Arbitration ruining hockey
View Single Post
07-27-2006, 02:20 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Originally Posted by
I do side with the owners on most things, but I do believe arbitration is the best scenario for everybody involved. Like I said, it can be argued that players are getting more than they are "worth" but ultimately the team can walk away from that contract. And in this day and age, with players being UFA's at 27 or 28 it's really not that big a deal anymore I don't think. Sure it still stings to walk away from a great player but that's where a responsible GM is key.
Look at BG, he made a mistake with Theo and he corrected it last year. I give him props for unloading that salary and that headache.
Ryder could have gone to arbitration but he didn't and he signed with us for another 1 year deal. Is he kicking himself that he didn't go to arbitration? Maybe. Will he ultimately "stick" it to us and walk when he has the chance? Ya maybe. I don't care though, there are lots of players to go and get and Ryder isn't Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin.
Arnitration and free agency drive up costs for vets generally. Worth is not a useful concept as we arent talking laissez faire here.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by toshiro