Bad example. Your right that a player is entitled to make what someone is willing to pay him. But in Briere's case his deal was an arbitration award not a contract offer. He got a 3.1 mil raise for playing only 48 games and he got that rediculous raise. I have no issue at all with owners shelling out whatever they want on players. But an arbitrator should use a little more common sense.
Players are human? Nice melodramatic touch.
While I think the arbitrator gave Briere too much money, I believe you are confusing the point of arbitration. Briere did not get a raise for playing 48 games last year, his raise is based on what the arbitrator thought his value was for
next season.
As had been pointed out ad nauseum by some Sabres fans, Briere was on pace for a 100 point season. Now Briere's case was much easier to make than Buffalo's. He has been in the NHL for about five years full time (give or take) and last year was his first injury, making the "injury prone" argument difficult. He came back from the hernia and absolutely tore up the playoffs, so he showed no lingering effects. He did score at a much higher clip this year than he has in the past, but a smart guy on Briere's side could say that is because of the "New NHL." I can see more convincing arguments on Briere's side than Buffalo's. Next year he can certainly be worth 5M.
