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.
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.