Karamos: Gut feeling that season is done.

[John Flyers Fan]

How many games have Woywitka, Schremp and a 2005 3rd rounder helped the Oilers win? And with Comrie, do the Oilers get the three extra points they needed to make the playoffs last year?
And most importantly, if Woywitka, Schremp and a 2005 3rd rounder become solid NHL players, how long will the Oilers be able to keep them.
The NHL is in jeopardy of becoming just like baseball in that the smaller revenue teams could morph into nothing more than minor league development teams for the big boys.
Take the Expos. In 1988 salary considerations forced them to trade all-star second baseman Delino DeShields to the Dodgers for a young pitcher named Pedro Martinez. If we stop there one might say the Expos got a steal. But five years later salary considerations forced them to trade Martinez to the Red Sox for a young starter named Carl Pavano. Pavano, now an all-star, is stunningly no longer with the Expos.
It's a vicious cylce that, unless the NHL is careful, we'll start seeing soon in hockey.

Comrie is signed for a whopping $1.7 million next year, which would place him 7th on the Oilers. Either the Oilers could afford to pay him and didn't .... or it wasn't all about money.

The NHL isn't remotely close to MLB, there is nobody in the NHL that's even close to the New York Yankees. The NHL & NHLPA are working to assure the NHL doesn't become MLB ... but there are other ways to accomplish that task then an NFL-style hard cap.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I won't comment on Ottawa but since I am an Edmonton fan I would gladly have taken a full year of mini-Mike. It's widely believed amongst us fans that he would have helped us make the playoffs (remember we barely missed). The Schremp discussions have been great but playoff talk is a lot more fun.

But dude, you can't seriously make an argument that teams are better off when players hold out. That's just getting silly.

Holdouts will not disappear under any system, and chances are that they'll actually increase under the new systems proposed.

I never said that teams were better off when players hold out, but I did say that they control a players righte until he turns 31. At worst a player can be traded for fair value.

If this was the NFL, Comrie would have been a UFA and been able to walk for free.

 

[CarlRacki]

The NHL isn't remotely close to MLB, there is nobody in the NHL that's even close to the New York Yankees. The NHL & NHLPA are working to assure the NHL doesn't become MLB ... but there are other ways to accomplish that task then an NFL-style hard cap.

That's funny, I never mentioned the Yankees. Is there anyone in the NHL remotely close to the Mets? BoSox? Angels? All these teams spend $30 million or moreabove the league average and the salaries they pay effect what everyone else is expected to pay, either through free agency or arbitration.
Speaking of arbitration, why is it that word is never mentioned by those who continually point out the age of unrestricted free agency?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That's funny, I never mentioned the Yankees. Is there anyone in the NHL remotely close to the Mets? BoSox? Angels? All these teams spend $30 million or moreabove the league average and the salaries they pay effect what everyone else is expected to pay, either through free agency or arbitration.
Speaking of arbitration, why is it that word is never mentioned by those who continually point out the age of unrestricted free agency?

That's because in case you haven't noticed the NHLPA is going to make changes to the arbitration system, in order to make it less inflationary.

 

[CarlRacki]

That's because in case you haven't noticed the NHLPA is going to make changes to the arbitration system, in order to make it less inflationary.

The change currently proposed isn't terribly significant. It allows the team to take a player to arbitration one time in his career. It does nothing to stop the player from seeking arbitration every year from the moment he's eligible until he's 31.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The change currently proposed isn't terribly significant. It allows the team to take a player to arbitration one time in his career. It does nothing to stop the player from seeking arbitration every year from the moment he's eligible until he's 31.

I agree that it doesn't go far enough, the team should be able to take a player to arbitration twice in his career, which is really all that should be needed.

 

[PecaFan]

That's because in case you haven't noticed the NHLPA is going to make changes to the arbitration system, in order to make it less inflationary.

Less inflationary? That's a joke. The PA proposal takes *more* players into the massive salary increase machine known as arbitration.

Nobody goes into arbitration without leaving with a huge increase.

The only benefit to an owner taking a player to arbitration is getting him signed, and into camp, avoiding a long holdout.

 

[bleedgreen]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Carolina/2005/01/11/895220-cp.html
tsn didnt print the entire article, here it is. karmanos goes into more depth, and doesnt sound as vigilant as in the tsn article. intentional?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Less inflationary? That's a joke. The PA proposal takes *more* players into the massive salary increase machine known as arbitration.

Nobody goes into arbitration without leaving with a huge increase.

The only benefit to an owner taking a player to arbitration is getting him signed, and into camp, avoiding a long holdout.

Yes, under the old system a player would never have filed for arbitration if he wasn't going to get an increase.

If the arbitration system is adjust and ownership could take players to arbitration you could see the following happen:

Someone like say Paul Kariya, signed to a $10 million deal .... and say his contract was up after the 2002 season.

The Ducks take kariya to arbitration with himcoming off a season where he scored 57 points in 82 games. Kariya would have taken a huge salary hit from his $10 million.


If an owner takes a player to arbitration in order to give him a big raise, then the GM's/owners are even dumber than we think ..... no system should be completely idiot proof.

 

[CarlRacki]

Yes, under the old system a player would never have filed for arbitration if he wasn't going to get an increase.

If the arbitration system is adjust and ownership could take players to arbitration you could see the following happen:

Someone like say Paul Kariya, signed to a $10 million deal .... and say his contract was up after the 2002 season.

The Ducks take kariya to arbitration with himcoming off a season where he scored 57 points in 82 games. Kariya would have taken a huge salary hit from his $10 million.


If an owner takes a player to arbitration in order to give him a big raise, then the GM's/owners are even dumber than we think ..... no system should be completely idiot proof.

But why is it fair that a player can opt for arbitration annually and an owner can do it just once, or even twice?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

But why is it fair that a player can opt for arbitration annually and an owner can do it just once, or even twice?

How often does a player opt for arbitration more than twice ???

If you want to make it unlimited for either side it's fine with me, but in reality it isn't needed.

 

[me2]

I agree that it doesn't go far enough, the team should be able to take a player to arbitration twice in his career, which is really all that should be needed.

A team should have the right to take a player to arbitration any time the player has the right to take the team to arbitration.No maximium times per year, no maximum times per players. Fully two-way street.

The real core comes back to the NHLPA locking in arbitration prices for the life of the CBA.It would stop the NHLPA using arbitration as a means of inflation because all prices would be locked to 2003-04 minus 24% (or whatever percentage they come up with). That would create a degree of cost certainty, that would stop inflation.

 

[me2]

Yes, under the old system a player would never have filed for arbitration if he wasn't going to get an increase.

If the arbitration system is adjust and ownership could take players to arbitration you could see the following happen:

Someone like say Paul Kariya, signed to a $10 million deal .... and say his contract was up after the 2002 season.

The Ducks take kariya to arbitration with himcoming off a season where he scored 57 points in 82 games. Kariya would have taken a huge salary hit from his $10 million.


If an owner takes a player to arbitration in order to give him a big raise, then the GM's/owners are even dumber than we think ..... no system should be completely idiot proof.

Obviously the Ducks wouldn't have to qualify Kariya to take him to arbitration. Otherwise he'd just take the $10m qualifying offer.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Obviously the Ducks wouldn't have to qualify Kariya to take him to arbitration. Otherwise he'd just take the $10m qualifying offer.

Under the new rules a team would be able to take him to arbitration and Kariya would have no choice. He couldn't sign the $10 million qualifying offer.

 

[djhn579]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Carolina/2005/01/11/895220-cp.html
tsn didnt print the entire article, here it is. karmanos goes into more depth, and doesnt sound as vigilant as in the tsn article. intentional?

What I think is really funny is this comment...

Centre Todd Marchant, the NHLPA rep on the Columbus Blue Jackets, isn't surprised owners are willing to forgo the season.

"That seems to have been their goal all along, to break the union and not have hockey this season," Marchant said Tuesday from Columbus. "And as a fan, that must be the most discouraging thing of all.

As if it wasn't the players goal all along to wait out the owners, even if it cost them a season or two, just because they don't philosophically believe in a cap...

 

[CarlRacki]

What I think is really funny is this comment...

Centre Todd Marchant, the NHLPA rep on the Columbus Blue Jackets, isn't surprised owners are willing to forgo the season.

"That seems to have been their goal all along, to break the union and not have hockey this season," Marchant said Tuesday from Columbus. "And as a fan, that must be the most discouraging thing of all.

As if it wasn't the players goal all along to wait out the owners, even if it cost them a season or two, just because they don't philosophically believe in a cap...

I should probably give him a break because it's all just rhetoric ... but who is he kidding?
Heck, if I had a dollar for every time a player said they're willing to forego the season to avoid a salary cap I might even have enough money to attend an NHL game. Nosebleeder seats, of course.

 

[PecaFan]

The Ducks take kariya to arbitration with himcoming off a season where he scored 57 points in 82 games. Kariya would have taken a huge salary hit from his $10 million.

Perhaps. It all depends on the comparables. The PA drags in a few other highly paid players as comparables who also had off years, they argue it was just a one year anomaly, and his past few years should all be taken into account etc, and I don't see his salary falling much at all.

It doesn't change the fact that the GM's would only use it to get hard liners signed and into camp. At once per year, and only two times per three years, you're simply wasting it by using it to take a guy purely for salary reasons, especially when you can't predict the outcome salary wise.

 

[arnie]

Ottawa didn't keep Yashin until he was 31, nor did Edmonton keep Comrie until he was 31 just to cite a few recent examples. There is nothing stopping a player from holding out, and no team is dumb enough to let a talent rot for years and years.

Dumb enough? Maybe if a few teams had the guts to do exactly that, players would quit holding out. Itis a matter of guts, not brains.

 

[arnie]

What I think is really funny is this comment...

Centre Todd Marchant, the NHLPA rep on the Columbus Blue Jackets, isn't surprised owners are willing to forgo the season.

"That seems to have been their goal all along, to break the union and not have hockey this season," Marchant said Tuesday from Columbus. "And as a fan, that must be the most discouraging thing of all.
...

The reality is that Columbus has realized how much they overspay Marchant and are hoping that they season is cancelled so that they won't have to pay his absurd salary.

 

[thinkwild]

I dont understand those saying that arbitration is inflationary and must be scrapped, then asking that owners have the right to take players to arbitration too. Why wouldnt the players agree? Its inflationary after all, how can they lose?

I dont see this problem being a big deal to the players. They go to arbitration to determine what a fair raise is. Yes, its great in that it stops Gaborik from holding out, and so for that reason a great leverage point. But it feels that most suggesting it are thinking they will be able to roll back the salaries of the Brian Savages. Fair enough, but I cant see this is a big problem, that underperforming overpaid players have fans wanting to keep them at a lower price so much, they want to shut down the league a couple of years for this.

 

[PecaFan]

I dont understand those saying that arbitration is inflationary and must be scrapped, then asking that owners have the right to take players to arbitration too. Why wouldnt the players agree? Its inflationary after all, how can they lose?

Of course, which is why the proposal for owners to take players to arbitration was in the *player's proposal*. They know what arbitration does, and getting more players into the machine is a win for them.

Arbitration is totally unneccesary for getting deals done. The vast majority of contracts in the NHL are done without it each year. It should totally be scrapped.

 

[mackdogs*]

Holdouts will not disappear under any system, and chances are that they'll actually increase under the new systems proposed.

I never said that teams were better off when players hold out, but I did say that they control a players righte until he turns 31. At worst a player can be traded for fair value.

If this was the NFL, Comrie would have been a UFA and been able to walk for free.

Sorry, forgot to come back to this thread. There have been many suggestions about drop-dead signing dates for players, so yes holdouts can disappear under a system. If a player were to holdout the team could take them to court and force them to play or perhaps give back some of their compensation. Forget the old CBA, the new one can contain anything... even a method to stop players from holding out.

 

[thinkwild]

I dont think its the arbitration itself that is the stated problem, rather its that players holding out with leverage in a large market reset all the salary bars used in the arbitration system. Its the constant rising and resetting of these of mroe concern isnt it?

A player will always want to determine his worth relative to others. All an arbitrator will do is determine what pay level he has earned based on who is similar too. He really isnt determining the salary, that has already been determined.

If those scales for RFAs could be reset 20% lower, i.e. now all at an affordable rate for all teams, and you only allow the scale to rise with revenues rather than high leverage hold outs, the arbitration process would be quite fair to you I would think. Arbitration isnt the dirty word. Its hold outs raising the arbitration salary bars that makes us not like arbitration. But if you tweaked that, I dont think you would have any objections to it.

But again, this is just another of those methods of implementation, and I'd think both sides will compromise rather easily on all these implementation rules once the overall philisophical divide has been broached.

 

[Lobstertainment]

Problem is that using your car scenario the New York Rangers can't offer him that $6 million until he has 100,000 miles on him and is in need of new shocks and breaks.

You have a player until he's 31 no ifs, and or butts about it.

Offer sheets? like the one the Rangers offered to Sakic and the one the Canes offered to Federov?

while those two remained with their teams that's still a possibility that another team can sign your players before they become UFA's, allthough it does have a price tag on it in compensation draft picks.

 

[thinkwild]

There have been many suggestions about drop-dead signing dates for players, so yes holdouts can disappear under a system. If a player were to holdout the team could take them to court and force them to play or perhaps give back some of their compensation. Forget the old CBA, the new one can contain anything... even a method to stop players from holding out.

Or perhaps you kidnap a member of their family and hold them hostage unless he plays with full efort for you.

If a player doesnt want to play but wants a trade, and is willing to hold out until you do, you need some leverage to get something fair for him. The RFA compensation provides this.

Players like Nabokov or Gaborik hoding out well into the season will find it harder to use that leverage if there is a drop dead date and they cant sign again until next year if the miss the 1st game. But if they choose to sit for the year, and wait, you wont be stopping holdouts.