Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
I'm as prop owner as they come, but if the league can get a 40 million ca, I say screw reverse arbitration. Frankly, I have little sympathy for the Rangers when they make stupid signings, just like how I've have little sympathy for the Oilers who traded for Isbister, and his stupid contract. I think the Oiler management was dumb, but I don't think the process was unfair.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
Jobu said:
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.

Just out of curiosity, who is your favourite team? Sorry about the grammer mistake man. I'll try not to make anymore.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
lol

this is so gay.

players dont want cap, and now, they dont want the teams to have arbitration rights.

its like saying, I can sue you, but you cant sue me, regardless of whatever I do!?


:joker:
 

Sammy*

Guest
Jobu said:
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.
I agree with everything in this post but the last paragraph. Arbitration is unbelievably inflationary. The players take similar players as comprables that are grossly overpaid for what they are currently doing . They then say, look, I am superiour to this player infor x, y, z reason & therefore I should get as much or more (all of which I have no problem with). The problem that occurs is that the premise the arbitrator is proceeding on in my view is that the overpaid guy is the measuring stick, not what the overpaid guy really should be making.
And yes, I know the owners put forth submissions, but human being's being as they are, aregoing to give less to the guy in front of him in the arbitration than some overpaid guy that is being used as a comprable & is playing like a dog.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
Jobu said:
Vancouver.

I'd be pissed if I was a Vancouver fan and there is no hockey this year. Last chance to see Naslnd play and they don't even get it.
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
Jobu said:
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.
So rather than tell me to shake my head and give me a needless explanation, why don't you just say you agree with what I wrote (since apparently you do)?
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
Sinurgy said:
So rather than tell me to shake my head and give me a needless explanation, why don't you just say you agree with what I wrote (since apparently you do)?

Some NHL players have gone to, or threatened, arbitration 2 or 3 times already. How does their proposal fix that? Players get it unlimited. Owners don't. Sounds fair huh?
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
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.

whats so ridiculous about this!?!?!

If you do so well during the course of the contract, what makes you deserve doubling the salary that you have just earned?

Say you averaged 10 goals a season and you signed 1M/year for 2 years. You scored 20 goals in each of the 2 years and you are asking for $2M because of that??

Lets put this into real world business perspective. If you are a manager at any level, and you're making $50K/year. Now, the revenue has doubled, over the 2 years, and now, you are asking for $100K/year!?!? I dont know about you, but that doesnt happen a lot in the real world. You probably get a hefty raise of 50% (pretty high raise already), and a ONE time bonus of say, $10K? That is A LOT.

A Max of 25% in my mind may be too low IMO, but 50% is certainly doable, for BOTH sides IMO.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
Giving a team arbitration rights is, IMHO, crutial to making arbitration work. In the PA's decemeber proposal, they gave teams the right to take a player to arbitration, but they SEVERELY limited this right. A player could only be taken to arbitration once in his career, a team could only take 1 player to arbitration in a season, and no more than 2 players to arbitration every 3 years. This is NOT really letting the owners take a player to arbitration, it was more or less a PR gesture, as was most of the players December offer.

Now, the owners latest of limiting the raise amount is ALSO a poor idea. Most arbitration awards make sense in the context of similar players (though improvements to the process could be made, such has having "hockey" people as the arbitrators, as oppsed to "legal" people). The problem with the current system is the CHOICE of who brings a case to arbitration, as it is currently ONLY a player who can do, and they normally only do when they are guaranteed a large raise from it. If you let owners take a player to arbitration, perhaps making it a valid QO, then this inherant unfairness to the system can be removed.

Of course, the players don't WANT to see this happen, but I think it is the inevitable conclusion to the arbitration issue. Players and Owners have unlimited arbitration rights on RFA's. Maybe Baseball style arbitration will be enacted, but I don't even think that needs to be done.
 

windowlicker

Registered User
Jun 17, 2003
2,202
0
Murky Wisconsin
Visit site
Call me crazy, but as a fan I could care less about a players earning potential. If the owner wants to make more, therefore residually more money could be pumped back into his organization, more power to them. Seriously, why would any fan care about an NHL player maxing out his possible career earning potential (unless your'e related to an NHLPA member, you are one, own an exotic car dealership or Gentleman's Club near a rink).

The owners have taken a very hard-line stance. Its unreasonable when compared against the current system & the players should be pissed. But that's life. The employers are dictating to their employee's what the new salary & income structure will be. There is nothing you can do but grin & bear it.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Jobu said:
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.

.
I disagree with you. From my anecdotal recollection arbitrators award on the basis of the last year or so in the expectation that that will continue into the future. Unfortunately. quite often it doesnt& in fact the player reverts to his historical output, unfortunatly, thats not what he is now being paid to do.
If you want to take a look, look at the awards for Giguere & Turco. They barely had a track record & hit the jackpot as if they were long term proven commodities. What then happens, goalies will now use Giguere as a comprable when they have superiour stats. Thats why its so inflationary.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
I agree with everything in this post but the last paragraph. Arbitration is unbelievably inflationary. The players take similar players as comprables that are grossly overpaid for what they are currently doing . They then say, look, I am superiour to this player infor x, y, z reason & therefore I should get as much or more (all of which I have no problem with). The problem that occurs is that the premise the arbitrator is proceeding on in my view is that the overpaid guy is the measuring stick, not what the overpaid guy really should be making.
And yes, I know the owners put forth submissions, but human being's being as they are, aregoing to give less to the guy in front of him in the arbitration than some overpaid guy that is being used as a comprable & is playing like a dog.

The only comparables allowed in arbitration are other arbitration awards and contracts negotiated with teams on the basis of past performance. That is, the contract of Bobby Holik is not admisisible in arbitration. Moreover, performance after a contract is signed by a comparable is not relevant.

So, a player is being compared to peers by both sides and using contracts that have been negotiated in the open market according to the current marketplace.

If teams are unable to persuade arbitrators as well as players, that isn't the fault of the system itself, rather the advocacy skills, or lack thereof, of league/club counsel.

The players volunteered to roll back/reset the market; in that event, the comparable players used in arbitration should be at salary levels acceptable to the league, and both parties are on equal footing to argue out the issue in front of a neutral third party.

You'd be surprised how similar the comparables are between clubs and players in arbitration. Usually it just boils down to who the arbitrator believes the player is most like/unlike.

As I have said many times before, the *only* valid criticism with arbitration as a process can be that both sides are not able to take the other side. You can argue all you want about who is better at advocating a particular side or the comparables used or the salaries of the marketplace, but that's secondary to arbitration itself.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
windowlicker said:
Call me crazy, but as a fan I could care less about a players earning potential. If the owner wants to make more, therefore residually more money could be pumped back into his organization, more power to them. Seriously, why would any fan care about an NHL player maxing out his possible career earning potential (unless your'e related to an NHLPA member, you are one, own an exotic car dealership or Gentleman's Club near a rink).

The owners have taken a very hard-line stance. Its unreasonable when compared against the current system & the players should be pissed. But that's life. The employers are dictating to their employee's what the new salary & income structure will be. There is nothing you can do but grin & bear it.

If the NHL had more parity instead of most of the stars going to rich clubs in FA or salary dumps, then I wouldn't care how much the players made. As long as the playing field was almost even or more fair than it has been.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
Some NHL players have gone to, or threatened, arbitration 2 or 3 times already. How does their proposal fix that? Players get it unlimited. Owners don't. Sounds fair huh?

Where did I say I agreed with that proposal?
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PhillyNucksFan said:
whats so ridiculous about this!?!?!

If you do so well during the course of the contract, what makes you deserve doubling the salary that you have just earned?

Say you averaged 10 goals a season and you signed 1M/year for 2 years. You scored 20 goals in each of the 2 years and you are asking for $2M because of that??

Lets put this into real world business perspective. If you are a manager at any level, and you're making $50K/year. Now, the revenue has doubled, over the 2 years, and now, you are asking for $100K/year!?!? I dont know about you, but that doesnt happen a lot in the real world. You probably get a hefty raise of 50% (pretty high raise already), and a ONE time bonus of say, $10K? That is A LOT.

A Max of 25% in my mind may be too low IMO, but 50% is certainly doable, for BOTH sides IMO.

Because the marketplace for 50-goal scorers is not $1.25m. Just like the marketplace for business managers who can double a company's revenue year-over-year isn't $100k, rather, about 100 times that.

In the REAL WORLD, managers with this capability can market themselves to the highest bidder. NHL players can't even do that - they are stuck with a team until they're 31.

I can't believe people are so seemingly ready to accept caps on how much they can make no matter how well they do or how much cash they generate for their employers. You just don't get it.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
I disagree with you. From my anecdotal recollection arbitrators award on the basis of the last year or so in the expectation that that will continue into the future. Unfortunately. quite often it doesnt& in fact the player reverts to his historical output, unfortunatly, thats not what he is now being paid to do.
If you want to take a look, look at the awards for Giguere & Turco. They barely had a track record & hit the jackpot as if they were long term proven commodities. What then happens, goalies will now use Giguere as a comprable when they have superiour stats. Thats why its so inflationary.

Well, you're wrong. Completely. Arbitrators are not permitted to guess how a player will do in the future or disregard any performance over the course of the msot recently expired contract.

You are ignorant, so quit opining on the subject as all it serves to do is spread more untruths.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
I was just saying that generally. Not specifically towards you.

Well, obviously players and clubs must be able to take the other side the same number of times, IMO, an unlimited number based on the current criteria.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Jobu said:
The only comparables allowed in arbitration are other arbitration awards and contracts negotiated with teams on the basis of past performance. That is, the contract of Bobby Holik is not admisisible in arbitration. Moreover, performance after a contract is signed by a comparable is not relevant.

.
I know that. The problem is the process is by its very inflationary. The minset of the arbitrator is not what one should get paid, the mindset is one should get paid as much if not more than peers doing the same amount (who are in fact often horribly overpaid). Do you honestlt think an arbitrator is going to use a 30 goal scorer who is making 750k a year as a comprable (maybe that in these days ogf NHL economics is the right amount), no he's going to say that guy is grossly underpaid & I will use the 4.5 million 35 goal guy as the proper yardstick.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
If the NHL had more parity instead of most of the stars going to rich clubs in FA or salary dumps, then I wouldn't care how much the players made. As long as the playing field was almost even or more fair than it has been.

So are you also in favour of ensuring that all teams have equal managerial capability? Because certainly even if every team spent the exact same amount of money, which BTW is no assurance of parity as we can see by the performance under the current system where clubs spend various amounts, I guarantee that you still see teams consistently outperforming others due to scouting, coaching, managing, etc. (ancillary support services which, BTW, do not or would not fall under a cap).
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
Because the marketplace for 50-goal scorers is not $1.25m. Just like the marketplace for business managers who can double a company's revenue year-over-year isn't $100k, rather, about 100 times that.

In the REAL WORLD, managers with this capability can market themselves to the highest bidder. NHL players can't even do that - they are stuck with a team until they're 31.

I can't believe people are so seemingly ready to accept caps on how much they can make no matter how well they do or how much cash they generate for their employers. You just don't get it.

Oh, so, if the next year, he only scored 1/2 of his goal output at 25 goals, while still being at age of 25, (just for example), do the owners get to decrease his salary by half?!

Oh, so this is a 1 way ticket for owners, take it or leave it?

Please, if you do think that a manager who doubles the revenue output will get his salary doubled, or MORE than double, even in a free market (not a limited one like NHL, after all, there are only 30 teams), I highly doubt that. Why? Because there is no guarantee of the same revenue output the year after that.

Or, you can use some of the public company exec level people who did a great job with their former company and got their SALARY DOUBLED the next year by going to another company? (excluding stock options, as those are 1 time offers, during a specific window only) As far as I am concerned, I dont know any.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
The employers are dictating to their employee's what the new salary & income structure will be. There is nothing you can do but grin & bear it.

except the players aren't really employees of the owners. horrible simplification of the whole thing
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
Jobu said:
Well, you're wrong. Completely. Arbitrators are not permitted to guess how a player will do in the future or disregard any performance over the course of the msot recently expired contract.

You are ignorant, so quit opining on the subject as all it serves to do is spread more untruths.
How are they not permitted? What stops them from doing so?
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
there's also no point in comparing the NHL and the player/owner relationship to "real world business"

it just doesn't work the same way...sports and salaries are a different beast than the whole regular employee/employer salary issues
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->