Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

[PhillyNucksFan]

Please, give me an example of where one signing has sent the marketplace out of whack as regards arbitration in particular.

Also, in my opinion that, sure, 1 case would not offset the market, however, 1 case does set a precedent. If there is a precedent, it is more than likely that 1 or more similar cases would appear. There is no guard to that, especially with a pre-set market environment, such as the NHL, where there are only 30 owners, and 700 players, and the cases that are notable are only so many.

 

[Jobu]

Grow a brain. That's clever. I bet you even thought of that one all by yourself. Did you use it often in your vast array of NHL arbitration experiences? (Cause I believe uyou. I really do.)

As for your question - despite its absolute absurdity - it all depends on the chronology of the contracts. I can guarantee, though, that player #11 won't get $1 million.

One more time: give me an example of one signing that has so drastically inflated salaries arising from the arbitration process. Or even one you THINK would artifically affect arbitration awards.

 

[CarlRacki]

One more time: give me an example of one signing that has so drastically inflated salaries arising from the arbitration process. Or even one you THINK would artifically affect arbitration awards.

The contracts of Chris Pronger and Rob Blake ($9.5 and $9.3 million, respectively) had a huge effect in Scott Niedermeyer's record $7 million arbitration award.

 

[Jobu]

The contracts of Chris Pronger and Rob Blake ($9.5 and $9.3 million, respectively) had a huge effect in Scott Niedermeyer's record $7 million arbitration award.

Thank you for proving your lack of understanding. Rob Blake's contract was signed entering a UFA year and would have no effect on Niedermayer's award.

As for Pronger's contract, you'll have a hard time arguing that in the marketplace Pronger is overpaid, at least when he signed his deal, and that Niedermayer isn't worth $2m less.

 

[CarlRacki]

Thank you for proving your lack of understanding. Rob Blake's contract was signed entering a UFA year and would have no effect on Niedermayer's award.

As for Pronger's contract, you'll have a hard time arguing that in the marketplace Pronger is overpaid, at least when he signed his deal, and that Niedermayer isn't worth $2m less.

Huh? Why wouldn't Blake's contract have any effect?

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

I am with the players on this one. I don't think the team should have any arbitration rights.

An Employee has the right to choose where he should work. The Employer makes those rules and the employee decides to accept work based on that.

Let the players have the arbitration rights, but let the NHL decide how much each team can operate with.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Giving a team arbitration rights is, IMHO, crutial to making arbitration work. In the PA's decemeber proposal, they gave teams the right to take a player to arbitration, but they SEVERELY limited this right. A player could only be taken to arbitration once in his career, a team could only take 1 player to arbitration in a season, and no more than 2 players to arbitration every 3 years. This is NOT really letting the owners take a player to arbitration, it was more or less a PR gesture, as was most of the players December offer.

Here's a question for you.....

If a given team has more than ONE player on the roster EVERY year who has underperformed to the extent that he needs to be taken to arbitration in order to REDUCE his salary, and if this is the case EVERY year.....

Wouldn't you say that the management/ownership is doing a LOUSY job?

Say a team like the Isles wants to get a Premier winger for Yashin. They offer Pavol Demitra $6M per year to come to Long Island. Demitra thinks this is a good deal, so he takes it. He's signed and is now a New York Islander.

During the course of the season, he's shifted around from line to line, spending large portions of the season on the 2nd, and sometimes the 3rd, lineand he's not given the opportunity to gel with any particular line-mates.

He's less effective, so his scoring drops.

Are you saying it'll be fair for the Isles to take him to arbitration and demand that he take a pay-cut down to $3M per year, on a mandatory 2 year deal?

What's to stop guys like Wirtz and Jacobs from offering the world to top level talent in order to get them to sign, only to have coaches reduce ice-time, change line-mates, and create other barriers to a player reaching his full potential in the first year of the contract, KNOWING that "underperfomance" will lead to the ability to lock that player in for two or three MORE years at what they REALLY wanted to pay him in the first place, which is considerably LESS than what the player would have agreed to come to the team for?

 

[PecaFan]

It's obvious why the players don't like this. Arbitration currently *averages* 66% or so, with raises of 100%, 200%, 300% happening regularly. So of course they don't want a 25% limit.

I've argued for a long time that arbitration simply should cease to exist, except when both GM and player want it. The vast majority of contracts are done each year without arbitration.

Let the free market decide. GM and owner, negotiating until both are happy, instead of a third party, who *always* makes one side or the other unhappy.

 

[quat]

The only comparables allowed in arbitration are other arbitration awards and contracts negotiated with teams on the basis of past performance. That is, the contract of Bobby Holik is not admisisible in arbitration. Moreover, performance after a contract is signed by a comparable is not relevant.

So, a player is being compared to peers by both sides and using contracts that have been negotiated in the open market according to the current marketplace.
.

The price of UFA signings do significantly effect the overall player salaries in the league. Certainly UFA signings such as Holik's are not admissable in arbitration hearings. I've read this time and again as if this means they have no impact on the process, which is incorrect.

Holik, or Weight sign for big $'s. A year later, a teams better centerman's contract ends. He negotiates his contract with the team, pointing out his importance to the club, and as a star player, similiar examples are given on other teams. Perhaps he plays as well or better than Doug Weight, and he is used as a comparable. Of course, not being a UFA is taken in consideration, but we are using him as an example of skill set. Player and team come to an agreement, and the new contract has risen significantly... maybe the player has signed a longer than he wanted, but the team has also given him more than they wished... standard in negotiated contracts.

Now, it's this players contract that is used as the example during arbitration... and it has been significantly effected by recent UFA signings. It's obvious that player salaries are made public for this reason... contracts are simply not made in a vacume, and any salary has an effect on those that follow. It is another reason that Goodenow is loath to let his star players sign contracts that are less than "perceived" market value.

 

[Sammy*]

One more time: give me an example of one signing that has so drastically inflated salaries arising from the arbitration process. Or even one you THINK would artifically affect arbitration awards.

Hey Genius, when you get out of your meetings with Goodenow & the boys how bout explaining to me:
1) how the giguere contract really reflects his historical performance,
2)why the NHLPA is so steadfast in wanting the current form of arbitration to remain if it isnt so inflationary.

I know you are real busy with ongoing negotiations so take your time.

 

[Sammy*]

Huh? Why wouldn't Blake's contract have any effect?

Maybe he was pending ufa . Short of that, I think our mans bias is getting in the way of rational/objective thought (again).

 

[Sinurgy]

Maybe he was pending ufa . Short of that, I think our mans bias is getting in the way of rational/objective thought (again).

His bias is clearly showing but actually I think he's mostly fueled by arrogance based on something most likely self-imposed.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I am with the players on this one. I don't think the team should have any arbitration rights.

An Employee has the right to choose where he should work. The Employer makes those rules and the employee decides to accept work based on that.

Let the players have the arbitration rights, but let the NHL decide how much each team can operate with.

Fine, then shouldn't the employer be allowed to set forth the pay scale and define what portion of revenues they will spend on salaries? No, the players are different. They are special and they deserve special rules.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

One can't say that the Holik or Giguere signings inflated the market directly.

One can only see that Holik raised the price of winger X to spur the increase of player Y and Player Z is going to get double his origional demand eventually.

Salaries have shot up. UFA's, RFA's......only parts of the problem. Agents are a bigger problem....GM IDIOTS are an even bigger problem.

I side with common sense, which means I can't be pro owner or pro player.

The CBA will be without question fashioned to a: keep ticket prices inflated, b: keep salaries high enough (to pay for dog food, which is pricy in Dallas, apparently) and c:keep agents happy.

Owners, players, agents.

The game and the fans are not mentioned. The coach's meeting addressed the former. The latter?

I look at the slow game, the "creative solutions" put in place by Bettman&Co. and the lack of "hockey feel" in the modern arenas (and the older ones....the NVMC once was the loudest arena with cold white and concrete: the game was the attraction......now it's sushi and a costume wearing idiot obstruction shooting t-shirts).......

Well, I look at all that and the money I plop down for seats I can afford (and tissues for nasal bleeding) and think I'm paying taxes that in no way help me but will get funneled into some foreign dictator or a welfare cheat.

I just try not to go to games.

I encourage people to not go to games.

I really am adamant about people NOT GOING TO GAMES.


Why?


If people kept buying Pintos, Ford would still make a Pinto.

And charge $29,999 for a death trap that sucks up a lot of gas and has little power.

So whether the owners win or the players win, you're spending $80+ bucks to sit a hundred feet away from the ice, overpay for food and parking and seats and watch a trapped star making little excitement but being paid like he is, eventually get through the obstruction and shooting a puck really fast and hard with a composite stick that anyone can shoot 90MPH slappers with (read: watered down product or the death of an artform: the sniper) into a goalie with pads bigger than the net.

You pay for two referees to miss twice as many calls as the one ref game ref used to, leading to a lack of control witnessed by the Bertuzzi and McSorley incidents, and now possibly to see a total meltdown of overtime.......the OTL point made OT worthless (players don't try) and now they just made it even worse.

Stop paying these people and supporting their demolition of the once greatest sport on earth. Stop rewarding Bettman and Goodenow's boys and the GM's and highers up that orchestrated the game's castration.

All the stress and worry and whatnot over this strike seems pointless if the game is just going to continue to be eroded by gross mismanagement and inflated ticket prices that only serve the wealthier suits who can write them off on their taxes.

Feed your kids and send them to school instead. Or buy a nicer car/suit/house/LIFE for yourself until they present a nicer and better priced game for you.


Sorry for the long rant, but this talk of the lockout maybe coming to an end just made me think a bit......what good would any resolution do for the fan? The guy taking the puck in the head in the stands.....the guy outside in -30 wind chill waiting for tickets..... the family who spend a mortgage payment EVERY FIVE GAMES they go to......the most passionate about the game itself?

I bet nada. Nothing.

 

[Jobu]

Huh? Why wouldn't Blake's contract have any effect?

Because his contract was inadmissible as a comparable.

 

[Jobu]

It's obvious why the players don't like this. Arbitration currently *averages* 66% or so, with raises of 100%, 200%, 300% happening regularly. So of course they don't want a 25% limit.

I've argued for a long time that arbitration simply should cease to exist, except when both GM and player want it. The vast majority of contracts are done each year without arbitration.

Let the free market decide. GM and owner, negotiating until both are happy, instead of a third party, who *always* makes one side or the other unhappy.

The arbitrator in all but one or two cases in salary arbitration history has selected a salary between the player's and the club's offer. Frankly, I would favour final offer arbitration, but that is even more likely to produce "unhappiness."

The plain and simple reason why the NHL doesn't like arbitration is because by definition, with players having the sole option to file, they are always facing tough cases, i.e., players only file with strong cases. Else, they'll sit out (see Marty St. Louis).

If owners can bring players to arbitration, they may regain some of the upper hand.

Granted, this may lead to more arbitration and less negotiated deals, but what's the alternative? You can't eliminate arbitration without letting players be free at the end of a contract. Otherwise, a team can simply refuse to negotiate with a player, and in the absence of arbitration, the club can effectively prevent a player from playing.

 

[Jobu]

The price of UFA signings do significantly effect the overall player salaries in the league. Certainly UFA signings such as Holik's are not admissable in arbitration hearings. I've read this time and again as if this means they have no impact on the process, which is incorrect.

Holik, or Weight sign for big $'s. A year later, a teams better centerman's contract ends. He negotiates his contract with the team, pointing out his importance to the club, and as a star player, similiar examples are given on other teams. Perhaps he plays as well or better than Doug Weight, and he is used as a comparable. Of course, not being a UFA is taken in consideration, but we are using him as an example of skill set. Player and team come to an agreement, and the new contract has risen significantly... maybe the player has signed a longer than he wanted, but the team has also given him more than they wished... standard in negotiated contracts.

Now, it's this players contract that is used as the example during arbitration... and it has been significantly effected by recent UFA signings. It's obvious that player salaries are made public for this reason... contracts are simply not made in a vacume, and any salary has an effect on those that follow. It is another reason that Goodenow is loath to let his star players sign contracts that are less than "perceived" market value.

If you have ever spoken to an agent or GM, you would know that UFA contracts are only used as comparables for other UFAs. If you try to go to a GM as a Group II FA explaining why you're worth $15m because Holik got $9m as a Group III, you'll be laughed out of the office.

Group III salaries basically have no effect on the league, at least as arbitration is concerned. The Joint Comparable Exhibit and Average League Salary calculations discount Group III, V, etc. signings.

As for the PA being loathe to have players sign for below market value, is that not understandable? It affects 730 players when someone signs an idiotic deal.

 

[Jobu]

Hey Genius, when you get out of your meetings with Goodenow & the boys how bout explaining to me:
1) how the giguere contract really reflects his historical performance,
2)why the NHLPA is so steadfast in wanting the current form of arbitration to remain if it isnt so inflationary.

I know you are real busy with ongoing negotiations so take your time.

1) Giguere had a couple of great years (in fact, he had a better year statistically in 2001/02 than 2002/03). I have no idea what factors entered the negotiations, or what comparables were used, but I didn't see Anaheim being forced to pay Giggy anything. The bottom line is, in a revised system, Anaheim could have taken Giggy to arbitration if they wanted to (or Giggy could have filed). This completely eliminates the hold-out card, which is clearly a factor in what people perceive to be inflated salaries.

2) The NHLPA has offered concessions in the arbitration area; and if pressed they'd likely concede more. It's called give and take. As I just posted, there HAS to be arbitration, or else there HAS to be a completely free market after all contracts end. Otherwise, teams own the rights to players and can effectively decide what to pay them and when. It's ridiculous.

 

[Jobu]

His bias is clearly showing but actually I think he's mostly fueled by arrogance based on something most likely self-imposed.

Or perhaps it's fact; I love how so many of these pro-owner people fail to recognize the incongruency of blindly siding with multi-billionaires over "overpaid" millionaires with 5-year careers and a scarce skill.

 

[Jobu]

Here's a question for you.....

If a given team has more than ONE player on the roster EVERY year who has underperformed to the extent that he needs to be taken to arbitration in order to REDUCE his salary, and if this is the case EVERY year.....

Wouldn't you say that the management/ownership is doing a LOUSY job?

Say a team like the Isles wants to get a Premier winger for Yashin. They offer Pavol Demitra $6M per year to come to Long Island. Demitra thinks this is a good deal, so he takes it. He's signed and is now a New York Islander.

During the course of the season, he's shifted around from line to line, spending large portions of the season on the 2nd, and sometimes the 3rd, lineand he's not given the opportunity to gel with any particular line-mates.

He's less effective, so his scoring drops.

Are you saying it'll be fair for the Isles to take him to arbitration and demand that he take a pay-cut down to $3M per year, on a mandatory 2 year deal?

What's to stop guys like Wirtz and Jacobs from offering the world to top level talent in order to get them to sign, only to have coaches reduce ice-time, change line-mates, and create other barriers to a player reaching his full potential in the first year of the contract, KNOWING that "underperfomance" will lead to the ability to lock that player in for two or three MORE years at what they REALLY wanted to pay him in the first place, which is considerably LESS than what the player would have agreed to come to the team for?

It's no use trying to explain that managerial quality ought to be counted on as opposed to a foolproof system of economics. Hell, anyone could succeed in the sort of system the NHL is proposing -- it's a no-brainer and a completely false market.

 

[Jobu]

Fine, then shouldn't the employer be allowed to set forth the pay scale and define what portion of revenues they will spend on salaries? No, the players are different. They are special and they deserve special rules.

They already can and do do this. Doesn't every team have a budget? If not, they should.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

It's no use trying to explain that managerial quality ought to be counted on as opposed to a foolproof system of economics. Hell, anyone could succeed in the sort of system the NHL is proposing -- it's a no-brainer and a completely false market.

The NHL is ensuring that GM's who have taken too many pucks or sticks to their head (see: Milbury, Quinn, Maloney, et al) will lead productive lives after their playing careers end and ensuring they never will have to utter the words, "Welcome to Dairy Queen.....may I take your order?"

But the reality is idiots get hired, moronic signings are made, competition and ego are involved and certain teams will always be guilty of it.

Players will accept the highest offer no matter what.

The offers have to be prevented.

Neither side has shown anything (realistic) that makes me believe they can manage it, so nothing short of a full blown cap (a figurative "nanny" for the GM's) will come out of the NHL side.

Electing a tri-partisan committee (owners/players/arbitors) to veto salaries (escalations) would be too much for Bettman to register.

 

[Epsilon]

The most ridiculous part of this to me is the ability to get 2 or 3 year contracts out of arbitration. So if a player breaks out, there would now be no incentive whatsover for the team to negociate with him. They just take him to arbitration and get a 3 year contract at a 25% raise from his entry-level deal or whatnot.

The only way this system works is if a player who is taken to arbitration by his team becomes a UFA immediately after his arbitration-imposed contract ends.

 

[Jobu]

The NHL is ensuring that GM's who have taken too many pucks or sticks to their head (see: Milbury, Quinn, Maloney, et al) will lead productive lives after their playing careers end and ensuring they never will have to utter the words, "Welcome to Dairy Queen.....may I take your order?"

But the reality is idiots get hired, moronic signings are made, competition and ego are involved and certain teams will always be guilty of it.

Players will accept the highest offer no matter what.

The offers have to be prevented.

Neither side has shown anything (realistic) that makes me believe they can manage it, so nothing short of a full blown cap (a figurative "nanny" for the GM's) will come out of the NHL side.

Electing a tri-partisan committee (owners/players/arbitors) to veto salaries (escalations) would be too much for Bettman to register.

Why can't teams have checks and balances? Surely Milbury can't go out and sign Yashin without ownership giving it the green light.

 

[Jobu]

The most ridiculous part of this to me is the ability to get 2 or 3 year contracts out of arbitration. So if a player breaks out, there would now be no incentive whatsover for the team to negociate with him. They just take him to arbitration and get a 3 year contract at a 25% raise from his entry-level deal or whatnot.

The only way this system works is if a player who is taken to arbitration by his team becomes a UFA immediately after his arbitration-imposed contract ends.

The precise reason why the 25% cap, or any cap, is ludicrous.

It can work the other way too: a player can elect for a 3-year deal coming off a great year or two, then slack for a few years until he's 30 or 31 (whatever the UFA age will be). Not all that likely, but still somewhat of a perverse incentive.