Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[Epsilon]

Both scenarios are totally against the spirit of arbitration. It should be an 11th hour measure to prevent players and teams from not reaching an agreement, which typically hurts both of them. Instead, it seems that the NHL wants to use it as a way to allow teams to sign players without having to do any negociating.

What they need to do is bring in baseball's system, where both sides present a number to the arbitrator and he has to choose one or the other. It will bring both offers closer to the middle as neither side will want to overshoot the other one.

 

[kdb209]

The structure of the NHL arbitration process and the leeway given the arbiter in deciding a salary is indeed inflationary. The arbiter is allowed to pick any amount between what the team asks for and what the player does. This allows the team to try to lowball (but it is rare to see a teams arb position less than a qualifying offer) and the player/agent to totally stretch the comps and shoot for something way more than he really expects to get. Generally, the arbitrator picks somewhere in between and the player gets a hefty raise - I beleive someone posted that the average raise was 66%, with 200-300% increases not uncommon.

A better solution I think is the arbitration process used in MLB - the arbiter can pick either the teams offer or the players, that's it - none of this split the difference cop out. The result - teams and players come in with a much narrower difference in salary. They know that if they lowball or get too greedy they will lose.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Why can't teams have checks and balances? Surely Milbury can't go out and sign Yashin without ownership giving it the green light.

They already have (for 80+ years)

The Toronto Teachers Pension Fraud OK's Owan Nolan getting big bucks to not play.....Wang proposed the Yashin contract "to show he was committed to spending to win" (then go out and trade and release his goalies and forewards for another rebuild).....

The owners are just as guilty as the GM's, if not more. M.LaPointe was a bitter cheapskate owner in Boston sticking it to the owner in Detroit.

The owners sometimes need to be reigned in as well. A league sanctioned "time-out."

 

[Other Dave]

OF COURSE arbitration is inflationary. It exists to compensate somewhat for the massively depressing effect of restricted free agency on the salaries of elite players. The players who opt for arbitration are specifically those whose earning power is most hurt by their inability to shop their skills throughout the league.

Fans who are asking for an end to arbitration full stop are really asking for either unrestricted free agency at any age for the players OR a return to the old days of the reserve clause. Which is it?

Epsilon I'd be interested in hearing more about how you think arbitration can act as incentive against hold-outs. It's unclear whether you're talking about two-way arbitration or the previous one-way system.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Probably two way......the players make waaay too much, but to return to the Lindsey/Harvey days would be assinine.

Do you reduce salaries one time and let the market push them up again or put a cap and squeeze the money down?

Arbitration should be two ways. ANY advantage should be molded to a fair and even keel.

The solution is in looking at WHAT factors pushed the average salary (NOT JUST the $6M+!!!!) from $276,000 to $1.79 million in 13 years time. Fix the problem is NOT in either side's vocabulary, just like in the game changes.

 

[Other Dave]

Arbitration should be two ways. ANY advantage should be molded to a fair and even keel.

So you don't agree that arbitration (as it stands now) and restricted free agency are countervailing institutions in the CBA?

The solution is in looking at WHAT factors pushed the average salary (NOT JUST the $6M+!!!!) from $276,000 to $1.79 million in 13 years time.

Massively increasing profits over the course of this CBA, artificially (and perhaps illegally) depressed salaries prior to this CBA, and a restricted market for Group III Free Agents account for most of the increase, I suspect, in particular those older players whose RFA salaries weren't arrested by the rookie cap. Arbitration has worked to stabilize salaries for the top echelon of those players who entered the league over the past decade.

 

[Gary]

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.

That's true...And here's what I think is one of the most funniest hypocritical thing the NHLPA has said so far..."We think players should recieve whatever contracts the owners are willing to give them (Meaning of course-If someone wants to 'overpay' then they should be allowed to)"...Seems to me the NHL owners are willing to give them a hardcap contract too-should'nt they be able to recieve that?

 

[vanlady]

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!?

The players were the first ones to introduce arbitration rights for owners in there last proposal.

 

[vanlady]

That is possibly the worst scenario for any reasonable spending club there is. Imagine what would happen if the Dolans became instantly stupid and drove over the cap. This now means that clubs like Vancouver and Calgary now watch the club cap shrink and now have to give up players because of it. Nice punish the responsible clubs.

Two way arbitration is a must. However my understanding from several articles, the owners want unlimited arbitration rights but want to limit the players to once in there career. That combined with RFA and rookie restraints is way to restrictive.

Imagine if you will you will, you work for an employer who spends millions on trips to europe (training camps in recent years), spends hundreds of millions on a new office tower (new arena), spends wildly to bring in talent instead of promoting from within, then comes to you and says he is going bankrupt. He wants you to take a 24% paycut, sign an agreement that you can't work for anyone else unless he trades you. You could remain at the same salary for 6 years, no bonuses or pay raises. This happened in BC to the BCGEU and the province exploded in anger, but you expect the players to suck it up. That is hypocritical.

 

[quat]

If you have ever spoken to an agent or GM, you would know that UFA contracts are only used as comparables for other UFAs.

.

If a team has enough money to spend x amount of dollars on UFA Joe Blow, then that effects the asking price of a player of equal or better ability, regardless of age. I'm not saying this is the only factor in wages escalating, but there certainly is an impact. To blatantly ignore this is wrong.

If you try to go to a GM as a Group II FA explaining why you're worth $15m because Holik got $9m as a Group III, you'll be laughed out of the office.

Why invent such a dumb example? I suggested nothing of the sort! If the Rangers, as an organization are willing to spend 9 million on Holik, then (for example), a better RFA's demand for say 5 million will seem like a deal, especially if it's his last contract before becoming a UFA. The team overpays if the market for star centers is just 4 million. The players value to the team is what is paramount. The contract is bigger than Holik's, but it raises the bar all the same.

Group III salaries basically have no effect on the league, at least as arbitration is concerned. The Joint Comparable Exhibit and Average League Salary calculations discount Group III, V, etc. signings.

This is why I started out MAKING THIS POINT. Please read the post again if you think I don't understand this.

As for the PA being loathe to have players sign for below market value, is that not understandable? It affects 730 players when someone signs an idiotic deal.

I had no grievance with this point, but made it to show that all things are considered "where admissable".

I remain highly sceptical that UFA signings have no impact on player value throughout the league. I have yet to read anything that convinces me otherwise. In particular, posters who insist on bring up the fact that they cannot be used in arbitration... which is only used on a small percentage of deals each season. I think people are missing the broader picture.

 

[no13matssundin]

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

And you are iggied, as only one other person is.

Welcome to Go-Flames-Go-Land.

I think the most impressive thing is that it only took 2 posts for me to put you on ignore. Thats gotta be a record.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

That's true...And here's what I think is one of the most funniest hypocritical thing the NHLPA has said so far..."We think players should recieve whatever contracts the owners are willing to give them (Meaning of course-If someone wants to 'overpay' then they should be allowed to)"...Seems to me the NHL owners are willing to give them a hardcap contract too-should'nt they be able to recieve that?

Kinda like saying a baby should breastfeed until the mom dies and her spinal chord gets sucked out her.....

Maybe that's a bit rash.

The good of the league's health. :lol

The good of the player's health. :lol

The good of the fans.

Nah...every man for himself! Fans, grab your ankles

 

[snakepliskin]

i hav;nt heard any bad rumors-name calling-about any walkouts-or fraudulent press stories in several hours did everybody just give up?

 

[quat]

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.

while I do kind of understand where you are coming from with this, I really feel that your post spells out quite dramatically what is wrong with the league.

A team takes chances on players, of which very few develop to play in the NHL. Of the ones that do, the majority are average players that don't hang around for very long. Few yet make an impact that lasts years. Of these few, one or two will be stars for most of their carreers. The team puts a great deal of time and effort into all of these players, but the ones considered the stars, the most.

So, in your example, a player breaks out after a maybe one or two years in the show, and he should immediately be valued at what? a minimum of five times his initial salary, or he's being ripped off? Even concidering the short length of a players carreer, paying this kind of player top dollar is absurd. What happened to proving yourself for years? Showing year in and year out that you can produce under the most difficult of situations... nope. One good year is enough to demand that you are paid at the top percentile of the league.

I think that is crap, and it only serves to make athletes more individuals and less team players.... but if players want the big money on their productive seasons, then they must be willing to lose the money money when they dont' produce. Arbitration has to exist for both management and players, or really, for neither.

Now, I'm not saying there should be a cap on how big a raise a player should be able to demand, but anyone can see that the disparity in team wealth demands that there is some kind of system that will keep salaries in a reasonable percentage of revenue league wide.

The fact is players are not underpaid in any of the contracts the NHL has proposed, and for them to ignore how and why the problems exist, does them no service what so ever.

Saying no to fair negotiation, simply because you think you can squeeze a little more out is rather sad, but it certainly seems to be a position both sides are willing to take.

 

[quat]

That is possibly the worst scenario for any reasonable spending club there is. Imagine what would happen if the Dolans became instantly stupid and drove over the cap. This now means that clubs like Vancouver and Calgary now watch the club cap shrink and now have to give up players because of it. Nice punish the responsible clubs.

Two way arbitration is a must. However my understanding from several articles, the owners want unlimited arbitration rights but want to limit the players to once in there career. That combined with RFA and rookie restraints is way to restrictive.

Imagine if you will you will, you work for an employer who spends millions on trips to europe (training camps in recent years), spends hundreds of millions on a new office tower (new arena), spends wildly to bring in talent instead of promoting from within, then comes to you and says he is going bankrupt. He wants you to take a 24% paycut, sign an agreement that you can't work for anyone else unless he trades you. You could remain at the same salary for 6 years, no bonuses or pay raises. This happened in BC to the BCGEU and the province exploded in anger, but you expect the players to suck it up. That is hypocritical.

All the while the employee's job market expands by 20%, their average salary increases about 10 times, and the Owner loses or makes little to no money (on average of course.). Yeah... sure sucks to be an employee in that company.

 

[vanlady]

All the while the employee's job market expands by 20%, their average salary increases about 10 times, and the Owner loses or makes little to no money (on average of course.). Yeah... sure sucks to be an employee in that company.

Whose responsibility is that the owners has not made any money? Has the owner not made these mistakes? Should the owner now be able to turn back the clock and get all the money he has lost back, on these mistakes? The clock needs to be set to today and the owners should not have the right to make all the money they have lost in the last CBA back. They lost this money by there own fault and should write it off to a mistake, just like any other business owner.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I am with the players on this one. I don't think the team should have any arbitration rights.

An Employee has the right to choose where he should work. The Employer makes those rules and the employee decides to accept work based on that.

Let the players have the arbitration rights, but let the NHL decide how much each team can operate with.

What?

i dont see your point.

that is the case if the employee is free to go anywhere, and in this case, he is not, unless the player is a UFA.

If players have rights, owners should! Why should owners always pay what players want?

Thats ridiculous

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Here's a question for you.....

If a given team has more than ONE player on the roster EVERY year who has underperformed to the extent that he needs to be taken to arbitration in order to REDUCE his salary, and if this is the case EVERY year.....

Wouldn't you say that the management/ownership is doing a LOUSY job?

Say a team like the Isles wants to get a Premier winger for Yashin. They offer Pavol Demitra $6M per year to come to Long Island. Demitra thinks this is a good deal, so he takes it. He's signed and is now a New York Islander.

During the course of the season, he's shifted around from line to line, spending large portions of the season on the 2nd, and sometimes the 3rd, lineand he's not given the opportunity to gel with any particular line-mates.

He's less effective, so his scoring drops.

Are you saying it'll be fair for the Isles to take him to arbitration and demand that he take a pay-cut down to $3M per year, on a mandatory 2 year deal?

What's to stop guys like Wirtz and Jacobs from offering the world to top level talent in order to get them to sign, only to have coaches reduce ice-time, change line-mates, and create other barriers to a player reaching his full potential in the first year of the contract, KNOWING that "underperfomance" will lead to the ability to lock that player in for two or three MORE years at what they REALLY wanted to pay him in the first place, which is considerably LESS than what the player would have agreed to come to the team for?

This is pretty much irrelevant. If what you say can be done, there is no stopping for coachs to do that, with or without the arbitration right.

and yes, if he under performed, sure!

lousy job?? So what? that has nothing to do with the player. Then the GM should get fired. That is another stop, which i see no correlation with the topic here.

 

[quat]

Whose responsibility is that the owners has not made any money? Has the owner not made these mistakes? Should the owner now be able to turn back the clock and get all the money he has lost back, on these mistakes? The clock needs to be set to today and the owners should not have the right to make all the money they have lost in the last CBA back. They lost this money by there own fault and should write it off to a mistake, just like any other business owner.

Of course not. They are simply negotiating (rather poorly these days it seems), a new CBA that makes the league as a whole healthier. You make it sound like the players are going to be substantially the poorer after the next CBA, and that simply is malarky. heh . I mean, come on! The PA has been riding a gravy train and they are loathe to get off. Nothing the Owners are asking for is tandamount to the kind of silly rhetoric that the PA is spouting. I do think the NHL is probably asking for more than they need to keep things in line, but it isn't much more.

Yeah, they lost money. And yet you seem unwilling to let them change that. Why?

 

[vanlady]

This is pretty much irrelevant. If what you say can be done, there is no stopping for coachs to do that, with or without the arbitration right.

and yes, if he under performed, sure!

lousy job?? So what? that has nothing to do with the player. Then the GM should get fired. That is another stop, which i see no correlation with the topic here.

OK so the owners get there way and there is a dispersal draft and Joe Sakic ends up in Chicago. Bill Wirtz doesn't like that Joe is making 7.6 million, he orders the coach to put him on the third and fourth line, takes him off the power play and rotates his linemates so no chemistry can develop. Bill now takes Joe to arbitration and has his pay reduced by a further 25%. As soon as the contract is signed Bill Wirtz has him put back on the top line, back on the power play and gives him decent full time line mates. Joe Sakic is now making just over 5 million dollars. He's one of the best players in the game and deserves a top paycheck, under this scenario he won't get it. Again remember you are dealing with a bunch of control freeks who have a penchant for punishing those who cross them.

 

[vanlady]

Of course not. They are simply negotiating (rather poorly these days it seems), a new CBA that makes the league as a whole healthier. You make it sound like the players are going to be substantially the poorer after the next CBA, and that simply is malarky. heh . I mean, come on! The PA has been riding a gravy train and they are loathe to get off. Nothing the Owners are asking for is tandamount to the kind of silly rhetoric that the PA is spouting. I do think the NHL is probably asking for more than they need to keep things in line, but it isn't much more.

Yeah, they lost money. And yet you seem unwilling to let them change that. Why?

Funny Brian Burke one of the biggest owner supporter there is, even says that the owners are asking way more than they need and are trying to recoup every penny they lost under the old CBA with this CBA.

 

[quat]

Funny Brian Burke one of the biggest owner supporter there is, even says that the owners are asking way more than they need and are trying to recoup every penny they lost under the old CBA with this CBA.

Actually, I don't believe that is what he said verbatim. He said that while a cap would be the best solution, at this point and time, sticking to that agenda was obviously asking too much. He also said something about Bettman being much more serious about getting what he wanted this time as he was forced to accept a CBA before that he had no stomach for.

Plus you haven't answered my post.

 

[vanlady]

Actually, I don't believe that is what he said verbatim. He said that while a cap would be the best solution, at this point and time, sticking to that agenda was obviously asking too much. He also said something about Bettman being much more serious about getting what he wanted this time as he was forced to accept a CBA before that he had no stomach for.

Plus you haven't answered my post.

I have no problem with change, however I have a problem with saddling all that change on the players. The owners have yet to make substantial offers on how they are going to change. When they do I might change my mind. Oh and one last thing, I beleived all the garbage in 94 and backed the owners then, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I suggest you look at some quotes from 94, they are almost word for word the same.

 

[kerrly]

OK so the owners get there way and there is a dispersal draft and Joe Sakic ends up in Chicago. Bill Wirtz doesn't like that Joe is making 7.6 million, he orders the coach to put him on the third and fourth line, takes him off the power play and rotates his linemates so no chemistry can develop. Bill now takes Joe to arbitration and has his pay reduced by a further 25%. As soon as the contract is signed Bill Wirtz has him put back on the top line, back on the power play and gives him decent full time line mates. Joe Sakic is now making just over 5 million dollars. He's one of the best players in the game and deserves a top paycheck, under this scenario he won't get it. Again remember you are dealing with a bunch of control freeks who have a penchant for punishing those who cross them.

First of all the dispersal draft will never ever happen. Teams will have to unload, but it will never be agreed to among the owners to allow teams pluck players of their roster. Althought the arbitration thing could be possible, but like alot of people argue, all of the years matter when you've been playing at that calibre all the time. I'm sure the arbitrator looks at ice-time and pp time when making his judgement and it would be very easy to see how his lack of production has come about.

 

[vanlady]

First of all the dispersal draft will never ever happen. Teams will have to unload, but it will never be agreed to among the owners to allow teams pluck players of their roster. Althought the arbitration thing could be possible, but like alot of people argue, all of the years matter when you've been playing at that calibre all the time. I'm sure the arbitrator looks at ice-time and pp time when making his judgement and it would be very easy to see how his lack of production has come about.

Actually no the arbitrator doesn't. The owners are not going to have a choice. They will have the choice of ditching players and unless they are going to want one star players surrounded by bit players or rookies, they are going to have to unload there best players, so yes this is a very possible situation