Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[PhillyNucksFan]

according to the article link posted in the first page of this thread,

owners wants to limit the award to 25% (which i think is not enough)
and they want to make the contract terms optional from 1-3 years (fair enough)
the right to take players do arbitration (definitely! )

In the last CBA, it said, owners have no right to send layres to arbitration!

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I agree with that completely. Whose fault was it that they only let players opt for arbitration?

This is exactly why Betteman should get fireddddddddddd

 

[Levitate]

i think it's mainly that the players object to the only 25% increase thing and the fact that they could get locked into a 3 year deal with only a 25% increase even if they "win" their arbitration and deserve more. someone posted a scenario such as a player who had a $1 mill/year contract for several years and really broke out and upped his game for the last several years, becoming an all-star, leading point getter, all of that...his team could just take him to arbitration and even if they "lose" they still win cuz they only have to shell out an additional 250k for this all-star player and they could get him locked up at that rate for 3 years.

definatly hypothetical and all but not far fetched...you can see where it might happen in recent years with guys like iginla and st. louis.

of course on the flip side i think that it needs to be designed so players don't get huge raises when they don't deserve them via arbitration either.

 

[Sammy*]

You have proven your inability to comprehend the basics of arbitration, so you are of no use to this thread.

You have proven incapable of rational thought, you are quite thick as to not be able to understand that arbitration is highlly inflationary despite al the evidence. The point of arbitration may be to mirror negotiation but the effect of it is much different.Its really not that tough a concept to grasp if you think reaaal hard.
I guess virtually everybody involved on the management side is wrong (they have said this all along, that it is a real problem cause it is so inflationary) & you are right.

 

[CarlRacki]

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.

Actually, you're forgetting the most important component in arbitration: comparables.
This is why arbitration has become such an inflationary process and why one dumb signing can screw things up for the entire league.

Let's say Team A gets stupid and gives its 25-year-old 20-goal scorer a $4.5 million contract. Guess what happens next? Every other mid 20s, 20-goal scorer wants to go to arbitration and demand $4.5 million. In many cases, they'll win because the market rules in most arbitration hearings. And in this case, thanks to one dumb signing, the market has ruled that a player of this ilk is worth $4.5 million.

 

[CarlRacki]

This is exactly why Betteman should get fireddddddddddd

Actually, it was a block of owners (including that of your beloeved Flyers) who panicked went against Bettman's recommendations to sign the '94 deal. Bettman was brought to the league for the primary purpose of getting a salary cap like the one he was instrumental in creating for the NBA. The big-market owners crumbled and didn't let him do his job.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

i think it's mainly that the players object to the only 25% increase thing and the fact that they could get locked into a 3 year deal with only a 25% increase even if they "win" their arbitration and deserve more. someone posted a scenario such as a player who had a $1 mill/year contract for several years and really broke out and upped his game for the last several years, becoming an all-star, leading point getter, all of that...his team could just take him to arbitration and even if they "lose" they still win cuz they only have to shell out an additional 250k for this all-star player and they could get him locked up at that rate for 3 years.

definatly hypothetical and all but not far fetched...you can see where it might happen in recent years with guys like iginla and st. louis.

of course on the flip side i think that it needs to be designed so players don't get huge raises when they don't deserve them via arbitration either.

rejecting on the 25% basis is the right thing. Way too low.

As for 1-3 year option, I think its fair, because it provides cost stability, which is one of the factors considered when you do a business plan (signing new players? trades? )


If they wish to include up to 3 year option, then at very least, they should allow 50% or higher of pay increase. Mind you, this is the ceiling, and not all cases will receive full 50% raise maximum too.

 

[Jobu]

You have proven incapable of rational thought, you are quite thick as to not be able to understand that arbitration is highlly inflationary despite al the evidence.
I guess virtually everybody involved on the management side is wrong (they have said this all along) & you are right.
What a clown. Grow up.m

Where did I say arbitration isn't inflationary? I have agreed all along that that's the case, but it's not the cause of arbitration to the exclusion of the reality of negotiation.

Your argument is that because arbitration is inflationary, arbitration is bad. By that logic, or illogic, negotiation is bad, because it is also inflationary. But I think they tried communism - it didn't work.

You don't know the rules of arbitration and you are unable to realize that arbitration isn't inflationary because of arbitration per se but because of other issues, i.e., the marketplace itself.

So, I suggest you have your mommy get you a book out at the library to help you understand these things. Until then, continue to blindly side with the owners like many of your other cronies. Just know you won't get any respect.

 

[Sammy*]

Actually, you're forgetting the most important component in arbitration: comparables.
This is why arbitration has become such an inflationary process and why one dumb signing can screw things up for the entire league.

Let's say Team A gets stupid and gives its 25-year-old 20-goal scorer a $4.5 million contract. Guess what happens next? Every other mid 20s, 20-goal scorer wants to go to arbitration and demand $4.5 million. In many cases, they'll win because the market rules in most arbitration hearings. And in this case, thanks to one dumb signing, the market has ruled that a player of this ilk is worth $4.5 million.

\
He doesnt get it. You are truly wasting your time.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Actually, it was a block of owners (including that of your beloeved Flyers) who panicked went against Bettman's recommendations to sign the '94 deal. Bettman was brought to the league for the primary purpose of getting a salary cap like the one he was instrumental in creating for the NBA. The big-market owners crumbled and didn't let him do his job.

heh

notice the nuckfan?

I;m a vancouver canucks fan. .just working in philly, thats all.

Oh yes, i cheered vancouver when they visited last year.

 

[Jobu]

Actually, you're forgetting the most important component in arbitration: comparables.
This is why arbitration has become such an inflationary process and why one dumb signing can screw things up for the entire league.

Let's say Team A gets stupid and gives its 25-year-old 20-goal scorer a $4.5 million contract. Guess what happens next? Every other mid 20s, 20-goal scorer wants to go to arbitration and demand $4.5 million. In many cases, they'll win because the market rules in most arbitration hearings. And in this case, thanks to one dumb signing, the market has ruled that a player of this ilk is worth $4.5 million.

Actually, you're wrong.

First of all, one player does not a market make.

Second of all, how does this differ from negotiation? Agents base their demands on the market and comparables as well. It's the exact same thing - nothing particular at all about arbitration.

If the market for a mid-20s, 20-goal scorer is $4.5m, then such a player deserves $4.5m, whether it be through negotiation or arbitration.

You're arguing that owners need a foolproof system to save themselves from, well, themselves. That's idiotic, especially when the players have offered a framework within which the owners should be able to re-set things and start from a clean slate.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Actually, you're wrong.

First of all, one player does not a market make.

Second of all, how does this differ from negotiation? Agents base their demands on the market and comparables as well. It's the exact same thing - nothing particular at all about arbitration.

Actually there is a difference.

Arbitration is a form of negotiation, through an unrelated third party, whereas, negotiation itself is usually among the parties involved.

There is a difference here.

Also, once a negotation is made, all parties are not required and limited to this result as they can just break off. But, once an arbitration ruling has been made, they cant re-negotiate and it is now a take it or leave it case, where if the owners decide not to agree, they lose the player to UFA.


Arbitration = negotation, but negotation =/= arbitration.

 

[Jobu]

Actually there is a difference.

Arbitration is a form of negotiation, through an unrelated third party, whereas, negotiation itself is usually among the parties involved.

There is a difference here.

Also, once a negotation is made, all parties are not required and limited to this result as they can just break off. But, once an arbitration ruling has been made, they cant re-negotiate and it is now a take it or leave it case, where if the owners decide not to agree, they lose the player to UFA.


Arbitration = negotation, but negotation =/= arbitration.

Actually, you are somewhat right. The problem is, arbitration is actually "fairer" and more accurate a picture of a player's worth -- at least with respect to his hockey playing ability. Whereas a player's fan appeal, sentimentality, and other extraneous issues can factor into a negotation, they are largely absent from the arbitration process.

The point is, properly designed, arbitration is meant to mirror negotiation, to fit a player in the appropriate marketplace. Whether a player is perceived to be paid too much as a result of arbitration isn't because of the arbitration process, rather the marketplace on which an arbitrator's decision is based.

It's simple, really.

 

[Sammy*]

Where did I say arbitration isn't inflationary? I have agreed all along that that's the case, but it's not the cause of arbitration to the exclusion of the reality of negotiation.

Your argument is that because arbitration is inflationary, arbitration is bad. By that logic, or illogic, negotiation is bad, because it is also inflationary. But I think they tried communism - it didn't work.

You don't know the rules of arbitration and you are unable to realize that arbitration isn't inflationary because of arbitration per se but because of other issues, i.e., the marketplace itself.

So, I suggest you have your mommy get you a book out at the library to help you understand these things. Until then, continue to blindly side with the owners like many of your other cronies. Just know you won't get any respect.

First you say arbitration isnt a problem. Then you say its not really inflationary. Now you say it is inflationary but its because of other factors. Who cares what the reasons are. It is what it is. The fact of the matter is the end result is highly inflationary. I guess in your world they cant change the system of arbitration in any way. It must be nice to be a linear thinker.
And by the way, if its not so highly inflationary, why are the players so steadfast in the refusal to change it in any meaningful way.
Oh by the way, keep on truckin on the Giguere issue, Its taking a little longer than I thought though it must be bedtime soon..

 

[Levitate]

ok i looked back at the other argument we were having, and i think i see where you're coming from, but i honestly am too fried to come up with a decent rebuttal at the moment (not that i couldn't, but at this point it'd be some rambling mess and i'd probably get impatient and scrap it)

if this thread is still alive at some point tomorrow or something maybe i'll jump back into it, if not, eh i guess i'll let you say you won, cuz i'm too apathetic at this point

 

[CarlRacki]

Actually, you're wrong.

First of all, one player does not a market make.

Second of all, how does this differ from negotiation? Agents base their demands on the market and comparables as well. It's the exact same thing - nothing particular at all about arbitration.

If the market for a mid-20s, 20-goal scorer is $4.5m, then such a player deserves $4.5m, whether it be through negotiation or arbitration.

You're arguing that owners need a foolproof system to save themselves from, well, themselves. That's idiotic, especially when the players have offered a framework within which the owners should be able to re-set things and start from a clean slate.

Yes, when it comes to arbitration, one player can make a market. The fact that you say it doesn't does not make it so.
As 'Nucks fan pointed out below, there's a huge difference between arbitration and negotiation.
Market price and value are two very different things. Any home owner can tell you that.
Yes, the owners do need an idiot proof system to save themselves from themselves. Can't you see this? Have you been hibernating for the last 10 years? The players offer was laughable because it contained no components to control spending, which is the one thing the NHL needs most.

 

[CarlRacki]

Whether a player is perceived to be paid too much as a result of arbitration isn't because of the arbitration process, rather the marketplace on which an arbitrator's decision is based.

It's simple, really.

Yes, it is simple. It's also what I just said. If one owner sets the marketplace out of whack by spending too much on a player, it effects everyone else, especially when arbitration is involved.
Thanks for your inadvertant agreement.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Actually, you are somewhat right. The problem is, arbitration is actually "fairer" and more accurate a picture of a player's worth -- at least with respect to his hockey playing ability. Whereas a player's fan appeal, sentimentality, and other extraneous issues can factor into a negotation, they are largely absent from the arbitration process.

The point is, properly designed, arbitration is meant to mirror negotiation, to fit a player in the appropriate marketplace. Whether a player is perceived to be paid too much as a result of arbitration isn't because of the arbitration process, rather the marketplace on which an arbitrator's decision is based.

It's simple, really.

Nothing is simple with multi-million dollar business.

That is the ideal situation of arbitration and I am not arguing against that.


Actually, I dont know what exactly you are arguing here.



Are you arguing, from the last post you made, that, arbitration is "fairer" than negotiation?

I dont understand the correlation here as players go to arbitration because the negotation break off?!

Arbitration is not "fairer", it is just a tool for both parties to maximize their "own value".

It is neither meant to be fair to either party; rather, again, just a tool to determine based on the information given and HOW the information is presented.

 

[Jobu]

Yes, when it comes to arbitration, one player can make a market. The fact that you say it doesn't does not make it so.
As 'Nucks fan pointed out below, there's a huge difference between arbitration and negotiation.
Market price and value are two very different things. Any home owner can tell you that.
Yes, the owners do need an idiot proof system to save themselves from themselves. Can't you see this? Have you been hibernating for the last 10 years? The players offer was laughable because it contained no components to control spending, which is the one thing the NHL needs most.

One player does not make a market. Coming from someone with experience in NHL salary arbitration, believe me. But aside from that, grow a brain: if you have 10 players who are similar, 9 of whom make $1m and 1 who makes $10m, where do you think the player will slot in?

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

ok i looked back at the other argument we were having, and i think i see where you're coming from, but i honestly am too fried to come up with a decent rebuttal at the moment (not that i couldn't, but at this point it'd be some rambling mess and i'd probably get impatient and scrap it)

if this thread is still alive at some point tomorrow or something maybe i'll jump back into it, if not, eh i guess i'll let you say you won, cuz i'm too apathetic at this point

lol

not saying you cant.

I never underestimate anyone here as anyone here could be a business option for me. haha, now or future.

Like i said though, I am approaching this topic from a businessman's standpoint and view and how I see it and how I would manage and approach the argument.

Im really not pro owner (as i dont believe their financial statement as well, since I tweak mine often too. lol ), and not pro-players either (because they dont deserve a piece of thie 100 million revenue or something by doing their job and fulfill their professionalism)

 

[Jobu]

Nothing is simple with multi-million dollar business.

That is the ideal situation of arbitration and I am not arguing against that.


Actually, I dont know what exactly you are arguing here.



Are you arguing, from the last post you made, that, arbitration is "fairer" than negotiation?

I dont understand the correlation here as players go to arbitration because the negotation break off?!

Arbitration is not "fairer", it is just a tool for both parties to maximize their "own value".

It is neither meant to be fair to either party; rather, again, just a tool to determine based on the information given and HOW the information is presented.

As I have said a million times, arbitration is only a reflection of the marketplace and the fact that inflation is prevalent not because of arbitration itself.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Yes, it is simple. It's also what I just said. If one owner sets the marketplace out of whack by spending too much on a player, it effects everyone else, especially when arbitration is involved.
Thanks for your inadvertant agreement.

if there is just one case, by the law of arithemetic median, it doesnt matter, because the particular extrodinary event is neglible and has relatively low effect on the aggregate outcome of the market setting.

So, no. not entirely true, IMO.

 

[Jobu]

Yes, it is simple. It's also what I just said. If one owner sets the marketplace out of whack by spending too much on a player, it effects everyone else, especially when arbitration is involved.
Thanks for your inadvertant agreement.

Please, give me an example of where one signing has sent the marketplace out of whack as regards arbitration in particular.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

As I have said a million times, arbitration is only a reflection of the marketplace and the fact that inflation is prevalent not because of arbitration itself.

umm.. im not disagreeing with this definition... what the heck are we talking about then..

lol..

i'd very very much like to know that I didnt waste last hour posting something useless..

#$*@#$

 

[CarlRacki]

One player does not make a market. Coming from someone with experience in NHL salary arbitration, believe me. But aside from that, grow a brain: if you have 10 players who are similar, 9 of whom make $1m and 1 who makes $10m, where do you think the player will slot in?

Grow a brain. That's clever. I bet you even thought of that one all by yourself. Did you use it often in your vast array of NHL arbitration experiences? (Cause I believe uyou. I really do.)

As for your question - despite its absolute absurdity - it all depends on the chronology of the contracts. I can guarantee, though, that player #11 won't get $1 million.