Jobu said:
Another uninformed owner crony.
Try reading it his post again, just a little more closely this time.
In the event a Prior Club fails to make a Qualifying Offer as required in Section 10.2(a)(ii), the player shall immediately become an Unrestricted Free Agent and shall be completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with any such player, without penalty or restriction or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation, or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind. The Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer any time after 12:01 a.m. New York time on August 1 and retain its rights under this Article.
Currently, a QO for someone making Iginla's salary must be 100% of his last salary. So, he could accept his QO or go to arbitration.
or Igilna could do neither. He could reject the QO and opt not to go to arbitration.
If Igilna refuses the QO, then the Flames can pull it on August 1 and retain his rights and offer him a contract for some pitiful amount.
But the owner's propose to make a QO 75% of a salary (and cap a contract length at 3 years), plus do away with arbitration at their election.
SALARY ARBITRATION
-- Entirely mutual (Players and Clubs have identical rights to request arbitration).
-- All Group 2 Players are eligible for Salary Arbitration. (Salary Arbitration is available with respect to all Players who have completed four (4) years in the Entry Level System and are not yet eligible for Unrestricted Free Agency.)
-- Non-requesting party has one-time "deferral right" on the following terms: (1) Player can "defer" Club's election of Salary Arbitration by accepting his Qualifying Offer; (2) Club can "defer" Player's election of Salary Arbitration by signing Player to a one-year contract at 105% of the Player's prior year's salary. This "deferral right" would not be exercisable by either a Player or Club with respect to a Player coming out of the Entry Level System.
-- Non-requesting party can elect term of 1, 2 or 3 years.
-- Both parties to Salary Arbitration proceeding have obligation to submit a list of up to five (5) Player comparables (exclusively from among the universe of contracts entered into by Group 2 Restricted Free Agents) prior to briefing, with each side having the ability to strike up to two (2) comparables from the other side's list.
-- Mutual "Walk-Away Rights" for Clubs and Players as follows: (1) Clubs can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards in return for which Players attain immediate free agency subject only to a Right to Match in favor of the Player's Old Club for contracts entered into for 90% or less than the value of the Award; (2) Players can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards and elect instead to accept a contract for 90% of their Qualifying Offer. "Walk-Away Rights" exercisable only by non-requesting party.
-- League has option to eliminate Salary Arbitration mechanism in its entirety at any time during the term of the Agreement by converting age of eligibility for Group 3 Free Agency to 28
So as regards Brule, after this his 4 year entry contract he can opt for arbitration as per the rules list in the NHL's proposal (*we all know the NHLPA will kill off the last clause, its a red herring*).
Players like Iginla may still have the leverage to hold-out until a couple of weeks before training camp, but others won't.
And that should mean what? That they aren't good enough? That they can easily be replaced by someone prepared to work for less money than they want? Wouldn't that be the scarey free-market setting a price.
Player "I'm worth $1m"
Team "I can replace you for $900K with a player just as good. The offer is $900K"
Player "Ha, just try it"
Team "OK....Done, Player Y starts tomorrow"
Player "Waaa, Waaa, Sob, Sob. Time to get a new agent I think."
Why should a team be able to maintain such a strangehold on players for 10+ years? It's crazy. Either give them arbitration, or give them free agency. You can't take away both.
Arbitration is symetric under the NHLs proposal, equal rights for both sides. The players can go to arbitration,. Where did you get the idea the NHL's proposal didn't contain it. I think you are a little confused.
-- League has option to eliminate Salary Arbitration mechanism in its entirety at any time during the term of the Agreement by converting age of eligibility for Group 3 Free Agency to 28.
Read between the lines. Its clearly a sweetener for the NHLPA to get a deal done (deal and we get rid of it, leave it in and risk it in the very unlikely impasse situtation). The NHLPA will choose which ever they want, arbitration or 28 year old UFA status. 99% of the time they would choose to keep arbitration over a younger UFA age. Instead of fighting over club arbitration rights the NHLPA is distracted to fight over this clause instead.
Bob (who knows its a red herring) will go back and beat his chest about how he saved arbitration and the players will cheer (*three cheers for Bob*).
I can not see NHL and NHLPA not negotiating over that clause and kicking it out of the final CBA. Its a complete red herring (or blue fin if you prefer).
