NHLPA SCORES system

[LadyStanley]

(Note, free registration required to read story)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1330/5071448.html

IMHO a very interesting story about information on each player maintained by their agent, as well as some information on "grouping" of players, and a claim that the union "decides" which players go to arbitration (or negotiate or withhold services). Can be used to find "comparitives" for contract negotiation, etc.

Also mentions similar system (for the opposite side) the NHL has for the teams.

So, if they have nothing to hide or feel they aren't tending toward legal issues, why won't the union comment?

Click to read more...

 

[ehc73]

Because it helps break the market system? That's what it looks like to me. I mean, yeah, the owners helped break it by offering stupid UFA contracts, but the players are helping to break it by using SCORE to make a killing in arbitration.

 

[thinkwild]

So, if they have nothing to hide or feel they aren't tending toward legal issues, why won't the union comment?

Well it seems he did comment.

Bob Goodenow, executive director of the NHLPA, refused an interview request through his public relations chief, Jonathan Weatherdon, who accused this newspaper of "hacking" into the union's system.

What is the conspiracy you expect to uncover? What is it you could hear. It is an interesting article though. I think we all knew they had salary management software and the union was working in its best interests to use the system to theiradvantage. I dont see the surprise there. But you can see the typical spin, do you notice it?

But, what began as an exploration of how the NHLPA is using technology to launch salaries -- and whether this is legal and ethical -- opened another door.

The NHL, it seems, employs a similar computer system, making for an elaborate skill game between highly effective opponents.

When the union is using the system, we are talking about legalities and ethics. When management uses the system, its a skill game between highly effective opponents.

It does raise the concept of ethics, and its an interesting question

When general managers make qualifying offers to players, those offers are posted. Agents are encouraged to post any additional club offers as they are made. Theoretically, each agent knows where the market stands as he negotiates for his client.

[Daly] did accuse the NHLPA of taking the arbitration process out of the agents' and players' hands.

The union is "faster than us," Lynn said. "They're better at it. Teams are competing. They're less likely to share offers."

That topic -- teams sharing offers -- raises the red flag of collusion. But this is not colluding, in the legal sense.

Whether the NHL is losing the technology battle is debatable. What is fair is to suggest that the union has greater legal latitude than the NHL when working together is the issue

Players will want to post every offer made when its made to help all, but owners dont want their offers known by everyone else as it damages their negotiation position. Is it simply an obvious use of technology to share information?

Is it fair? I remember once there was a website that gave you the ability to enter a phone number and find who it belonged to, or enter an address and find the name and phone number. Simply an obvious use of sharing sorted information? It was removed as it gave information to crooks. Of course outlaw information, and only outlaws will have information as they might say.

If the arbitration process is unfair, fine, lets say it, define the problem, and fix it. THe players are willing to make concessions in arbitration if it is leading to a problem. There is surely myriad remedies available other than a simpleton cap.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What is the conspiracy you expect to uncover? What is it you could hear. It is an interesting article though. I think we all knew they had salary management software and the union was working in its best interests to use the system to their advantage. I dont see the surprise there. But you can see the typical spin, do you notice it?

The system sounds good, an excellent service being provided by the NHLPA. But all they are doing is saving the agent time. Arbitration briefs and negotiating strategies can be developed pretty easily without access to the system. I've done it.

It isn't hard to find comparables. There are dozens of them for most players because most players, relatively speaking, aren't very good. Not very good players don't have any leverage. It is really hard to find a good comparable for Nick Schultz because very few defensemen finish their three year entry level contract at age 21. The vast majority of players basically take what is offered. Only the best players in any age category have any leverage, and by definition there are only a few players who are the best.

A more important point is that Nick Schultz does not have arbitration rights. Brian Burke - who did conduct seminars for NHL teams on using the the CBA he negotiated - would say "Comparables to Schultz? They are irrelevant because Schultz does not have arbitration rights."

The Wild had all the leverage in this negotiation. They could have forced Schultz to take about half the money for the first two years of his deal. If they had, Schultz would get arbitration rights in the third year. He would have got about the same money in total over the three years. By paying him more early in the contract, the third year salary is minimised. This impacts the qualifying offer required in the seventh year.

Plus, Schultz is happy because he gets the whopping raise he deserved. His first contract reflected his draft position, which was clearly a mistake. His second contract puts him in line with the top draft picks of his age group. All it cost him was a year of arbitration rights.

Three other points:

1) Schultz is likely to be underpaid in the third year of his deal. This is good for all NHL teams because the contract can be used in arbitration.

2) How stupid is this agent? Anonymous? The NHLPA will surely find it easy to sort out the agent. Not that it matters, I suppose, but if they want to deny him access they could. They probably don't care.

3) Every time Daly opens his mouth he makes the NHL look stupid. Of course they have a similar system, one that is every bit as good.

Based on Griffith's legal explanation, the NHL probably could do more technologically to advise teams. But the NHL is a bit skittish. The union filed a grievance -- Daly said it was about six years ago -- contending that the league could not share data and offers.

"We had one hearing before an arbitrator," Daly said. "They couldn't articulate how it violated the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]. They essentially withdrew the grievance. It went away."

Even though that issue faded, Daly said, "there's been a sensitivity on our side toward coordinating negotiations because there may be certain obligations under the CBA that may be violated."

This is a joke. The NHL is sensitive. Ha-ha. The NHLPA almost certainly filed the grievance to get a look at the NHL system. They were designing their own system and they used the grievance process to get inside the NHL system. (I actually applied for the job of designing their website but what they were looking for went way beyond my expertise.)

If the arbitration process is unfair, fine, lets say it, define the problem, and fix it. THe players are willing to make concessions in arbitration if it is leading to a problem. There is surely myriad remedies available other than a simpleton cap.

I think the most important point in the entire article is another dog that failed to bark story. If the arbitration process is unfair, the NHL could use their system to demonstrate it is unfair. Easy. Why don't they? Why isn't the dog barking?

Tom

 

[thinkwild]

2) How stupid is this agent? Anonymous? The NHLPA will surely find it easy to sort out the agent.

Oh yeah, the 120 minute tracking system on data access. D'oh!

 

[Sammy*]

This is a joke. The NHL is sensitive. Ha-ha. The NHLPA almost certainly filed the grievance to get a look at the NHL system. They were designing their own system and they used the grievance process to get inside the NHL system. (I actually applied for the job of designing their website but what they were looking for went way beyond my expertise.)
Tom

Nice guess, NHLPA apologist. You have no clue on this. The only fact you know is that NHLPA filed the grievence & then cratered on it.
And anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand why the NHL would be sensitive to the issue of sharing info regarding offers. Its sensitivity is borne out of concerns ogf allegations of collusion.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Nice guess, NHLPA apologist. You have no clue on this. The only fact you know is that NHLPA filed the grievence & then cratered on it.
And anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand why the NHL would be sensitive to the issue of sharing info regarding offers. Its sensitivity is borne out of concerns ogf allegations of collusion.

So use your ounce of common sense and explain it. Why? As long as the NHL is not colluding, they don't have to be sensitive to an allegation at all. Who cares whether the NHLPA alleges collusion if there is none?

What the grievance did was force the NHL to explain exactly what they were doing to the NHLPA. They obviously were not colluding so the NHLPA dropped the grievance. Somehow this forces the NHL to have an inferior system of information sharing? How?

Tom

 

[Sammy*]

So use your ounce of common sense and explain it. Why? As long as the NHL is not colluding, they don't have to be sensitive to an allegation at all. Who cares whether the NHLPA alleges collusion if there is none?

What the grievance did was force the NHL to explain exactly what they were doing to the NHLPA. They obviously were not colluding so the NHLPA dropped the grievance. Somehow this forces the NHL to have an inferior system of information sharing? How?

Tom

You have obviously have no clue about the risks associated with been found to have colluded, which dont neccesarily have anything to do with whether you have actually have or have not colluded. In short, just because their is or is not a finding of something, does not neccesarly make it so, & why provide ammunition for that allegation (which could have huge economic ramifications) if you dont feel its neccesary.
And I dont have the article handy, but does it say that the NHL as a result of the grievence had to explain exactly what they were doing to the NHLPA?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You have obviously have no clue about the risks associated with been found to have colluded, which dont neccesarily have anything to do with whether you have actually have or have not colluded.

What? The NHL doesn't have lawyers who can explain exactly what they can and can't legally do?

And I dont have the article handy, but does it say that the NHL as a result of the grievence had to explain exactly what they were doing to the NHLPA?

It wasn't in the article, but you can figure it out with your ounce of common sense. How else can the NHL defend itself against the grievance? The NHLPA claimed there was collusion. The NHL defense must be "No. We are not colluding. Here is what is on the system and how it is being used."

Daly is saying they went through that process and won their case without needing a decision from the arbitrator. But gee whiz, the grievance itself and the threat it represented means the NHLPA has a better system six years later.

My common sense tells me that is bunk. Somebody with only an ounce of common sense might see it differently, I guess.

Tom

 

[ceber]

The Wild had all the leverage in this negotiation. They could have forced Schultz to take about half the money for the first two years of his deal.

I don't think the Wild had all the leverage. They were supposed to, because that's how the last CBA was set up, but Schultz was entirely ready to hold out. With the lockout being forced on them and last years disappointing holdout situations, the Wild didn't have the same leverage as they normally would They wanted Schultz under contract, and had to pay up to keep him. Nick's on the salary fast-track now.

 

[me2]

I don't think the Wild had all the leverage. They were supposed to, because that's how the last CBA was set up, but Schultz was entirely ready to hold out. With the lockout being forced on them and last years disappointing holdout situations, the Wild didn't have the same leverage as they normally would They wanted Schultz under contract, and had to pay up to keep him. Nick's on the salary fast-track now.

Time to ditch arbitration for either side. Force both sides to slug it out.

 

[PecaFan]

It's an interesting article in that you see what's behind the curtain so to speak, but there's really nothing new here.

We've always known that arbitration is unfair because players and the PA can pick and choose who goes, when, what order, etc. Comparables are unfair in that what New York can afford to pay to their player isn't really comparable to what Calgary can pay, yet because the players have similar stats, they suddenly become "equivalent".

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I don't think the Wild had all the leverage. They were supposed to, because that's how the last CBA was set up, but Schultz was entirely ready to hold out.

I don't think so. Guys like Schultz have to play. If he held out, he loses. Almost all l these young guys figure it out pretty quickly and cave. If he had any leverage he gets the money over two years and retains his arbitration rights.

He also didn't get that big of a raise. He'll make $875,000 next year. How much money do you think he should have gotten?

With the lockout being forced on them and last years disappointing holdout situations, the Wild didn't have the same leverage as they normally would They wanted Schultz under contract, and had to pay up to keep him. Nick's on the salary fast-track now.

Why do you think the coming lockout gave Schultz more leverage? I would have guessed less.

Tom

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

They wanted Schultz under contract, and had to pay up to keep him. Nick's on the salary fast-track now.

so let me get this straight .. they NEEDED him, but shouldnt have had to PAY for that NEED ?

whats the problem, they needed him, they made him an offer that secured his services... they should be able to secure his service at a price that doesnt reflect this "scarcity" ?

in return, for every dime a dozen hockey player, they should turn the tables and table only the 10%. since that type of player is "scarce", they dont NEED to pay more than they have to.

seems like a fair system to me.

dr

 

[Sammy*]

.

My common sense tells me that is bunk. Somebody with only an ounce of common sense might see it differently, I guess.

Tom

Yep. You confirmed what I thought.
"The NHLPA claimed there was collusion. The NHL defense must be "No. We are not colluding. Here is what is on the system and how it is being used."
You have no clue.
He who alleges must prove, not the other way around.
Again, a very bad guess..

 

[ceber]

I don't think so. Guys like Schultz have to play.

Just like Gaborik and Dupuis?

He also didn't get that big of a raise. He'll make $875,000 next year. How much money do you think he should have gotten?

That seems about right to me. He's still really young, though. It's not about how much I think he should've gotten.. it's about how much he and his agent (and apparently the NHLPA) think he should have gotten. Early numbers were rumored to be in the 1.2 range.

Why do you think the coming lockout gave Schultz more leverage? I would have guessed less.

Just due to uncertainty. I would guess the team wanted him under a multi-year deal in case things got weird with the new CBA. Several of their other guys, not part of the "draft and develop" plan, only got one year deals due to the CBA. I think that showed they weren't part of the long range plans. Schultz apparently is, and the team was pressured to get a deal done before the CBA expired. Management is frugal, to put it nicely. I don't think a deal would've happened so soon had the CBA issue been settled.

 

[ceber]

so let me get this straight .. they NEEDED him, but shouldnt have had to PAY for that NEED ?

"want" does not mean "NEED"

 

[I in the Eye]

I personally have no problem with the NHLPA using this kind of information system to get the most money possible for the players... I think it's smart...

I think a system like this would also be smart for the teams... If the individual teams don't want to share the specifics with the other teams, have the NHL head office use the software and do the player analysis... Then the NHL head office can give each team a 'suggested player value' - i.e. the output of the analysis... The team can use this suggestion as a guide, or choose to ignore it...

If things go to arbitration, the NHL person who did the analysis can have a closed door meeting with the arbitrator (and perhaps the agent) to explain how the 'suggested player value' was reached...

I'm all for using information to make better decisions...

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Well, isn't this kind of "centralized" salary structuring something Bettman and co. have already proposed--and were shot down as being just another form of cost certainty???

Arbitration, and holdouts for that matter, really really suck as a fan, an owner or even a player. It totally brings division within any organization. You "belittle" the player in front of the arbitrator well enough, you wind up 'winning'--then have to suffer the consequences when said player shows up for work pissed, less confident or, worse of all, indifferent. Then again, if you don't play the arbitration game well enough, you hurt your payroll because of the obvious future salary comparisons that will be drawn by both the agents of your own players, and other organizations.

Moreover, if the player holds out, he loses money he can never get back--no matter what his agent will try to spin. If you're the owner and your team continues to win while said player holds out, you grab the big end of the twig and expect to see the player crawl back to you. However, if you start losing games, fans won't give a rat's behind about your fiscal responsibility or the good of the league, all they see is a frozen asset sitting at home while the team's record falls 6 games below .500.

Several years ago, Shayne Corson was with the Habs and, despite the fact he still had time left on his contract, felt he was underpaid for what he gave the team and decided to hold out. GM Rejean Houle decided to stand pat and not do anything about it. The season began and the team went on a 4-game losing streak in the first month. Shortly thereafter, Corson was brought back into the fold with a raise, mainly because in Montreal when you lose there's heat on the GM, the team President and the owner to do something about it.

Conclusion: Any system that involves salary arbitration and holdouts is NOT a good system for professional team sports, and needs to be eliminated immediately. The idea of owners bringing players to arbitration isn't any better than the status quo, because if anything the players side will be that much more defiant and childish about losing a case they didn't want in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Time to ditch arbitration for either side. Force both sides to slug it out.

I agree, but with one simple twist. If contracts are not signed by the time training camps open in September, then both sides have to wait until March to sign the contract. It hurts the GM/team just as much as the player because both sides lose out on not getting the deal done. In March, you will often see teams sign their college prospects to contracts and they might even get a few games in at the end of the season. I think that would be a good time for a last ditch effort to sign any holdouts.

I don't see why players wouldn't want arbitration however, so you would have to give something to get something. Perhaps arbitration to players only who fail to agree to a contract by the deadline and who holdout for a full season, just to settle the issue.

Rip to shreads.

 

[PecaFan]

I've been thinking about this, and there's one aspect I don't like. And that's: Negotiating is supposed to be private. You and the other party, hammering out a deal to both your satisfaction.

This system circumvents that, by publicising all offers to all players in one big list. In essence, the GM is negotiating on a huge party line with every agent and NHL player on the phone line at the same time.

Yet if the GM talks to another GM about the offer, it's collusion.

 

[djhn579]

I've been thinking about this, and there's one aspect I don't like. And that's: Negotiating is supposed to be private. You and the other party, hammering out a deal to both your satisfaction.

This system circumvents that, by publicising all offers to all players in one big list. In essence, the GM is negotiating on a huge party line with every agent and NHL player on the phone line at the same time.

Yet if the GM talks to another GM about the offer, it's collusion.

I agree with this. If the NHLPA can use a system like this, the NHL should be allowed to have the same or similar system.

 

[Taranis_24]

My one question. If this information is available what is the need for the agent? The market research is done. A player can negotiate his own deal and save them the 10-15% commission fees. Roll back the salaries 20% and get rid of the agents and you have worked it out to 5-10% rollback and no more agents. Wants not good about getting rid of more lawyers? ok, two questions.

 

[PecaFan]

Commission is actually 3%. Surprised me, I thought it was more.

Brian Burke was on the radio the other day, and it was very interesting. (Even though I don't like the guy, he always makes an interesting show). Anyways, he was railing against the whole agent system, and says he can't understand for the life of him why so many players have agents after their first contracts are done.

His example was take a 30 something player, making $6 million a year. End of the season rolls around, the club has to make it's 100% qualifying offer to the player. They fax the offer, and do so.

That agent just pocketed $180,000 of that player's money for doing absolutely *nothing*.

All the player needs to do is hire some lawyer on an hourly basis for that.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

My one question. If this information is available what is the need for the agent? The market research is done. A player can negotiate his own deal and save them the 10-15% commission fees. Roll back the salaries 20% and get rid of the agents and you have worked it out to 5-10% rollback and no more agents. Wants not good about getting rid of more lawyers? ok, two questions.

Interesting. Agents will tell you they are much more than negotiators and maybe they are. Look at Frost.