strachan's take on arbitration walk aways...

[puckhead103*]

he slams fans for being unknowlegable about how arbitration works...

Some misguided fans blame the arbitrators. But arbitrators simply are number-crunchers. They look at the Chicago Blackhawks giving Martin Havlat $18 million for six years, for example, and they say, "Well if hockey professionals think Havlat's numbers are worth $6 million, then Briere's must be worth $5 million. And Dumont, a 60-point player if he'd played a full 82-game season, is worth $2.9 million."

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Strachan/2006/08/10/1731846-sun.html

Click to read more...

 

[PuckNut]

I don't know why anyone pays attention to Strachan.

 

[The HW]

Well, the arbitrators shouldn't be assigning a guy like Briere's value based on Havlat's, IMO. The Havlat deal was very high because he's (a) giving up two years of UFA status, and (b) going to a relatively unpopular destination. Point (a) applies for Gaborik, Richards and Tanguay, too. Briere is doing no such thing. In the long-run, having awarded Briere's deal on a one-year basis only compounds the inflationary problem.

I "get" arbitration walk-away, but can't figure out how we can happily say that arbitrators are 'just' number crunchers who ignore context. Seems kinda stupid.

 

[Snap Wilson]

The arbitrators decision is in some measure regulated by what certain restricted free agents gets signed to, but you can still blame them. They make the determination that Player X is similiar to Player Y and since Player Y received $5, Player X should as well. But here's the thing:

An arbitrator will only arrive at that decision of similarity after hearing arguments from both sides and receiving statistical and financial data (presumably). While the average fan will get a look at the award and say, "too high." The fans (here and elsewhere) make the decision that the correct award can be arrived at without the arguments or the information and are willing to discredit someone who has the benefit of both. That seems silly to me.

 

[Fugu]

Depth and salary caps don't go together says Strachan. Good point and glad he finally figured it out seeing that we casual observers of the NHL and its cap have been spewing this out for some time now.

Don't build through the draft he also says. I think it's more of a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" scenario. If you don't draft and develop, you will never have the services of great young players at a super discounted rate. 7 years minimum is better than no years of rookie and RFA status, right? On the other hand, don't plan on being able to hang on to all the talent either. You will have to pick and choose amongst the best, meanwhile never failing to keep the pipeline full on the feeder end.

 

[Fugu]

Well, the arbitrators shouldn't be assigning a guy like Briere's value based on Havlat's, IMO. The Havlat deal was very high because he's (a) giving up two years of UFA status, and (b) going to a relatively unpopular destination. Point (a) applies for Gaborik, Richards and Tanguay, too. Briere is doing no such thing. In the long-run, having awarded Briere's deal on a one-year basis only compounds the inflationary problem.

I "get" arbitration walk-away, but can't figure out how we can happily say that arbitrators are 'just' number crunchers who ignore context. Seems kinda stupid.

It's the system. They have some pretty strict defintions on what they can consider. Furthermore it is written into the CBA that they cannot consider the team's or league's financial or cap situations. It does seem that ignoring context is built into the process, probably to remove as much subjectivity as possible, however this has a lot side-effects as we no doubt are seeing.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The Strachan hate-on for the current CBA continues...

...though its bizarre even for him to claim building through the draft is now impossible due to a whopping two arbitration walkaways, neither of which was done to a player by the team who drafted him.

But then, logical thought is not exactly Strach's strong point.

 

[Jonjmc]

Depth and salary caps don't go together says Strachan. Good point and glad he finally figured it out seeing that we casual observers of the NHL and its cap have been spewing this out for some time now.

Don't build through the draft he also says. I think it's more of a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" scenario. If you don't draft and develop, you will never have the services of great young players at a super discounted rate. 7 years minimum is better than no years of rookie and RFA status, right? On the other hand, don't plan on being able to hang on to all the talent either. You will have to pick and choose amongst the best, meanwhile never failing to keep the pipeline full on the feeder end.

This is a popular and oft repeated misconception. You get 3 years at the minimum. After the entry level contract is up you will still pay, and pay well, for the stars. Few will be impact players in those first 3 years so they are most often paid about what they should be.

 

[Fugu]

This is a popular and oft repeated misconception. You get 3 years at the minimum. After the entry level contract is up you will still pay, and pay well, for the stars.

You mean like Kovalchuk? An RFA has to have leverage. Kovalchuk's was the threat of staying in Russia... see Zherdev right now. Very few players will have this kind of leverage after their rookie contract expires, however the possibility does exist.

My point however was to highlight that as UFA age decreases, a lot of RFA's are getting that leverage earlier- which will be 7 years from the age of 18 for players who get to the NHL right away. So a GM is faced with the money decision 3-, 4- and 5-years earlier, a Richards contracts happens sooner, as does a Havlat, and so on. The big stars will always get their money but you will see the squeeze put on the next tier. This is a loss for both the team that owns that players' rights and for the player who is getting squeezed out by the games' superstars.

 

[Jonjmc]

You mean like Kovalchuk? An RFA has to have leverage. Kovalchuk's was the threat of staying in Russia... see Zherdev right now. Very few players will have this kind of leverage after their rookie contract expires, however the possibility does exist.

My point however was to highlight that as UFA age decreases, a lot of RFA's are getting that leverage earlier- which will be 7 years from the age of 18 for players who get to the NHL right away. So a GM is faced with the money decision 3-, 4- and 5-years earlier, a Richards contracts happens sooner, as does a Havlat, and so on. The big stars will always get their money but you will see the squeeze put on the next tier. This is a loss for both the team that owns that players' rights and for the player who is getting squeezed out by the games' superstars.

I agree with this, but your original quote was "you will never have the services of great young players at a super discounted rate".... thats the part i contended..... great young players will still be paid good money.

 

[Fugu]

I agree with this, but your original quote was "you will never have the services of great young players at a super discounted rate".... thats the part i contended..... great young players will still be paid good money.

You still get the rookie deal (yeah, I know bonuses can add up, but there are limits). And you MAY get a few years where the smart GM can get a player to give up dollars for term, Zetterberg and Hemsky are great examples of this. You are splitting hairs a bit, that's okay someone has to keep me honest, but if you do not draft and develop these types of players are never in your system....

Strachan's approach would leave a team to always have to max out to the cap limit, bidding most likely for overpriced UFAs, perennially giving up picks/assets in trades, or trying to cherry pick in August from arb awards that teams leave behind. This is probably only an option for large market teams.

 

[Jonjmc]

You still get the rookie deal (yeah, I know bonuses can add up, but there are limits). And you MAY get a few years where the smart GM can get a player to give up dollars for term, Zetterberg and Hemsky are great examples of this. You are splitting hairs a bit, that's okay someone has to keep me honest, but if you do not draft and develop these types of players are never in your system....

Strachan's approach would leave a team to always have to max out to the cap limit, bidding most likely for overpriced UFAs, perennially giving up picks/assets in trades, or trying to cherry pick in August from arb awards that teams leave behind. This is probably only an option for large market teams.

Actually wasnt singling you out, I'm obviously from the Pens board and this is repeated far too much about Malkin and Crosby (well, at least the Pens have them cheap for 7 years). Anyone who doesnt think a player like Crosby (or AO for that matter) wont get a max or near max contract after the entry level one is delusional.

That said, I agree the points that you made are valid.

 

[Fugu]

Actually wasnt singling you out, I'm obviously from the Pens board and this is repeated far too much about Malkin and Crosby (well, at least the Pens have them cheap for 7 years). Anyone who doesnt think a player like Crosby (or AO for that matter) wont get a max or near max contract after the entry level one is delusional.

That said, I agree the points that you made are valid.

Yes, the Pens do have a couple of incredibly exceptional talents. Throw in Fleury and their payroll will be as lopsided as Tampa Bay's is right now in a few years, but at least they'll have a goalie in the mix!! I can see why your perspective on the "discount rate" is skewed.

 

[Opium360]

arbitration

This years arbitration didn't make any senses to me!@!@!!! Would someone like to explain to me why if the made a salary cap so the owners aren't losing money every year right. then why are players like JP Dumont getting so much money in arbitration, I think Havlat is getting alot of money he's a big player and can really make a big difference in the game but if i'm not mistakin he's making as much a Jagr. if the NHL wants to reshape everyones payroll and help the owners out they need to look into fixing this arbitration. In the old NHL before the cap i'd say sure give Dumont his 3 mill but with the salary cap i dont think the players should be awarded the high amount they are being givin.