some CBA thoughts
View Single Post
10-01-2003, 08:42 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Originally Posted by
(1)I don't think any kind of grievance would be heard there. If a guy ranked 80th is drafted 20th the team won't say "give this guy less money"
(2) bonus levels are indeed set out in the CBA, not dollar amount, but minimum performance standards
(1) I am saying it is a possiblity. For instance, last year Jay Boumeester was selected by the panthers. The Panthers had the #1 pick, and wanted Bouwmeester, but traded down, and still got him. Now, according to your proposal, Bouwmeester loses money, despite the fact that he would have been the #1 overall pick, he is dropped to 3rd. I am not saying this is likely to happen, but there is a chance it could, and might be a setback.
(2) I had a brain cramp and didn't realize you meant entry-level, you are right, my mistake.
the NFL ruling might tell us a bit here, but I've addressed this point above in a reply since you posted this.
I read it... but Linsman took the NHL to court over this... now either the NHL did it on their own (to avoid a court case), or they were ruled to do so. In either case, the only difference will be if the NFL wins, in which case the NHL has a precedent to have the order over-turned, but I doubt that is likely.
In general, precedents usually are not set in arbitration. there are a few cases where it has been (Smith comes to my mind), but in general, the big pay jumps are negotiatied strictly between team and player precisely because the player at the elite level knows that arbitration usually won't work in their favor (Iginla, Kariya, Pronger, Theodore, all reasonable examples). Additionally, I think it helps everyone to get everyone under contract as soon as possible, perhaps reducing the number of holdouts we see by a couple per season. Plus, under the new qualifying system, if a player doesn't earn their 2.0 mil, then they get qualified at 1.5 and work from there afterwards.
I still don't think that (in most cases) there will be enough for an arbitrator to go on, and will leave a lot of people very unhappy (even more so than now).
It would apply to everyone who is an RFA, whether they make 8 mil or 1.2 mil
But qualifying is different from signing. All qualifying does is prevent the person from becoming a UFA... it doesn't force them to sign. If a player isn't going to accept a 10% raise, then they won't accept a 25% paycut either. The only scenario in which I think this applies is with Paul Kariya... but then I don't think he would have accepted that deal ($7.5 mil) anyways. All it does is allows the team to make a lower offer in order to retain the players rights... I don't think it will do anything in terms of ensuring guys sign faster.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by dawgbone