The TSN Solution

[dawgbone]

I don't mind the idea that the team can take a player to arbitration. The reason this was suggested by Brian Burke has nothing to do with cutting a salary when a guy has a bad year. It is really hard to imagine that scenario.

Burke wants to do away with holdouts. That was one of the points he made when he negotiated the CBA. Holdouts were a real problem before this CBA and there should not be any hold outs. A holdout never pays for the player, but some player agents haven't figured it out yet. Arbitration produces a fair result when there is a dispute.

Burke has often said he is not afraid of arbitration. What he hated was a player who passed on arbitration as a process to resolve a dispute.

"A player who passes on arbitration is trying to raise the bar," Burke often said. "They are using the threat of a hold out because they want a deal that is more than merely fair. It isn't right. The CBA is designed to avoid hold outs."

(This was before the NHL was pedaling the myth that arbitration was inflationary.)

Dude... you really need to stop talking.

a). If you are going to quote a guy, provide a link.

b). How can Burke like arbitration, when his first arbitration case had him dish out this famous quote:

"After inviting us into the alley, you can't complain if you get kicked in the groin."

That sure doesn't sound like someone who likes the arbitration process, and feels that it is a good thing.

or how about this quote:

"Guys that file every year [ make it a ] highly inflationary process," states Burke.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2004/09/14/Sports/burke040914.html

He wants to eliminate holdouts by instituting a drop dead signing date... not the 2-way arbitration system.

Why are you making quotes up for?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

b). How can Burke like arbitration, when his first arbitration case had him dish out this famous quote:

"After inviting us into the alley, you can't complain if you get kicked in the groin."

That sure doesn't sound like someone who likes the arbitration process, and feels that it is a good thing.

i read that to mean he enjoys the chance to get his shots in.

dr

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Neither liked it...big surprise These two guys are not going to be able to get a deal done... neither wants to flinch at all, very sad for the PA and the owners, but mostly the fans! The TSN solution wasn't meant to be the end all be all, it was suppose to give these guys an idea on how to compromise on the 6 sticking points, Gary and Knob just don't get it!

Of course they dont like it, they didn't think of it themselves. The problem is Bettman and Goodenow want to get over on each other. It's not about doing whats best, it's about beating the other guy.

 

[Slats432]

1) Which guys is Burke referring to here? Name one player who files every year. Name three players who have filed more than once in the past ten years.

Tom

Tom Poti, Anson Carter, Daniel Briere, Ruslan Salei, Eric Belanger.....those were the fairly simple ones to find.

And, let's keep the discussion respectable..mmkay?

 

[Egil]

Any serious Vancouver Canuck fan will tell you they heard Burke make a statement like that about arbitration a dozen times. If you aren't willing to take my word for it, you can go **** yourself. Come to think of it, you can go **** yourself anyway.



Sounds like a guy who hates arbitration to me. How about when he described Morrison as "a mouse between two elephants" at Brendan's arbitration hearing? Burke's attitude towards arbitration as a GM was "Bring it on. We're not afraid to put our case before an independent party."



This statement was made after the NHL decided "arbitration is inflationary" should be another BS NHL talking point and Burke changed his tune. He should be embarassed but nobody on the owner's side has any shame.

IMHO, arbitration IS inflationary, not because it is arbitration, but because of the one sided entrance to it. Since only players can elect to file for arbitration, only those cases where the player can get more in arbitration than out of it are filed. This means that many top players can hold out for more money, and any player who underperformed just takes the QO and runs. No player has EVER been awarded less than his QO, even though it IS possible. Let management take players to arbitration, and this will occur.

If you went to the Burke proposal, 75% QO, both sides can file for arbitration, you eliminate this "chery picking" aproach to arbitration that currently exists. Radek Bonk (as an example), would have been taken to arbitration by Ottawa, instead of just dumping him.

1) Which guys is Burke referring to here? Name one player who files every year. Name three players who have filed more than once in the past ten years.

Chris Phillips has filed almost every year, for one. These players do exist, BUT, I will agree with you that this is meaningless. Filing for arbitration means the player has performed better than he did for his previous contract. Under the current system, it SHOULD be inflationary, and a player like Phillips SHOULD get a raise every year, through arbitration or not. It isn't arbitration that causes the inflationary pressures, it is the "entrance" rules TO arbitration that cause the problem.

2) If arbitration is so unfair to the teams, why do they usually elect to have the arbitrator rule for two years rather than one?

Tom

I don't have stats available on this, but it certainly isn't any higher than 50% that elect for 2 years, off the top of my head. The second year is also normally only about 500k more than the previous year, which in many cases puts the player below their market value in the second year.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Tom Poti, Anson Carter, Daniel Briere, Ruslan Salei, Eric Belanger.....those were the fairly simple ones to find.

Exactly 117 players have filed for arbitration in the past three years. Of them 102 filed once, 15 of them filed twice and none filed three times.

And filing for arbitration is not the same as actually going to arbitration. Filing for arbitration is part of the negotiating strategy. Every player with arbitration rights should file if they do not want to hold out and they do not have a deal by the filing deadline. Every player with arbitration rights at least threatens to file as that filing deadline approaches.

The fact that the player can have his case heard and decided by an impartial third party does increase the amount of money the player gets. In that very literal sense, Burke's comments are true. The fact that players have arbitration rights increases their salary. That increase is designed into the CBA. The tradeoff at this point in the player's career is the fact that the player can only negotiate with one team.

Even setting aside the hyperbole ("Guys who file every year") Burke's comments are not true with any reasonable interpretation of the word inflationary.

The large majority of cases do not get to the arbitrator. This season 67 players filed, 20 actually had an arbitration hearing. We're supposed to believe that the difference between what the teams wanted to pay these players and what they actually got - perhaps $10 million tops - has a material impact on costs when the league claims they are spending more than $1.4 billion on players?

Give me a break.

Tom

 

[Slats432]

Give me a break.

Tom

I didn't have any intention of involving myself in your peeing contest with dawgbone. You asked a question, I provided an answer because I knew that several players filed more than once.

I totally disagree with your position on arbitration, but don't want to be involved in the argument.

 

[dawgbone]

Any serious Vancouver Canuck fan will tell you they heard Burke make a statement like that about arbitration a dozen times. If you aren't willing to take my word for it, you can go **** yourself. Come to think of it, you can go **** yourself anyway.

You used a direct quote... in order to do that, it must be somewhere... If you are going to paraphrase something, say that, but don't throw quotes around it.

Sounds like a guy who hates arbitration to me. How about when he described Morrison as "a mouse between two elephants" at Brendan's arbitration hearing? Burke's attitude towards arbitration as a GM was "Bring it on. We're not afraid to put our case before an independent party."

Hey, I never said he pusseyfooted around when it came to speaking up during the arbitration hearing. That certainly doesn't mean he liked the process and liked going through it. That comment when he talked during the Morrison arbitration certainly didn't have a ringing endorsement about the arbitration, but more of a if we have to do it, we are going to fight as dirty as possible, ring to it.

This statement was made after the NHL decided "arbitration is inflationary" should be another BS NHL talking point and Burke changed his tune. He should be embarassed but nobody on the owner's side has any shame.

He's not even involved with the NHL anymore... why would he care what the NHL has decided? Why would he care less when he is out of work than he did when he was employed by the NHL or the Canucks?

They know they can say one thing this week and another next week and chumps like you swallow it without a second thought. Here are two second thoughts a person with half a brain might consider:

1) Which guys is Burke referring to here? Name one player who files every year. Name three players who have filed more than once in the past ten years.

Considering the fact that for your average player, he isn't eligible for arbitration until he is 25, and is only eligible until he is 31, it leaves you with about 6 years worth of eligibility.

Tom Poti has filed every year he has been eligible.
Brendan Morrison has filed the last 2 times he has been eligible.
Anson Carter has filed the last 2 times he has been eligible.

Now, do you know what the big problem is? Some of these guys aren't worth the money they received in arbitration, and that in turn drags the price up for other guys. Tom Poti is the poster child for everything that is wrong with arbitration.

He makes $3.1 mil on the backs of 2 arbitration awards, and most of it was because of one good season. He isn't worth $3.1 mil, that isn't his market, but he got it through arbitration because he had 1 good season... now, any defenceman with comparable numbers can make $3.1mil, and let's face it, outside of the one career year, Poti's numbers haven't been very special.

2) If arbitration is so unfair to the teams, why do they usually elect to have the arbitrator rule for two years rather than one?

Gee... I'd think this would be pretty evident to yourself, you know, considering you have half a brain.

The simple answer? So they have the player locked up for 2 years. So they aren't going throug the arbitration or a holdout again the next season, and considering there is no mechanism in the NHL to lower a players deal, 2 years is often a better option. I mean even if he lights it up again, you still have him for 2 years... and if he craps the bed, if you wanted to keep him around still you'd need to pay him the same amount he just received anyways.

It's common sense really.

 

[dawgbone]

Exactly 117 players have filed for arbitration in the past three years. Of them 102 filed once, 15 of them filed twice and none filed three times.

Well considering on average you have only 6 years of arbitration eligibility, are those numbers suprising??? They really shouldn't be. Added to that, if the team opts for a 2 year deal, it would then be impossible to file for a 3rd time in a 3 year span.

The fact that the player can have his case heard and decided by an impartial third party does increase the amount of money the player gets. In that very literal sense, Burke's comments are true. The fact that players have arbitration rights increases their salary. That increase is designed into the CBA. The tradeoff at this point in the player's career is the fact that the player can only negotiate with one team.

Even setting aside the hyperbole ("Guys who file every year") Burke's comments are not true with any reasonable interpretation of the word inflationary.

Look at the guys who sign without arbitration (and by that I mean the guys who file for arbitration, but settle) vs the guys who sign with arbitration. I'm willing to make a guess that the guys who file, but settle, have a smaller % of increase in their salary than the players who do file.

The large majority of cases do not get to the arbitrator. This season 67 players filed, 20 actually had an arbitration hearing. We're supposed to believe that the difference between what the teams wanted to pay these players and what they actually got - perhaps $10 million tops - has a material impact on costs when the league claims they are spending more than $1.4 billion on players?

It does when it affects every other player. If a guy gets $3mil in arbitration, but might have only gotten $2.6 without it, that raises the market for his type of player up $400k. That's an extra $400k that all other players comparable to him make. And if he happens to have a crappy season, there is a lower-tier of comparable players who would then be able to use his $3mil as a basis for their case.

The better question is why do a majority of cases not go to an arbitrator? A safe bet would be because a team agrees to a contract because they feel they will have to dish out more in an arbitration ruling (and judging by the discrepancy between the % of increase between arbitrated results and settled results), the teams are probably right.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If you went to the Burke proposal, 75% QO, both sides can file for arbitration, you eliminate this "chery picking" aproach to arbitration that currently exists. Radek Bonk (as an example), would have been taken to arbitration by Ottawa, instead of just dumping him.

What difference does the qualifying offer make? Bonk would have turned down $2.65 million and filed for arbitration himself. Ottawa dealt Bonk because even if they convinced him to take the same pay cut Montreal got him to take, they were going to have to pay him $3 million and he wasn't worth that to them.

No third party was going give Bonk a bigger pay cut than he actually took.

Filing for arbitration means the player has performed better than he did for his previous contract.

Not necessarily. The quality of the player doesn't fluctuate nearly as dramatically as the quality of the performance. Radek Bonk has exactly the same skill package. How Bonk performed last season would certainly affect his arbitration award, but the entire career counts and it is hard to find a player with a comparable career making less than $3 million.

I don't think Bonk's poor season last year had nearly as much affect on his contract as we think. Montreal did not have to qualify him. He took a $350,000 pay cut voluntarily to get a three year deal. The players can see the market correction coming and Ottawa obviously could have kept Bonk at a lower salary too.

I don't think Ottawa would have kept Bonk at $2.5 million. He's a very good player but he is superfluous to their needs. I think Radek Bonk is an example of the system working exactly as it should. Suppose the system was set up so that Radek Bonk could be forced to take $2.5 million, and suppose at $2.5 million Ottawa wanted to keep him.

Would this be good for the NHL? I don't think so. The only reason Bonk is not worth $3 million in Ottawa is because the Senators have such an outstanding team. They got rid of him because they will be just as good without him and they need the money to give raises to other players who have earned them. Senator fans should get used to it because just like Colorado they will be turfing useful players for years.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Look at the guys who sign without arbitration (and by that I mean the guys who file for arbitration, but settle) vs the guys who sign with arbitration. I'm willing to make a guess that the guys who file, but settle, have a smaller % of increase in their salary than the players who do file.

Well, duh. What else would you expect?

It does when it affects every other player. If a guy gets $3mil in arbitration, but might have only gotten $2.6 without it, that raises the market for his type of player up $400k.

This assumes that the players get more than market value in arbitration. They are not supposed to get more than market value. The entire point of the hearing is to determine market value. The team makes a case, the player makes a case, and the arbitrator decides.

If that independent third party consistently errs on the side of the owners, then players actually get less than market value. The average league salary would be higher without arbitration. If the third party consistently errs on the side of the players, the team pays more than market value for the player, and the ALS would be lower without arbitration. If the arbitrators do their job properly they will be paying every player who files market value and the arbitration process will have no impact on the ALS at all.

Arbitration is not inflationary unless one can demonstrate that the awards have erred on the side of the players and given them more than market value. Arbitration is not inflationary unless one can demonstrate that the arbitrators have not been impartial.

The NHL approves every appointment and can fire an arbitrator at will. Why haven't they fired every arbitrator if the rulings are partial to the players? Why don't they table some obvious evidence that shows that arbitrators they approve and retain at $1,000 a day are making biased decisions?

Tom

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Gee,
everybody's ticked off because there's no hockey. Why is there no hockey? Because the owners and players can't agree on a CBA. Why can't they agree on a CBA? Because the CBA itself has things like arbitration in it, which instigates more conflict between owners and players.

Eliminate the things in the CBA that create division between owners and players (i.e. salary arbitration) and you just might get a CBA that BOTH sides can actually agree with for more than a handful of seasons. That way, we could all get back to dissing players, owners, GMs, coaches et al for what they're doing ON THE ICE, rather than off the ice.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Oilers Ent]

Gee,
everybody's ticked off because there's no hockey. Why is there no hockey? Because the owners and players can't agree on a CBA. Why can't they agree on a CBA? Because the CBA itself has things like arbitration in it, which instigates more conflict between owners and players.

Eliminate the things in the CBA that create division between owners and players (i.e. salary arbitration) and you just might get a CBA that BOTH sides can actually agree with for more than a handful of seasons. That way, we could all get back to dissing players, owners, GMs, coaches et al for what they're doing ON THE ICE, rather than off the ice.

Seems simple enough to me.

L. Ron Hubbard?

 

[chriss_co]

This assumes that the players get more than market value in arbitration. They are not supposed to get more than market value. The entire point of the hearing is to determine market value. The team makes a case, the player makes a case, and the arbitrator decides.

Why should the decision of one team for one player determine the 'market value' of all other players?

Just because Jose Theodore is worth how ever much he got (around 6 mill) with the Montreal Canadiens doesn't mean all other goalies having 1 spectacular seasons should get the same amount.

The problem with this 'market value' you speak of is that the market doesn't determine it.... its one team... one GM who is in a difficult position and to keep his job he has to fall to the pressures of the player.

Over and over, one player's contract has driven up the salaries for the rest of the league. And the arbitrators (as well as agents) fall back on this.

This is the flaw of the CBA. You can't compare a player's contract signed with a team to every other player in the same boat. Team's have different situations and different budgets. Why should a team that has more budget room get the responsibility of determining 'market value' for teams that are responsible?

There are no two players who are exactly the same and in the exact same position when discussing contract negotiations with a team. Thats why you can't compare players and say that you fit here on the 'market scale'.

Thats why the CBA has to be fixed.

 

[chriss_co]

Gee,
everybody's ticked off because there's no hockey. Why is there no hockey? Because the owners and players can't agree on a CBA. Why can't they agree on a CBA? Because the CBA itself has things like arbitration in it, which instigates more conflict between owners and players.

Eliminate the things in the CBA that create division between owners and players (i.e. salary arbitration) and you just might get a CBA that BOTH sides can actually agree with for more than a handful of seasons. That way, we could all get back to dissing players, owners, GMs, coaches et al for what they're doing ON THE ICE, rather than off the ice.

Seems simple enough to me.

The union loves arbitration. It sees no problem in it. They will never agree to get rid of it. Owners probably don't mind arbitration either. But they want the rules made fair to them.

And you can't just scrap anything in the CBA that is controversial.. cuz last time i checked salaries are controversial... shall we just scrap that?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The problem with this 'market value' you speak of is that the market doesn't determine it.... its one team... one GM who is in a difficult position and to keep his job he has to fall to the pressures of the player.

This isn't really true - there are always several players who are involved in an arbitration hearing - but let's suppose that you are right. The GM always gets snookered. Market value doesn't have a range of contracts. Overpaid players count and underpaid ones don't in the marketplace.

If we accept that silly premise, the choice the owners can have is:

1) Allow a relatively few contracts - the ones given to the best players in a given group - to determine the market value. This means that contracts signed by the smallest markets and the largest markets have equal influence.

2) Let the market actually set the value by eliminating the CBA entirely. We'll see exactly how much these guys are worth. We'd lose ten teams, I'd guess, but the two thirds of the players who survive will be making three times the money. I'd bet on Crosby getting $100 million.

The players enter negotiations by putting a very large concession on the table. They are waiving the rights every other employee has to work for whoever they want to work for. There is no real market value because players make this concession. What do the owners put up in exchange? If they do not like the way the resulting system determines market value, the players can always choose to decertify and find out how much they'd make in the real market.

Tom

 

[thinkwild]

Since RFAs can only negotiate with one team anyway, why not have all RFA salaries negotiated at HQ?

 

[me2]

Then so be it. Blood they shall have. You seem to take for granted this magical impase will be approved b the courts. All the owners have to do is wait it out and then they get to impose their will. We'll see.

Who knows if a cap will be approved by the courts or not.

Then again we don't even know what offer the NHL will use at the impasse. They might offer fixed wages based on age and experience. The courts might reject a cap but approve a generous set salary scale from $500K for a 19 year to $2m for 30 year old.

under 23 $500K
23-26 $1m
27-29 $1.5m
30-32 $2m
33+ $1.5m

$250K-500K bonus added that based on ice time, games played, playoffs, points etc.

Based on 23 man roster you'd be looking at $30m+bonuses. That kind of offer would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

[me2]

hmmm .... seems obvious ... their penalty is they dont have an NHL contract.

dr

Thats fair provided teams get the same concessions. If the player doesn't like it he walks away as a normal RFA. If the team walks the player is still bound to the team as a normal RFA. Its as if arbitration never happened if either walks away. This makes arbitration completely and utterly non-binding for either side (and pointless).

 

[dawgbone]

Well, duh. What else would you expect?

This assumes that the players get more than market value in arbitration. They are not supposed to get more than market value. The entire point of the hearing is to determine market value. The team makes a case, the player makes a case, and the arbitrator decides.

If that independent third party consistently errs on the side of the owners, then players actually get less than market value. The average league salary would be higher without arbitration. If the third party consistently errs on the side of the players, the team pays more than market value for the player, and the ALS would be lower without arbitration. If the arbitrators do their job properly they will be paying every player who files market value and the arbitration process will have no impact on the ALS at all.

Arbitration is not inflationary unless one can demonstrate that the awards have erred on the side of the players and given them more than market value. Arbitration is not inflationary unless one can demonstrate that the arbitrators have not been impartial.

You just said it yourself!

Players who file and are awarded and arbitration amount, is higher than those who file, but settle outside of arbitration.

If that isn't inflation, I am not sure what is.

Yes, both sides list comparables, but if player A makes $4mil per season, and player B goes to arbitration and has similar stats to player A, he's gonna come away with close to $4mil... regardless of how many players with similar stats make less. One case always sets the market, and it's been like that for years. It's why Poti and Carter make $3mil/season, despite being relatively average hockey players.

The NHL approves every appointment and can fire an arbitrator at will. Why haven't they fired every arbitrator if the rulings are partial to the players? Why don't they table some obvious evidence that shows that arbitrators they approve and retain at $1,000 a day are making biased decisions?

Tom

You'd have to ask someone in the league that. The question I have is where is the evidence that the NHLPA has gathered to say arbitration is fine and works for both sides very well? I mean, they've done that for everything else... I mean, the current economic system is fine, according to them. Why haven't they done it for arbitration? Is it because it is so flawed in their own favour they realize no one is dumb enough to not beleive that they make out like Bandits every time someone files?

 

[dawgbone]

Thats fair provided teams get the same concessions. If the player doesn't like it he walks away as a normal RFA. If the team walks the player is still bound to the team as a normal RFA. Its as if arbitration never happened if either walks away. This makes arbitration completely and utterly non-binding for either side (and pointless).

You'd have to think players don't have walkaway rights, while teams do...

It could work out that if a player gets taken to arbitration by his team, he gets a one year deal that he has to take... the flip side is while the team gets to walk away from an arbitrators decision, the player will have full UFA rights (get rid of the 80% thing).

So if a player gets taken to arbitration one year, if he turns around and has a fantastic season, he can then file, and his salary gets adjusted accordingly, or he can be a UFA.

 

[chriss_co]

2) Let the market actually set the value by eliminating the CBA entirely. We'll see exactly how much these guys are worth. We'd lose ten teams, I'd guess, but the two thirds of the players who survive will be making three times the money. I'd bet on Crosby getting $100 million.

The players enter negotiations by putting a very large concession on the table. They are waiving the rights every other employee has to work for whoever they want to work for. There is no real market value because players make this concession. What do the owners put up in exchange? If they do not like the way the resulting system determines market value, the players can always choose to decertify and find out how much they'd make in the real market.

Tom

I'd actually be interested to see what would happen without a CBA. First of all, doesn't that essentially mean the union is scrapped? I mean, that is why the union is there in the first place. To protect player's rights through the CBA. And its not like the union cares about the actual welfare of the players on or off the ice (the union has very few policies about hockey not related to money).

And so if we scrap the CBA... scrap the union.. basically its the league that calls the shots... would we see teams lost... well.. perhaps... it really depends.. if you are thinking along the lines that the current CBA prevents high rises in salaries (it does to a certain extent) then you think that expenses will skyrocket in the absence of the CBA.

But don't forget that the CBA has many clauses protecting player's rights. For one, guaranteed contracts. Scap that and you see teams managing their finances alot easier.

Will scrapping the CBA be better for the game? I don't think it will. BUT I do believe a league without the CBA may actually be able to secure its finances better than with the CBA they do have right now.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It's why ... Carter make $3mil/season, despite .

no he doesnt, the CBA we have now allowed the LA Kings to walk away from paying him 3m per season, since they figured he wasnt worth it.

in fact, i doubt he ever made 3m per season, just using your #.

Anson Carter will probably make no more than 1.5m on his next contract, salary cap or not. Proving again, that the market is correcting itself and doesnt need a cap.

DR

 

[garry1221]

no he doesnt, the CBA we have now allowed the LA Kings to walk away from paying him 3m per season, since they figured he wasnt worth it.

in fact, i doubt he ever made 3m per season, just using your #.

Anson Carter will probably make no more than 1.5m on his next contract, salary cap or not. Proving again, that the market is correcting itself and doesnt need a cap.

DR

even though carter might only make half of what he was making that doesn't mean that someone else won't have a career year and double or triple their salary, even though revenue streams may stay the same, i'd venture to say that at least a few players would be seeking higher salaries than they had last year meaning that even though you take one player and say the market is correcting itself, if even two other players see their salaries jump up that doesn't bode well for the market in the future does it... bottom line, it takes a group effort(players) and the result of that effort has to be more than a scratch on the surface (5% rollback)

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I'd actually be interested to see what would happen without a CBA.

Me too. Bill James once wrote an essay that said he thought it would work out okay in baseball. I don't think it would be nearly as bad for competitive balance as we imagine. I can't see the really small markets competing though.

First of all, doesn't that essentially mean the union is scrapped? I mean, that is why the union is there in the first place. To protect player's rights through the CBA.

It is the other way around. Scrapping the Union is basically the way to scrap the CBA. This definitely is where the union started but it changed as soon as Andy Messersmith won the right to free agency. Today, leagues must have a player union and a CBA. The NHL needs the NHLPA more than the players need the NHLPA.

And so if we scrap the CBA... scrap the union.. basically its the league that calls the shots...

The league could call the shots, but they could not violate anti-trust law if there was no CBA or union. This means there would be no entry draft, no salary cap, no restricted free agents, no arbitration. Players would be free to sign contracts with anybody. I don't think players in that set of circumstances would worry too much about guaranteed contracts. Everybody good will have guarantees.

The player's benefit in having a CBA is in competitive balance. It increases the number of jobs for players. It isn't clear whether it increases the amount of money each player gets. In a wide open system would the 20 strongest markets spend $50 million on average? I'd guess almost certainly. The best 500 players are better off turfing 10 teams and 250 members than accepting 30 teams with a $31 million cap.

Tom