Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[RLC]

I just read on TSN some of the reasons the players are rejecting the last offer.
The arbitration issue came up. The NHL wants to change the rules a bit. Like giving the right to teams to take a player to arbitration. The reasoning here is. ( If we pay you as a 50 goal scorer "as you wanted" then keep producing as a 50 goal scorer, if you dont I want the right to take you to arbitration and pay you your actual worth. Everyone has seen palyers go all out during their last year of a contract. They are trying to get their worth up to the max. But right after they get the BIG CONTRACT somehow they drift back to the true player they really are.
This is an inflationary issue but it would not be if the team would also have the right to take the player to arbitration if his work ethic or production drops off.

Now what I have read is that the players dont want the teams to have this right.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! I wonder why ??????

Click to read more...

 

[Lionel Hutz]

New article, details filtering out now as the NHLPA is updating members, has this been posted yet:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112913

 

[buce]

Somebody should welcome the players to reality. In the real world, the free market world they want so much, guys like Holik and Todd Marchant would have been canned by now.

 

[ti-vite]

Maximum 25% possible increase every contract. And this is a problem to the players? Not enough?

This is going to be long...

Welcome to the real world...or almost.

 

[CGG]

I just read on TSN some of the reasons the players are rejecting the last offer.
The arbitration issue came up. The NHL wants to change the rules a bit. Like giving the right to teams to take a player to arbitration. The reasoning here is. ( If we pay you as a 50 goal scorer "as you wanted" then keep producing as a 50 goal scorer, if you dont I want the right to take you to arbitration and pay you your actual worth. Everyone has seen palyers go all out during their last year of a contract. They are trying to get their worth up to the max. But right after they get the BIG CONTRACT somehow they drift back to the true player they really are.
This is an inflationary issue but it would not be if the team would also have the right to take the player to arbitration if his work ethic or production drops off.

Now what I have read is that the players dont want the teams to have this right.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! I wonder why ??????

If this was a problem with the NHLPA, why did the players include this concept in their last proposal? It would have given the teams the right to take underperforming players to arbitration to force them to take less money.

The problem for the players is they don't want raises limited to 25% and they don't want the arbitrator to pick 1, 2, or 3 years. That's why they don't like what was proposed by the owners.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

what they should do is have the non-tender rule with arbitration. if you don't want to take a guy to arbitration you release him.

so let me get this straight

42 million dollar cap that can go DOWN

6 million dollar cap on player salaries

25% cap on arbitration cases.

Isn't that a bit much. I personally think the arbitration thing is something the owners are using as carrot to get the players to accept the hard cap.

 

[GKJ]

This can't be the owners' best offer. That was a complete waste of time if it was.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

what they should do is have the non-tender rule with arbitration. if you don't want to take a guy to arbitration you release him.

so let me get this straight

42 million dollar cap that can go DOWN

6 million dollar cap on player salaries

25% cap on arbitration cases.

Isn't that a bit much.

So, if the players are seious, counter . . . realize that there will be a Cap and cost certaintly and bargain over basically the percentages. Instead they friggin' walked away and threw a tantrum.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

If this was a problem with the NHLPA, why did the players include this concept in their last proposal? It would have given the teams the right to take underperforming players to arbitration to force them to take less money.

The problem for the players is they don't want raises limited to 25% and they don't want the arbitrator to pick 1, 2, or 3 years. That's why they don't like what was proposed by the owners.

You left out the part about how the team is very limited in arbitration. Once in a guys career? That's a JOKE. These greedy a**holes have lost touch with reality. Make them sit. Cancel the season!!!!

 

[Jobu]

Maximum 25% possible increase every contract. And this is a problem to the players? Not enough?

This is going to be long...

Welcome to the real world...or almost.

Anyone who thinks the players should even consider this is an idiot. Suppose a player comes off of a two-year $1m/season contract and is eligible for arbitration. Over those two years he has exploded with 50 goals per season. Under the NHL proposal, the team can take the player to arbitration without having to engage in negotiations, choose a three-year term, and the best the guy can do is $1.25m per.

Ridiculous.

It amazes me that people continue to side with the billionaire owners who have created this supposed mess and are too pathetic to create a system that isn't foolproof. Please.

In what business anywhere is there NOT inflation? Do you expect to have your salary reduced x% every year? No. It goes up. Arbitration reflects the marketplace. If the marketplace is re-set, as the players have proposed, and teams can take players to arbitration, who can argue with the results? Arbitrators are by definition independent and they are basing their value assessments on the marketplace and relevant comparables. That is the players' true value, not some artificial 125% ceiling.

 

[Sinurgy]

I just read on TSN some of the reasons the players are rejecting the last offer.
The arbitration issue came up. The NHL wants to change the rules a bit. Like giving the right to teams to take a player to arbitration. The reasoning here is. ( If we pay you as a 50 goal scorer "as you wanted" then keep producing as a 50 goal scorer, if you dont I want the right to take you to arbitration and pay you your actual worth. Everyone has seen palyers go all out during their last year of a contract. They are trying to get their worth up to the max. But right after they get the BIG CONTRACT somehow they drift back to the true player they really are.
This is an inflationary issue but it would not be if the team would also have the right to take the player to arbitration if his work ethic or production drops off.

Now what I have read is that the players dont want the teams to have this right.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! I wonder why ??????

I've always wondered how exactly it wasn't like that anyway. I mean how fair is it for a player to sign a contract, in the middle of it have a 50 goal year but instead of honoring the original contract suddenly he holds out (cough...Tkachuk...cough). I know that is not the same as arbitration but the principle is the same. The point being that a player expects big money after a big season so why don't they expect a paycut after a lousy season?!

Personally I don't think a player should get a paycut after having a bad season but they sholdn't be able to demand a big raise after a good season either. Raises should be based on season'S. Once you sign a contract, honor it!

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Anyone who thinks the players should even consider this is an idiot. Suppose a player comes off of a two-year $1m/season contract and is eligible for arbitration. Over those two years he has exploded with 50 goals per season. Under the NHL proposal, the team can take the player to arbitration without having to engage in negotiations, choose a three-year term, and the best the guy can do is $1.25m per.

Ridiculous.

It amazes me that people continue to side with the billionaire owners who have created this supposed mess and are too pathetic to create a system that isn't foolproof. Please.

In what business anywhere is there NOT inflation? Do you expect to have your salary reduced x% every year? No. It goes up. Arbitration reflects the marketplace. If the marketplace is re-set, as the players have proposed, and teams can take players to arbitration, who can argue with the results? Arbitrators are by definition independent and they are basing their value assessments on the marketplace and relevant comparables. That is the players' true value, not some artificial 125% ceiling.

God , you sound like Saskin Or Linden. Like the guy said above. How come some players breakout and think it's in their right to not honor the existing contract, but to renegotiate their current one for more money? If that's the case, then their contracts should be able to get cut too. Always take take take for these players.

 

[Jobu]

This can't be the owners' best offer. That was a complete waste of time if it was.

Agreed. This offer is a step back - not only a team-by-team cap, but as league-wide and individual player cap too? Plus limits on raises in arbitration?

Pathetic.

If the owners were smart, they'd go for a $50m cap, with minor adjustments elsewhere (e.g., teams can take players to arbitration), and negotiate off of that the next go-round. It's a lot easier to do that than go for every single thing they want, and a change to every part of the system, right away.

 

[Jobu]

God , you sound like Saskin Or Linden

And you sound completely ignorant and uninformed. As most are.

 

[s7ark]

Wow, the players are really threatened by the idea of justifying the salaries they have been getting hey? I guess they just aren't willing to accept the idea that they should have to produce for the money they get paid.

I think this group has gotten too spoiled.

Use replacement players and slowly the talent level will come back up. In a few years it'll hardly be noticable. Cut these guyes loose and let whoever wants to cross the line cross the line.

time to hit reset on the NHL guys.

 

[kerrly]

I've been pro-owner throughout all of this but I think the owners should take a few things off the table. Rework the arbitration to give the players some more options, and don't make it as restrictive, the marketplace will be reset, and the cap will help keep it that way. Up the max individual contract to 8 million. Dump the so-called triple cap and allow the teams to work freely within the proposed 32-42 million dollar payroll range without punishment, but keep 42 million as the hard cap. I think that would make the players think a little bit. Whether or not this will get it done, has yet to be seen, but it will be far closer to it that this last proposal, without really getting out of hand.

 

[Jobu]

God , you sound like Saskin Or Linden. Like the guy said above. How come some players breakout and think it's in their right to not honor the existing contract, but to renegotiate their current one for more money?

Where did I say I wasn't in favour of teams being able to take players to arbitration? Would that not deal with that problem?

Players should honour their contracts. Most do. There are but a handful of examples of players who haven't, e.g., Yashin.

Currently, a player can hold out once his contract has expired. But that's not the same as not honouring an existing contract. If the player chooses that route instead of arbitration, it's a leverage call; however, if teams could force a player into arbitration, you don't have that problem anymore, do you?

Arbitration per se and the inflation that results therefrom isn't the problem at all. Anyone who pretends otherwise is simply ignorant.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

And you sound completely ignorant and uninformed. As most are.

Your in Toronto. If the overpaid, geriatric leafs are your fav team, then I don't take your arguments that seriously. They don't help the mess in the NHL.

 

[Jobu]

Your in Toronto. If the overpaid, geriatric leafs are your fav team, then I don't take your arguments that seriously. They don't help the mess in the NHL.

First of all, it's "you're."

Second of all, I'm not a Leafs fan.

 

[Jobu]

I've been pro-owner throughout all of this but I think the owners should take a few things off the table. Rework the arbitration to give the players some more options, and don't make it as restrictive, the marketplace will be reset, and the cap will help keep it that way. Up the max individual contract to 8 million. Dump the so-called triple cap and allow the teams to work freely within the proposed 32-42 million dollar payroll range without punishment, but keep 42 million as the hard cap. I think that would make the players think a little bit. Whether or not this will get it done, has yet to be seen, but it will be far closer to it that this last proposal, without really getting out of hand.

Agreed. If the owners came with a $42-45m hard cap, even with a tax above the $32-35m level, and coupled it with certain other variations to arbitration, rollback, and rookie bonus structure, it would make the players think.

A proposal or offer like this is just too easy to refuse and just further solidifies and galvanizes the players. It's a wonder that Daly, Batterman, Bettman et al. are in the positions they're in misjuding things so badly - they are playing right into Goodenow's hands.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Anyone who thinks the players should even consider this is an idiot. Suppose a player comes off of a two-year $1m/season contract and is eligible for arbitration. Over those two years he has exploded with 50 goals per season. Under the NHL proposal, the team can take the player to arbitration without having to engage in negotiations, choose a three-year term, and the best the guy can do is $1.25m per.

Ridiculous.

It amazes me that people continue to side with the billionaire owners who have created this supposed mess and are too pathetic to create a system that isn't foolproof. Please.

In what business anywhere is there NOT inflation? Do you expect to have your salary reduced x% every year? No. It goes up. Arbitration reflects the marketplace. If the marketplace is re-set, as the players have proposed, and teams can take players to arbitration, who can argue with the results? Arbitrators are by definition independent and they are basing their value assessments on the marketplace and relevant comparables. That is the players' true value, not some artificial 125% ceiling.

Best post i have read on this board in a long time. What people forget is it takes two parties to sign a player contract and the players don't pay themselves. The owners paid them money and now want the players to bite the bullet. Perhaps if the owners did a better job of running there business we wouldn't be in this situation today.

What i find amazing is that fans actually want the owners to take this into next season. If this is going on next year at this time the league will be behind the WNBA NLL and MLS on americas mind. (you know the united states the place where most of the money is made for the league) Teams are already taking money out of the lockout fund and the most they can take out is 10 million dollars. I love to hear the argument that teams are paying anybody any money so they must be making money. I guess lease agreements, taxes, lost revenue from ticket salses, and merchandising (which is down 80% from last year!) don't mean a thing to the owners. The good players will go to europe make a decent amount of money and sit this out. I know they only make 1/10 of the money they make in the nhl but some guys are making more than a million a year. Thats not chump change and is more than any other player in any other sport make during a work stoppage.

The owners talked all week about a creative proposal and it was more of the same.

 

[Sinurgy]

Anyone who thinks the players should even consider this is an idiot. Suppose a player comes off of a two-year $1m/season contract and is eligible for arbitration. Over those two years he has exploded with 50 goals per season. Under the NHL proposal, the team can take the player to arbitration without having to engage in negotiations, choose a three-year term, and the best the guy can do is $1.25m per.

Ridiculous.

It amazes me that people continue to side with the billionaire owners who have created this supposed mess and are too pathetic to create a system that isn't foolproof. Please.

In what business anywhere is there NOT inflation? Do you expect to have your salary reduced x% every year? No. It goes up. Arbitration reflects the marketplace. If the marketplace is re-set, as the players have proposed, and teams can take players to arbitration, who can argue with the results? Arbitrators are by definition independent and they are basing their value assessments on the marketplace and relevant comparables. That is the players' true value, not some artificial 125% ceiling.

I would expect the players to negotiate a settlement that does not allow for the scenario you outlined. Here is how I see it.

1) A player who signs a 5 year contract should not be allowed to hold out until they get a better deal if they happen to score 50 goals in the 3rd year of the contract.

2) A player who has 4 seasons of mediocrity but a stellar 5th season should get paid based on all 5 season so as a result should get mediocrity level money.

3) A player who has 4 stellar seasons but a lousy 5th season should also get paid based on all 5 seasons so as a result should get top player money.

 

[futurcorerock]

Of all the things about this... i really, really think that Salary Arbitration rights for Owners is the most important when considering cost certainty.

I'd be livid if the next CBA didn't include such a right

 

[Sinurgy]

First of all, it's "you're."

Second of all, I'm not a Leafs fan.

C'mon man, don't pull the grammar card! It's a freakin forum.

 

[Jobu]

I would expect the players to negotiate a settlement that does not allow for the scenario you outlined. Here is how I see it.

1) A player who signs a 5 year contract should not be allowed to hold out until they get a better deal if they happen to score 50 goals in the 3rd year of the contract.

2) A player who has 4 seasons of mediocrity but a stellar 5th season should get paid based on all 5 season so as a result should get mediocrity level money.

3) A player who has 4 stellar seasons but a lousy 5th season should also get paid based on all 5 seasons so as a result should get top player money.

Negotiation and arbitration reflect all of these scenarios. Do you really think arbitrators look at only the previous season, or a player's best season? Give your head a shake.

Here's how it works: Players and teams present a player's accomplishments along with his comparables for the entire period from the beginning of his last contract to the expiry. So, if you are coming off of a 5-year deal with 4 down years and 1 good one, you are compared and adjudged accordingly.

This is the same dynamic that occurs in negotiations.

Of course, a player who puts up better numbers in his most recent years will stand in greater stead. Or, a player who is inconsistent or who is producing less, won't. The problem with the current system is that in the latter case players simply hold out instead of risking a poor reward in arbitration. Simply allowing teams to take players to arbitration completely alleviates the perceived unfairness of the arbitration system; it eliminates the strategic selection of arbitration and only employs it for what it is meant for: objectively coming to a player's value in the marketplace where the two parties are unable to.