I mean seriously), and so like any human being in his situation, he decided he wanted out.

Does this mean teams have to suck up to their star players and cater to their every whim? No.

But it doesn’t hurt to recognize that you sometimes need to treat your better employees differently from others. If you constantly bitch about how your best sales guy is mediocre at his paperwork, eventually you will be replacing your best sales guy – and have lower sales. A simpler solution is to have his paperwork routed through a lower paid clerk who cleans it up for him. Sales guy is happy, sales continue to be good, and the business is better for it.

Heatley is a 50 goal 100pt guy, and one of the top five scoring forwards since the lockout. Does it really makes sense to treat him like Chris Neil?
http://www.illegalcurve.com Kyle

Cameron,

I realize that Heatley isn’t happy with the change in his job duties and with his new boss. The missing part of the equation is that Heatley could have rectified both problems by his play/attitude. While I agree that he possesses excellent offensive skill, we both know he can disappear at times and may have a motivation issue. Clearly, Clouston was trying to motivate Heatley with some old school tactics (reduced ice time, etc.).

We can safely assume that this rubbed Heatley the wrong way, but instead of speaking with the coach (I am assuming here) or resolving to play harder (which may have satisfied 2/3 your example), he pouts and makes a public trade demand. He is a commodity and has certain rights to ply his trade wherever he pleases, but he should also realize that he has a checkered past and just signed a huge long term deal. Not everyone can love their boss and what they do, especially when you put yourself willingly into a situation by signing that long term deal.

Though we may disagree on how to run a team, I think that many teams still employ the iron fist rule because they see the alternative as untenable. Perhaps Heatley should be coddled a little more than a Chris Neil, but human nature tells us that eventually one of the other guys in that room is going to get mad about, and if they don’t, their agent/wife/parents will. You can imagine what kind of team atmosphere would exist then, keeping in mind that Ottawa is/was thought to have a fractured room already.

The bottom line, at least to me, is that given that Heatley has put himself into the situation of his own free will, he should be prepared to honor his deal or at the very least attempt to work things out before moving along. He put the team in a bad situation, and apparently won’t speak with his teammates. Even the best salesman would realize that your actions will catch up to you, and that there are a finite number of places to ply your trade.
Cameron

Kyle: The missing part of the equation is that Heatley could have rectified both problems by his play/attitude. While I agree that he possesses excellent offensive skill, we both know he can disappear at times and may have a motivation issue. Clearly, Clouston was trying to motivate Heatley with some old school tactics (reduced ice time, etc.).

Cameron: I think that remains to be determined. Keenan (among others) was famous for singling out players on his teams and scapegoating them while giving others a free ride in the name of ‘motivation’. The most absurd example being the working over he gave Shanahan in St Louis while giving the loafer Brett Hull (and Gretzky) a free pass – a situation that eventually drove Shanahan out of St Louis. Any impartial observer would note that Heatley was definitely not the liability in terms of effort on the Sens he is being painted as now – it was Spezza – yet Spezza didn’t see his ice-time drop or powerplay position change – while Heatley did.

Kyle: We can safely assume that this rubbed Heatley the wrong way, but instead of speaking with the coach (I am assuming here) or resolving to play harder (which may have satisfied 2/3 your example), he pouts and makes a public trade demand.

Cameron: I think it definitely did rub Heatley the wrong way, but my understanding is he did speak to both the coach and his GM about it – and he did so quietly. He also didn’t speak out (and never really has – it was leaked to the press, I presume by his agent, but it could have been a Sens staffer) about his trade demand for well over a month after he made the request. In other words he did in fact try to address the issues in a professional manner. But rather than make a Heatley trade at a time when it would have maximized the results, Murray dicked around until he was forced to do something when it was made public – and even then he dicked around.

As for the ‘play harder’ suggestion, Heatley is a first line sniper whose main talent is scoring goals, and he had 39 of them last year despite; the lack of puck moving defensemen, a centerman not struggling with developing solid two-way play, a reduced role on the pp, and reduced ice-time overall. In short, I’d make the case that Heatley played pretty hard all things considered.

Kyle: He is a commodity and has certain rights to ply his trade wherever he pleases, but he should also realize that he has a checkered past and just signed a huge long term deal.

Cameron: The ‘checkered past’ thing doesn’t wash with me. Heatley got into a car accident and killed his best friend, but its not like he was Leonard Little, or one of the gazillion people busted for drug/alcohol/weapons offenses. His desire to play outside of Atlanta was entirely reasonable given the circumstances.

Kyle: Not everyone can love their boss and what they do, especially when you put yourself willingly into a situation by signing that long term deal.

Cameron: My point is that if any company or hockey team wants to maximize its potential it starts with management committing to its people. Good organizations treat their employees with respect, communicate well, and make the effort to reward and retain their top performers (and the Sens are one for three in that respect).

Good employees will want to work for these companies, will return the respect and deliver their top performance even when times are hard. Ottawa is a classic example of an organization failing because of bad management. They have routinely mismanaged assets (Ray Emery, Zdeno Chara, etc.), and alienated good employees (Heatley). A bad organization with good talent will still routinely fail to reach its potential (see New York Rangers or your own example of the USDT), whereas a lesser group of talent with good organization can succeed (The Hurricanes come immediately to mind).

Kyle: Though we may disagree on how to run a team, I think that many teams still employ the iron fist rule because they see the alternative as untenable.

Cameron: I think they are trapped in the philosophy of ‘team as dictator, player as serf’. Michel Therrien was one of those guys. Dan Bylsma was not. Kudos to the Pens for recognizing the difference in time.

Kyle: Perhaps Heatley should be coddled a little more than a Chris Neil, but human nature tells us that eventually one of the other guys in that room is going to get mad about, and if they don’t, their agent/wife/parents will. You can imagine what kind of team atmosphere would exist then, keeping in mind that Ottawa is/was thought to have a fractured room already.

Cameron: Do you really think Chris Neil has cause to complain about whether Heatley was getting too much powerplay time? Or ice-time? It’s like the copy-machine kid complaining that the top salesman’s paperwork isn’t always perfect.

And lets be clear, I’m not saying Heatley needed to be cuddled more, I’m saying he was scapegoated and made an example of by his coach, and I’m saying that it was less about motivating Heatley (who had the stats to back up his worth on the top unit and for more ice-time) and more about motivating the others through fear of being treated like Heatley was. I think Clouston went into that locker room and picked a fight with the biggest dog in it to show the others he was in control. And I think it blew up in his face big-time.

Kyle: The bottom line, at least to me, is that given that Heatley has put himself into the situation of his own free will, he should be prepared to honor his deal or at the very least attempt to work things out before moving along.

Cameron: I think its clear from statements on both sides that Heatley brought his concerns to mgt long before going public, and that the Sens management did exactly nothing to rectify the situation.

Kyle: He put the team in a bad situation, and apparently won’t speak with his teammates. Even the best salesman would realize that your actions will catch up to you, and that there are a finite number of places to ply your trade.

Cameron: I disagree that he put the team into this situation. I think the team created this situation with how they (mis)handled Heatley, and then further screwed things up by doing nothing when they could have quietly traded him before the demands became public and thus received closer to full value for him.

Instead, they ignored the problem until it blew up in their face.

Murray has turned a championship caliber team into a laughing stock in no time at all. Clearly, he’s executive of the year.

As for there being a finite number of places Heatley can play, the reality is that there are always other places a 100pt scorer will be wanted and can go, and like it or not he holds the cards on where that will be.

Rather than face that reality head on, Sens mgt have attempted to build their own reality. One where they can ignore the problem hoping it goes away (oops!), then one where they can trade him to a team not on his list (oops!), until we arrive at the present where they are left to insist he can return with open arms (good luck with that).

And in each version of their reality it is always someone elses fault.
http://www.illegalcurve.com Kyle

Cameron,

It seems that many of the points we are discussing come down to matter of opinion. For example, as a lifelong Oiler fan I watched with confusion as MacTavish attempted to make Penner cry while giving Liam Reddox first line ice time all last season. As such, I am completely aware that favoritism exists in the league and I know that guys are made examples of by coaches in an attempt to prove control.

To be perfectly honest, I have little to no knowledge of how the end of the season went in Ottawa nor do I know what Dany Heatley did or didn’t do to try and heal the rift between him and Clouston. I am also a little lacking in the finer points of Ottawa’s team building process, but I do honestly believe that Heatley put the team in a bad situation.

By limiting the trading partners, he has made Murray go about this with one hand behind his back. Before you counter with the fact that Murray had time, let me say that we both know this kind of information gets around quickly. The hockey world is small, and people talk.

So, Murray makes a deal with Edmonton and gets what some consider to be an overpay for Heatley (who, right or wrong, is now labeled as a potential dressing room troublemaker) and Heatley nixes the deal because the Oilers aren’t on his list. It is likely impossible for Ottawa to get full value now, despite Heatley’s prolific scoring ability.

I definitely concede that you are very well versed in the goings on in Ottawa, and that we will just have to agree to disagree on some of these points. But, before we go too far down this path, I want to get away from Heatley (whom I was using as an example) and backtrack to my original point, which was that I think its wrong for players and coaches to attempt to circumvent contracts when they become personally unhappy with their situation. I think your sales analogy is basically sound, but I keep coming back to the fact that people willingly sign on the dotted line, knowing that they have bound themselves to perform.

If getting out of a contract is as easy as declaring that you are unhappy, a precedent (which seems already set) is established that hurts competitive parity in the NHL. I am as big a free market guy as you will find, but for some reason I like the enforced equality of the league.

In a larger sense, I dislike how people seem to have abandoned personal responsibility. There was a time not so long ago when people said what they meant and meant what they said. It seems that the NHL, like the rest of society, is now so coddled that everyone (even the tough as nails Sutters) expect their every whim and desire to be attended to, consequences be damned.

I re-read your original comment and agree that sometimes its just easier (for many reasons) to just quietly work your way out of the deal. It saves a PR mess and the player and team part ways amicably. It just seems to me that a team will eventually have to make a stand, and ask that the contract be honored, hurt feelings or not. I, for one, would be happy to see it happen.
Cameron

Kyle:….but I do honestly believe that Heatley put the team in a bad situation.

Cameron: And to a point I agree. It is never a good thing when one of your top guys comes to you and says ‘I want out’. That said, the origin of the problem isn’t that Heatley wants to leave, its in WHY Heatley wants to leave.

Kyle: By limiting the trading partners, he has made Murray go about this with one hand behind his back. Before you counter with the fact that Murray had time, let me say that we both know this kind of information gets around quickly. The hockey world is small, and people talk.

Cameron: Again, I don’t disagree. Here’s the thing, Heatley has the right to request a trade to teams of his choosing, and Ottawa has the right to say ‘no’. But nobody thinks that having a player around who doesn’t want to be there is a good thing. So mgt has two options; fix the issues that lead to Heatley requesting the trade, or, trade him to a team off the list he provides. Murray did neither and by involving the Oilers in a cynical attempt to drive up the bidding with the Rangers he acted in the worst possible way a GM can act.

Kyle: It is likely impossible for Ottawa to get full value now, despite Heatley’s prolific scoring ability.

Cameron: To maximize the trade value of Heatley Murray should have acted quietly before it became public – and he didn’t. Further, by denigrating Heatley in the press (and encouraging others to do so as well) he has actually worsened the offers he is likely to receive. Its one thing to quietly trade your superstar (see Joe Thornton to the Sharks) and another to publicly denigrate him and then try to make a deal. Murray has made the classic mistake of making this issue personal rather than professional.

Kyle: If getting out of a contract is as easy as declaring that you are unhappy, a precedent (which seems already set) is established that hurts competitive parity in the NHL. I am as big a free market guy as you will find, but for some reason I like the enforced equality of the league.

Cameron: The precedents were already set when Pronger and Peca went to Oilers mgt and asked to be dealt shortly after the ink on their free-agent contracts dried. They got overpaid to be free-agent signings in Edmonton, and then cynically asked to be dealt elsewhere now that they had the big money contracts in hand. Even with a Cup run that was nearly successful they ended up being moved in the next off-season. Why did Edmonton agree to move them? Because it makes no sense to keep players around that don’t want to be there. Unhappy players poison the locker room, play poorly, and the team will suffer as a result. So while legally they are expected to be there, for practical business/hockey reasons they have to be moved on. To be fair to Heatley, he is not asking to be traded for reasons so mercenary as Pronger and Peca. Nor is his situation akin to the Yashin hold-out from years past.

Kyle: It seems that the NHL, like the rest of society, is now so coddled that everyone (even the tough as nails Sutters) expect their every whim and desire to be attended to, consequences be damned.

Cameron: I made my case above that the Sutter situation is different, but to address your larger point I see it as a sea-change in the NHL itself. Once upon a time teams had all the leverage. Contract amounts weren’t disclosed, teams could hardball players in negotiations without concern, teams could even blackball players from playing. But once the players unionized effectively and claimed power back from the owners, it all changed. Now players realize they are the game, and that fans are coming to see them, not the team. The result is that teams no longer have the leverage they did to force issues in the same way. I’d argue that this has not only been better for the players but also better for the league as a whole and for the fans in general – but that is a longer post.

Kyle: It just seems to me that a team will eventually have to make a stand, and ask that the contract be honored, hurt feelings or not. I, for one, would be happy to see it happen.

Cameron: The proper way to deal with a player who doesn’t fit into the organization anymore is to maximize the return on investment by trading them somewhere else (not letting them sign in the KHL ala Ray Emery). When NJ ran into a slew of player contract renewals that were going to cost them more than Lou thought they were worth, he traded them or let them walk. No hard feelings Scott Niedermayer and Bobby Holik. And when the time came, those players respected him and even returned to play for the Devils again later.