Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[Other Dave]

If players have rights, owners should!

Owners have the right to draft and restrict the free agency of players. Players, in return, eventually gain the right to arbitration, to ensure that the owners can't lowball negotiations indefinitely.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

cant disagree ...

you sound like Bill Watters.

DR

 

[kerrly]

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

Well then this needs to be changed, because not only is it unfair to say the "Joe Sakic's" put in this situation, it is very inflationary basing a players salary award on one year of play.

 

[vanlady]

Well then this needs to be changed, because not only is it unfair to say the "Joe Sakic's" put in this situation, it is very inflationary basing a players salary award on one year of play.

It can also be very deflationary, which is what the owners want. The owners can control pretty much anything about a players on ice life, which in the case of some of the less scrupulous owners means they can use this as a weapon against the players.

 

[kerrly]

It can also be very deflationary, which is what the owners want. The owners can control pretty much anything about a players on ice life, which in the case of some of the less scrupulous owners means they can use this as a weapon against the players.

Yes I guess that true, but we all hope that the owners do not use this as a weapon, and I have no clue of what, but I would like to see something put in place that would eliminate this from happening. In other "deflationary" aspects of this it can be good. Players should not be getting overpaid, and used properly, this will help the contracts stay somewhere in the ballpark of what they should be.

 

[vanlady]

Yes I guess that true, but we all hope that the owners do not use this as a weapon, and I have no clue of what, but I would like to see something put in place that would eliminate this from happening. In other "deflationary" aspects of this it can be good. Players should not be getting overpaid, and used properly, this will help the contracts stay somewhere in the ballpark of what they should be.

Unfortunately that is the problem, where should player contracts be? Should because of Bill Wirtzs greed, Joe Sakic be paid less than Yashin or Bertuzzi? Though I love Todd when he is on his game., Burnaby Joe is still a far better player. Whatever system is developed has to have a system that only allows an owner to take a player to arbitration once, this will eliminate intentional deflation like I have described. Owners will have to think long and hard about what benefit would be obtained by taking a player to arbitration. Don't get me wrong Jagr deserves to go to arbitration.

 

[quat]

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.

That's funny! I was pro-player in 94. Thought they deserved much more than they had had up till then. The players have nothing to complain about this time around, though I do agree that the Owners should be giving more than they have offered to date. I guess this may be a result of the PA refusing to work with anything they consider a "cap" of salaries. Dunno.

Either way... we all miss hockey.

 

[Enoch]

People keep forgetting that this wasn't a proposal. It was a discussion of ideas the NHL supported. If their was no proposal and only a discussion, what the heck is the problem. Get back to the table NHLPA and work something out. Quit whining to the media.....and start getting serious.

And before the Pro-player crowd goes ballistic - the same would apply to the NHL...

 

[thinkwild]

As has been said, players have offered teams the right to take players to arbitration, just wanted to repeat that the thread title is misleading.

But it is a bit ironic that fans complain the arbitration system being inflationary, and then demand owners should get the right to initiate arbitration.

If this is something the owners want, you'd think based on the PA's proposal it would be something quite negotiable.

Players signed to big rfa contracts, either negotiated or arbitrated, who then dont live up to them, are generally bums fans want to trade. Shutting down to ensure that players like Savage can be taken to arbitration to lower his salary so the team can still keep him, hardly seems worthwhile. Sens fans arent at a loss because Bonk or Lalime priced themselves out of their value to us.

But if the comparables system was rolled back - reset, and all RFAs HAD to go to arbitration, it seems logical to think the system wouldnt be inflationary. Meaning, as jobu said so well, its not the arbitration itself thats inflationary.

I still think the most inflationary aspect of the last cba on salaries was that revenues were growing astronomically.

 

[Sinurgy]

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.

There will be no dispersal draft so I won't say anything about that. As for your Joe Sakic scenario, while technically not impossible, I think it's fair to say that it is highly unlikely. In fact it's pretty much absurd. No one is going to stick Joe Sakic on a 4th line for a year so they can then take him to arbitration and lower his salary. To suggest that as a real scenario is simply just hyperbole.

 

[futurcorerock]

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.

What happens if all the top paid stars go to arbitration, then comparatively Joe's making great money.

Anyways, your citation is strange..... wouldnt any arbiter cite that the man gets no minutes on the third or fourth line? Average Minutes played is a tracked stat and i'm sure it would come in to play.

 

[Sammy*]

Or perhaps it's fact; I love how so many of these pro-owner people fail to recognize the incongruency of blindly siding with multi-billionaires over "overpaid" millionaires with 5-year careers and a scarce skill.

The problem is,very few are as blessed as you with such insider knowledge to lead to such clear thinking.
I love how so many of these wannabe players/agents whose sole skill is to type on a keyboard fail to recognize the incongruency of blindly siding with multi-millionaires.

 

[codswallop]

The problem is,very few are as blessed as you with such insider knowledge to lead to such clear thinking.
I love how so many of these wannabe players/agents whose sole skill is to type on a keyboard fail to recognize the incongruency of blindly siding with multi-millionaires.

Just brush it off, bro.

Even an expert economist would have a very hard time in disecting this very convoluted, very artificial market. It's an amalgam that blends many different market types into one industry, and the artificial nature of it doesn't make the task of understanding it any easier.

Comparisons to other industries simply can't hold much water, as they are very different in structure and subsequentally behavior. I've studied the nature of markets and have seen some of the applications in the real world, but I know that I have much to learn. Still, even to me, this seems fairly basic. The NHL (and the major pro sports in North American in general) are pretty unique. Those that want to categorize it in one strict way aren't seeing the entire picture, and that's a big part of what is wrong with all these debates we keep having. Lack of a real understanding. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand it all.

If someone could prove that they do, I would most definitely listen in. But as yet, I haven't seen that. Though given some of the attitude I've seen here, a few posters seem to believe that they have.

Oh well, patience is a virtue...

 

[quat]

Just brush it off, bro.

Even an expert economist would have a very hard time in disecting this very convoluted, very artificial market. It's an amalgam that blends many different market types into one industry, and the artificial nature of it doesn't make the task of understanding it any easier.

Comparisons to other industries simply can't hold much water, as they are very different in structure and subsequentally behavior. I've studied the nature of markets and have seen some of the applications in the real world, but I know that I have much to learn. Still, even to me, this seems fairly basic. The NHL (and the major pro sports in North American in general) are pretty unique. Those that want to categorize it in one strict way aren't seeing the entire picture, and that's a big part of what is wrong with all these debates we keep having. Lack of a real understanding. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand it all.

If someone could prove that they do, I would most definitely listen in. But as yet, I haven't seen that. Though given some of the attitude I've seen here, a few posters seem to believe that they have.

Oh well, patience is a virtue...

I've heard that Glenn Healy is well conversant with all aspects of the business.












Sorry... I just brought up all over the key board

Agree with your post...

 

[Jobu]

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.

Well, you'd be incorrect. The UFA market affects the market for UFAs and no one else. It simply doesn't matter what Holik or Guerin or anyone else is making when it comes to an RFA. There may be other sources of leverage, but this isn't one of them. When Bettman & Co. cite escalating salaries, they most certainly include UFAs in their calculations - but this is a relatively discrete "problem," and, frankly, one that you can hardly blame players for.

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.

Maybe you should contact an agent or two and ask them how relevant Holik and Guerin are to their negotiations. You will find that negotiations are undertaken much like arbitration with respect to comparables and the sort -- GMs will simply not recognize Group III signings unless we're talking about other Group IIIs.

Remain skeptical all you want, but UFAs are a completely different ballgame than RFAs.

 

[Jobu]

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

Owners are free to impose a "hard cap" by way of a team budget. If you want to argue for a completely free market, I'm sure the players would take that.

 

[Jobu]

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.

No, I said a player should be paid the same as a player of similar age, experience, performance, etc. He should be valued at his market value, not some artificial limiting factor. This market value may very well be 25% or less of an increase from his most recently salary. What you're arguing for is the ability for teams to lock a player into a 3-year deal at a 25% salary increase when his market value could and should be 5 times that. For example, Todd Bertuzzi would be making millions of dollars less than players who have performed similarly through his most recent platform season.

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.

Well, it can't exist for neither unless you want unrestricted free agency at the end of every contract. However, I have argued all along for two-way arbitration.

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.

I thought that's what you WERE arguing in your first paragraph? As for linking revenues with salaries, that is another tipic, but also completely absurd. As others have pointed out, this completely leaves players to the whim of NHL fortune and managerial marketing competence. If Bettman is unable to sign a TV deal due to his incompetence, or no one watches hockey in all of the crappy markets the NHL is in, players' salaries go down.

If you want to argue for a salary cap, that's one thing. But to link it to revenues on top of that is so absurd that I can't believe anyone who puts himself in the players' shoes for a second would think of it as at all reasonable.

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.

Relative to what are the players underpaid? Please, not another "doctors and teachers should make more" argument. The fact is, players are the product and generate billions of dollars for their employers; without players, there is nothing. They deserve a significant piece of the pie.

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.

It's the NHLPA who has made the creative proposals thus far; all the owners have done is re-package completely non-starter issues several times. For them to expect an impasse declaration is a joke.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Owners are free to impose a "hard cap" by way of a team budget. If you want to argue for a completely free market, I'm sure the players would take that.

Actually, without some form of cost control in place the owners are not free to do what you suggest. All it takes is one mistake, and all 29 other teams have to live with it. The players collude to make sure that salaries continue to spiral out of control and can hold the team hostage with a hold out. The owners are forced at some point to capitulate either by signing the player or trading him to another another team that is willing to take on more salary and get another name player. Ownership is not allowed to do what the players are in an attempt to control salaries. Claiming that sticking to a budget will fix all that ills the game is naive. Cost controls must be put in place to help the owners deal with the collusion that the players have working in their favor. The best one possible in that regard is a salary cap as it halts ALL teams from making stupid mistakes that everyone has to live with.

 

[Jobu]

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?

The NHLPA has offered several concessions to help the owners cure their supposed CBA ills. But the fact is, it all comes down to managerial (in)competence.

 

[Jobu]

Well then this needs to be changed, because not only is it unfair to say the "Joe Sakic's" put in this situation, it is very inflationary basing a players salary award on one year of play.

This inflationary argument is just so ill-informed. As I have discussed several times, it's only inflationary, or seems that way, because it reflects the marketplace, and more importantly, only strong cases are taken to arbitration. If a team has the right to take a player, there is no reason why the process can't be "deflationary" (depending on where the level of qualifying offer is set) or otherwise reflect a negotiation in a case where a player doesn't deserve his qualifying offer.

Remember, salaries don't go down for RFA's because of qualifying offers. Which the owners agreed to and even in their most recent proposal did not propose to cut hugely.

 

[Jobu]

Actually, without some form of cost control in place the owners are not free to do what you suggest. All it takes is one mistake, and all 29 other teams have to live with it. The players collude to make sure that salaries continue to spiral out of control and can hold the team hostage with a hold out. The owners are forced at some point to capitulate either by signing the player or trading him to another another team that is willing to take on more salary and get another name player. Ownership is not allowed to do what the players are in an attempt to control salaries. Claiming that sticking to a budget will fix all that ills the game is naive. Cost controls must be put in place to help the owners deal with the collusion that the players have working in their favor. The best one possible in that regard is a salary cap as it halts ALL teams from making stupid mistakes that everyone has to live with.

How do other teams have to live with it? And how does a salary cap halt so-called "stupid mistakes"?

If someone is holding out, trade him. If you can't afford a player, don't sign him. No one forces teams to maintain a player. Sometimes you have to make tough calls, and perhaps two $3m players are better than one $8m player.

Just because there is a cap on how much a team can spend doesn't stop idiotic management from overpaying or making stupid decisions.

You have to attack the root cause of the problem, not one of its indicators.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Now, mind you, I'm in the middle on this and believe neither side is proposing enough* and the net sum of what I've heard equates to fans paying more eventually or soon, but....

Do you honestly feel the players are at ZERO fault for salaries.....that UFA salaries have ZERO impact (though indirect as I repeatedly emphasize) on RFA market, that agents and players are innocent bystanders in the mess the owners are 100% to blame for?

Please clarify.

I'll send flowers to Goodenow for misunderstanding my ticket price escalations.

(Bettman has steel tips waiting for his bum, as always)


(poster is tired of people adamantly defending either side, as they both walk away with more and more of MY hard earned dollar every year for less entertainment every year)

 

[vanlady]

What happens if all the top paid stars go to arbitration, then comparatively Joe's making great money.

Anyways, your citation is strange..... wouldnt any arbiter cite that the man gets no minutes on the third or fourth line? Average Minutes played is a tracked stat and i'm sure it would come in to play.

Ahhh but that is the million dollar question, will teams like Vancouver take Bert to arbitration when the rest of the payroll is pretty much in line with the cap? I am specifically talking about less than scrupulous owners like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs here not owners as a whole.

 

[vanlady]

Just brush it off, bro.

Even an expert economist would have a very hard time in disecting this very convoluted, very artificial market. It's an amalgam that blends many different market types into one industry, and the artificial nature of it doesn't make the task of understanding it any easier.

Comparisons to other industries simply can't hold much water, as they are very different in structure and subsequentally behavior. I've studied the nature of markets and have seen some of the applications in the real world, but I know that I have much to learn. Still, even to me, this seems fairly basic. The NHL (and the major pro sports in North American in general) are pretty unique. Those that want to categorize it in one strict way aren't seeing the entire picture, and that's a big part of what is wrong with all these debates we keep having. Lack of a real understanding. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand it all.

If someone could prove that they do, I would most definitely listen in. But as yet, I haven't seen that. Though given some of the attitude I've seen here, a few posters seem to believe that they have.

Oh well, patience is a virtue...

Actually expert economists that specialize in pro sports have not had any problem disecting the issue. Zimbalist, Dunn and Ross have all written articles on the issues in all the major sports. Articles, papers and books are available from these gentlemen and are very informative. The one thing they all agree on is that the NHL will be in the same position 5 years from now without significant revenue sharing. As a matter of fact a study published by one of Zimbalists grad students complete blows holes in several aspects of the NHL arguement. Most of the papers and books are available at your local library if you specifically look for them.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

That's the problem that has to get fixed.

But the PA and the League BOTH are siding with the big owners and the cheapskates.

(playoff revenue sharing? UFA talks? do any of the items proposed really curb or shift the problems?)

I find Wirtz and Jacobs as guilty as Comcast, MSG and the TO Teachers Fund of crippling the game. But they're apparently calling the shots in both camps. Just my take.