Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[thedjpd]

Except the players work for the individual teams, not the NHL. Your analogy makes sense if a player is allowed to become a free agent at the end of every contract he signs.

Does that not work in the reverse as well?

If a contract is signed and the player isn't delivering, he can't just be "terminated."

He's still going to get paid for it. Once it's signed, he'll get that money in some way or another.

Why should he be allowed to up and quit if he feels he's not getting what he's worth, but can't be terminated if he's getting more than he's worth?

 

[Jobu]

Ahh, ok, now we're talking. You mentioned the relation between the overall revenue/profit of the franchise vs their own salary, is this correct?

So, you are saying, a player is doing so well, and the franchise is making millions, the players should get a cut from the earnigns!?

this sounds more like a partnership relationship, which is not the relationship between player/owner, to me.

Oh, are you saying because the revenue they generated is directly related to their performance on ice?

Well, lets look at the cost and expenses, which relates to risks, how much investment is playing putting into the business? I never heard of a player investing in the franchise WHILE playing. (ok, lets put mario aside). Therefore, the players bear no cost and no risk, and they have zero opportunity cost of the dollar forgone. On this basis alone, they dont deserve what the franchise is making money, that is if they are making money.

when the franchise is losing money, I dont see players voluntarily wants pay cuts to help out the franchise? rather, they have "if you cant afford me, trade me" concepts.

Its just not right

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying.

The point is, owners would have no product without their employees, and it is not the players' who pay themselves and it's not their oblgiation to ensure the financial health of not just their team but the Nashvilles of the world as well.

 

[Sammy*]

You don't get it. Do you not think that negotiations work the exact same way? You're obviously not very good at it if every year you go into a review accepting 50% less than what a guy down the street doing the exact same job with the exact same resume is getting.

You dont get it , do you. Its the process that is inflationary in my view. There is a wide spectrum of people getting paid in what I do, in this city. Thats just the facts Jack. If you dont think it is, you really have no idea. If arbitration is availiable, there is no doubt it would be highly inflationary for the firms in my city. You dont have to agree. You also dont have to be an ******* in the process though.

 

[Jobu]

So basically...nothing. It's sort of how a comment made in a coutroom is not admissable so the judge tells the jury not to consider the remark that was made.

The parties may offer evidence of the following:

the overall performance, including official statistics prepared by the League (both offensive and defensive) of the Player in the previous season or seasons;

the number of games played by the Player, his injuries or illnesses during the preceding seasons;

the length of service of the Player in the League and/or with the Club;

the overall contribution of the Player to the competitive success or failure of his Club in the preceding season;

any special qualities of leadership or public appeal not inconsistent with the fulfillment of his responsibilities as a playing member of his team;

the overall performance in the previous season or seasons of any player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player whose salary is in dispute; and


The Compensation of any player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player, provided, however, that in applying this or any of the above subparagraphs, the Arbitrator shall not consider a player(s) to be comparable to the party Player unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the player(s) is comparable; nor shall the Arbitrator consider the Compensation or performance of a player(s) unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the player(s) is comparable.

To the extent a non-cash economic item does not have an attributed value set forth in the player's contract or any addenda thereto, the parties shall attribute a value thereto by mutual agreement or, failing to reach such agreement, then such value shall be determined by the Impartial Arbitrator.

The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Arbitrator:

Any contract the term of which began when the player party to such contract was not a Group II Player;

Any contract entered into by an Unrestricted Free Agent, including contracts signed by players after the player's Club has exercised a walk-away right pursuant to Section 12.6;

Qualifying Offers made by the Club pursuant to Section 10.2;

Any prior offers or history of negotiations between the Player and the Club;

Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;

Any reference to actual or potential walk-away rights;

Any award issued by an arbitrator as to which a Club exercised its walk-away rights pursuant to Section 12.6;

The financial condition of the Club or the League.
In presenting any player's Compensation in a brief, the first reference thereto shall be a complete breakdown by component parts (clearly identified) of all such player's Compensation figures in the same format as the Joint Exhibit.

 

[barnburner]

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.

The arbitration process is a joke in every sport. It forces clubs to give in the players in most cases, because the process is designed to give the players what they want in anything but the most extreme cases.
Of course, if the player can get a huge inflated contract based on one single great year, then he should be subject to a contract correction if he gets fat and decided to float for a year.
Fair is fair.

 

[thedjpd]

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying.

The point is, owners would have no product without their employees, and it is not the players' who pay themselves and it's not their oblgiation to ensure the financial health of not just their team but the Nashvilles of the world as well.

If the owners choose to have no product, that's their right. And you're right, it's not the player's right to ensure the financial status of the owners. It is the responsibilty of the owners. And with that ability comes the right to choose which products to terminate and which to keep. It happens all the time. If a product isn't making you enough money, you either invest less money in it or scrap it. They're trying to invest less money into it, instead of scrapping it. It is most definitely their perogative to choose how much to invest.

Whether or not that will work remains to be seen.

 

[Epsilon]

Does that not work in the reverse as well?

If a contract is signed and the player isn't delivering, he can't just be "terminated."

He's still going to get paid for it. Once it's signed, he'll get that money in some way or another.

Why should he be allowed to up and quit if he feels he's not getting what he's worth, but can't be terminated if he's getting more than he's worth?

That's far too simplistic. In most businesses, the contracts can be guaranteed or not guaranteed. Guaranteed money has often been used a tool for businesses to lure desirable employees away from their competitors. In negociated CBAs, language can be inserted as to the guaranteed or non-guaranteed status of contracts.

 

[Jobu]

You dont get it , do you. Its the process that is inflationary in my view. There is a wide spectrum of people getting paid in what I do, in this city. Thats just the facts Jack. If you dont think it is, you really have no idea. If arbitration is availiable, there is no doubt it would be highly inflationary for the firms in my city. You dont have to agree. You also dont have to be an ******* in the process though.

So why don't we outlaw negotiation, too, since that is by definition inflationary according to your criteria? Let's just have the owners determine who should be paid how much and for how long. Now I get it.

 

[Levitate]

It's like me going to a company saying, "Pay me this or I won't work for you." What will they say? "Ok, don't work for me. We don't think you're worth that much."

except that's not the case with every job and with every person. there are situations where a person can do that and companies will pay them what they ask if they are desired enough. some people are highly valued for what they do and companies are willing to bid for their services.

sports is that kind of situation

 

[Jobu]

If the owners choose to have no product, that's their right. And you're right, it's not the player's right to ensure the financial status of the owners. It is the responsibilty of the owners. And with that ability comes the right to choose which products to terminate and which to keep. It happens all the time. If a product isn't making you enough money, you either invest less money in it or scrap it. They're trying to invest less money into it, instead of scrapping it.

Whether or not that will work remains to be seen.

So do you support abolition of the amateur draft and free agency from the beginning? I mean, employees should have a right to choose who to work for and when, and when to quit as well, no? If a player doesn't like what's going on with one team, can't he just pick up and leave?

 

[thedjpd]

That's far too simplistic. In most businesses, the contracts can be guaranteed or not guaranteed. Guaranteed money has often been used a tool for businesses to lure desirable employees away from their competitors. In negociated CBAs, language can be inserted as to the guaranteed or non-guaranteed status of contracts.

All contracts in the NHL are guaranteed as per the last signing. There is potential to earn more, as in performance bonuses, but there is no potential to earn less. If the players want that kind of freedom, they have to give the owners that same type of freedom.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

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.

 

[thedjpd]

So do you support abolition of the amateur draft and free agency from the beginning? I mean, employees should have a right to choose who to work for and when, and when to quit as well, no? If a player doesn't like what's going on with one team, can't he just pick up and leave?

In theory, he should.

And that is where the issue of contracts comes into play. Guarnateed or not.

I don't think they were ever 'close' to a deal. Right now, there are too many changes that need to be made.

It all has to do with matching the freedoms given to the owners, and given to the players; differently, but equally.

I'm not going to begin to claim I understnad how to come up with that, but that's the dilemma.

 

[Jobu]

All contracts in the NHL are guaranteed as per the last signing. There is potential to earn more, as in performance bonuses, but there is no potential to earn less. If the players want that kind of freedom, they have to give the owners that same type of freedom.

OK, and if your employer asked you to take a cut for being less productive than in the previous year, what would you say?

 

[thedjpd]

OK, and if your employer asked you to take a cut for being less productive than in the previous year, what would you say?

What could you say? Either take it or leave. Believe it or not, I as of recently have just entered the corporate world. It's happened.

Edit: There's always another guy that will do it for that cut price.

 

[Jobu]

In theory, he should.

And that is where the issue of contracts comes into play. Guarnateed or not.

I don't think they were ever 'close' to a deal. Right now, there are too many changes that need to be made.

It all has to do with matching the freedoms given to the owners, and given to the players; differently, but equally.

I'm not going to begin to claim I understnad how to come up with that, but that's the dilemma.

You'd have a hard time convincing Bettman & Co. that a player should be free from the start and throughout.

 

[Jobu]

What could you say? Either take it or leave. Believe it or not, I as of recently have just entered the corporate world. It's happened.

But you can leave and player's can't. That's where your little theory falls apart. By all means, if you want to allow players the freedom to move from team to team whenever they want, they'll take it.

 

[thedjpd]

You'd have a hard time convincing Bettman & Co. that a player should be free from the start and throughout.

Heh, I never intended to convince anybody.

I'm talking about rights. If players want the right to not-honor contracts, the employees should as well.

If employers want the right to hold on to players, they should have the right to leave.

 

[thedjpd]

But you can leave and player's can't. That's where your little theory falls apart. By all means, if you want to allow players the freedom to move from team to team whenever they want, they'll take it.

It's not a theory.

It's about concessions.

Edit: But no matter what, the employers do hold the ultimate say. They invest the money. The players may be the product, but the employers make the product possible.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying.

The point is, owners would have no product without their employees, and it is not the players' who pay themselves and it's not their oblgiation to ensure the financial health of not just their team but the Nashvilles of the world as well.

What i mean is that Players does not invest in the franchise, and therefore, they DO NOT deserve to get a piece of pie that the franchise is making.

Until Players share the same risk and invest in the franchise, they should get what they are paid to do, and that is it.

Product? they are the product?

Let me discuss this a bit further. Players no question is the most important ingredient of the product, but the "most" of the product. Owners market their products and mark up their products. If the owners decide today to use best of the AHL or european/russian league players, they can. (not saying it is the best way), but they can and they robably could still make money after adjusting with appropriate costs and prices.

Now, as for the players, NHL is the ONLY, and i repeat, THE ONLY, market that is even willing to pay them in millions to play. To me, that doesnt seem like an "option" for the players. Now, sure, the players can make 1M in europe, but then, that 1M is not more than 5M that he is going to ask for in the NHL??


Please, they are just as closely related and they need each other. If you want to segregate and accentuate the fact that players are products, then, i must tell you, there are no products if owners dont provide you with the necessary means.

End of story.

Until players start investing in the franchise, they are strictly ON PAYROLL to PAYROLL employee basis, with a contract.

 

[Sammy*]

So why don't we outlaw negotiation, too, since that is by definition inflationary according to your criteria? Let's just have the owners determine who should be paid how much and for how long. Now I get it.

No, lets keep negotiation in but outlaw arbitration.
By the way, are you now agreeing that arbitration as it is presently framed is highly inflationary?

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

No, lets keep negotiation in but outlaw arbitration.
By the way, are you now agreeing that arbitration as it is presently framed is highly inflationary?

Its track records have proven this point already

 

[Sammy*]

Of course, if the player can get a huge inflated contract based on one single great year,

According to Jobu, that doesnt happen.
By the way . I'm still looking for his Giguere response but he has been deathly silent.

 

[Sammy*]

That's far too simplistic. In most businesses, the contracts can be guaranteed or not guaranteed. Guaranteed money has often been used a tool for businesses to lure desirable employees away from their competitors. In negociated CBAs, language can be inserted as to the guaranteed or non-guaranteed status of contracts.

I dunno where you work, but I am in the business/professional world & there are very, very, very few guaranteed contracts in my world.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I dunno where you work, but I am in the business/professional world & there are very, very, very few guaranteed contracts in my world.

depends on what kind of "business" you are in.