"ex. John LeClair : way less than $9 million/yr during three 50 goal seasons. since then production = crap, yet getting $9 million. wheres the commmon sense in that?"
The "logic" in that is pretty simple: The Flyers, despite being aware of John's health issues and age, chose to offer him a contract for that sum of money. LeClair accepted, as would you have also, if you were smart. LeClair's production has dropped, but if Clarke were a smart GM he'd have known that was going to happen. And now you harbour resentment against John LeClair as being 'overpaid.' Sorry but logic is absent from your post, IMO.
I also believe the owners should have the right to reverse arbitration, if a player produces much less then expected on the ice, then the owners can file to have his salary reduced.
Yeah, but the team can walk away from arbitration awards if they chose. If a team can take a player to arbitration and the player doesn't agree with the reward, can he refuse it and become a UFA? That doesn't seem very effective to me because then every player would just walk away from their settlements. If the players don't have the option to refuse a reward, then it's unfair to them. It'd be nice for teams to be able to take players to arbitration, but at least when a player takes the team to arb, the team has options.