*RUMORED* NHLPA Proposal

[Tom_Benjamin]

We all know you don't believe there are any overpaid players Tom. But trust us, there are. Let's see, who no longer contributes relative to their salary? Off the top of my head, Jagr, Tkachuk, Leclair, you could make a damn good case for Modano, Savage as mentioned. Continuing on Phoenix, I'd also say Mike Johnson, Gratton and Boucher are also overpaid. This ain't hard.

As far as I am aware none of these players are without contracts and arbitration doesn't apply to any of them. What you are talking about has nothing to do with arbitration. You don't think contracts should be guaranteed.

Yes, salaries can't be decreased while still maintaining a players rights. Letting a player go as a complete free agent for nothing isn't decreasing his salary, it just means you no longer have to pay it. Of course you no longer receive the benefit of his play.

So what? He's not worth the money. And there is nothing to stop the team from resigning the player even after they don't qualify him. The Canucks didn't qualify Baumgartner and then resigned him. Players take pay cuts all the time this way.

That same logic applies to the current system as well. "Why should players have the right to take owners to arbitration? They negotiated a contract that both sides thought was fair, they signed it, they should have to live with it." Yet, arbitration existed.

It did not exist for players with signed contracts. The only time a player can opt for arbitration is when he does not have a contract. His options are to become a restricted free agent and hold out, or go to arbitration.

In 90% of the cases the GM of the team is quoted as saying "At least we know he will be in camp" when the player files, and in at least half the cases the team opts to have the arbitrator assign a two year contract instead of one. That's how awful arbitration is. The team says "Yeah! Stick it to us for two years instead on one, Mr. Arbitrator!"

Until Burke got on his kick, he always used to say, "I never mind when a player goes to arbitration. He is just looking for what is fair and if we can agree as to his market value a neutral party does it. It is players who hold out who are cheating the system. They are trying to raise the bar. they want more than market value."

Where did you get the idea anybody who thinks they are underpaid can file?

Bizarre.

Tom

 

[PecaFan]

As far as I am aware none of these players are without contracts and arbitration doesn't apply to any of them. What you are talking about has nothing to do with arbitration. You don't think contracts should be guaranteed.

Yes, I was speculating on what arbitration could be. You're only talking about the way it used to be. Fine, but that's in the past, and it's going to change.

But still, you want examples in the past of who the GM's would have taken to arbitration? Fine. Pick any player who ever held out for a while. Peca, Yashin, Bure, Gaborik, Havlat... As you yourself state, the good thing about arbitration is that you know it's going to be decided.

Where did you get the idea anybody who thinks they are underpaid can file?

I don't. I didn't write that as clearly as I could have because I was mixing in the past with speculation, as well as including holdouts under contract.

 

[mudcrutch79]

But still, you want examples in the past of who the GM's would have taken to arbitration? Fine. Pick any player who ever held out for a while. Peca, Yashin, Bure, Gaborik, Havlat... As you yourself state, the good thing about arbitration is that you know it's going to be decided.

It strikes me that Tom has a fair point on this issue. I don't know that it's right for teams to take guys who want to hold out to arbitration. What if the Oilers had done that with Comrie last year? Right or wrong, the guy had decided he didn't want to be there. He didn't have a contract-why should he end up being bound? At least when the Oilers get taken to arbs by someone like Brewer, they had the freedom to first decide whether to give him a QO.

Personally, I'd rather see a system where guys could be qualified lower. That'd do a lot in my mind.

Of course I've been reading labour all night, and it's an incredibly left wing subject. I might look at this tomorrow when I'm reading Corp and wonder what I was thinking.

 

[Winger98]

It strikes me that Tom has a fair point on this issue. I don't know that it's right for teams to take guys who want to hold out to arbitration. What if the Oilers had done that with Comrie last year? Right or wrong, the guy had decided he didn't want to be there. He didn't have a contract-why should he end up being bound? At least when the Oilers get taken to arbs by someone like Brewer, they had the freedom to first decide whether to give him a QO.

Personally, I'd rather see a system where guys could be qualified lower. That'd do a lot in my mind.

Of course I've been reading labour all night, and it's an incredibly left wing subject. I might look at this tomorrow when I'm reading Corp and wonder what I was thinking.

I'm sure there could be a way to work in a clause that would allow a player to walk away from the arbitrator's ruling so he didn't have to play for the team. It would be tricky, so players didn't just walk away from a ruling regardless of fairness, but I think something could be figured out.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

But still, you want examples in the past of who the GM's would have taken to arbitration? Fine. Pick any player who ever held out for a while. Peca, Yashin, Bure, Gaborik, Havlat... As you yourself state, the good thing about arbitration is that you know it's going to be decided.

The only player on this list who qualifies is Peca and he sure wasn't gettig a paycut. You are supposed to be finding players that a team would take to arbitration to cut his salary, remember? These players - if they did qualify and the team did take them to arbitration - would all get whopping raises.

Tom

 

[thinkwild]

RFAs are going to get raises. They have started off at an artificially low level and slowly rise. The rate of rise for average players is not very much. The rate of rise to market value for the stars could be done differently. You'd think there is room for something to do here so that Ottawa can keep Redden, Chara, Hossa, Havlat, Spezza for several more years. Perhaps their salaries can be set against a centrally negotiated scale tied to the average market. Or perhaps their salaries could even be capped by a linked to revenue formula. Or even put a $6mil cap on an RFAs salaries and tie negotiating to that scale. There should be a compromise here