HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

arbitration thought

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 08:40 PM
  #1
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
arbitration thought

how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:43 PM
  #2
Dave is a killer
Dave's a Mess
 
Dave is a killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mount Juliet
Country: Italy
Posts: 26,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr
yes; a) I like your idea and b) it still has to be the MLB way of doing it - 2-way arbitration and a limit of 1 or 2 times before said player reaches UFA

Dave is a killer is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:52 PM
  #3
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.
dr
Not a bad thought but it wouldn't work.

Jarome Iginla has no "comparables" on the Flames etc. etc.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:53 PM
  #4
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Not a bad thought but it wouldn't work.

Jarome Iginla has no "comparables" on the Flames etc. etc.
true, but Iginla has never used arbitration either.

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:57 PM
  #5
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
true, but Iginla has never used arbitration either.

dr
Not just players like Iginla have no "comparables".

Players get compared to others across the league.

#1 goalies to #1 goalies

3rd line centers to 3rd line centers

#1 defenseman to #1 defenseman.

Teams rarely have more than one of a certain thing.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:09 PM
  #6
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Not just players like Iginla have no "comparables".

Players get compared to others across the league.

#1 goalies to #1 goalies

3rd line centers to 3rd line centers

#1 defenseman to #1 defenseman.

Teams rarely have more than one of a certain thing.
i like DR's idea, but as you say, some teams don't have any comparables, my only suggestion would be that the arbitrator, NOT the player, picks a team w/ a similar payroll and the comparison could be done.... maybe have a 3 mil margin each way as far as team payrolls are concerned, this would possibly give the arbitrator 2 or 3 teams to pick a comparable from

garry1221 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:43 PM
  #7
me2
Team Ben Anti-Tank 0
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Team Tank 1
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 27,828
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr

0% chance it happens. The players wouldn't agree to it. Teams wouldn't care that much. Tampa could have an all star lineup for $15m if they are stingy enough.

a) Teams would trade impending RFAs to Team Cheapo who then use their low salary to screw the player in arbitration. Team Cheapo then trades that player at screwed over salary.

b) it creates holdouts and salary wars, .

c) draft day madness and players tank to not get picked by the penguins (or whoever is cheap and has the #1 pick).

d) its just gets worse


The players would be better putting 50% of their wages into a revenue sharing scheme to help pick up the wages of playes on financially weak teams. The players on poor teams would be much happier with that.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:52 AM
  #8
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.
There aren't enough players. It won't work. The player proposal illustrates how their arbitration proposal would work using three examples from last year. It is interesting to look at the comparables used in those three arbitrations.

Biron's agent submitted Aebischer, Cloutier, Lalime and Dunham as comparables. The team countered with the same four players, plus Tomas Vokoun.

Ruslan Fedotenko named six players as being comparables. The team named five of the six (Bulis, Halpern, Stefan, LeClerc and Calder) missing only Afinogenov.

Ruslan Salei threw out seven names while his team countered with four (Gill, McKee Rathje and Warrener) that matched players on Salei's list. (Salei also thought Norstrom, McLaren and Carney should count.)

That's 18 comparables introduced in all with 14 in common which leads to the first point about arbitration. It is very easy to find the comparables. There is hardly any disagreement.

The second point is about how big spending teams supposedly drive up salaries in arbitration. Only two of the 18 players (Aebischer and Dunham) came from teams that could be described as big spending teams. Otherwise the comparable salaries were were set by Vancouver, Ottawa, Nashville, Montreal, Washington, Atlanta, Anaheim, Chicago, San Jose, Boston and Buffalo.

Until a player becomes a free agent his salary is largely determined by teams with smaller payrolls! The reason for this is obvious when you think about it. The big payroll teams have former UFAs in key positions drawing very big salaries. They don't have very many arbitration eligible players and so they don't have very many comparables for arbitration eligible players either.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:41 PM
  #9
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr
That wouldn't be fair to the players.

A large portion of the reasoning behind arbitration is that it's not fair to a player for him to be obligated by the CBA to play in a certain city, AND he should be expected to earn less simply because that team isn't willing to pay as much for it's players as another team.

Arbitration protects players from that by allowing league wide comparables. If there were no arbitration there would be nothing stopping (as an example) MIN from simply saying "we won't pay player A any more than X dollars, and if he doesn't like it, he can sit until age 31." While a lesser player might end up being paid more than that in a different city, say TOR for example.

That is not a fair set-up for the players if they have no choice (because of the draft or because their RFA rights are owned by some specific team) about where they can play.

*edit* I still agree with all that I said, but I'm just giving a potential reason why the NHLPA wouldn't negotiate such a system. As far as I know, if such a system were negotiated as part of a CBA (or arbitration dropped completely in a new CBA) it would definitely be allowed to happen. I just don't think the NHLPA would ever let it.

speeds is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:52 PM
  #10
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Right now, to an extent they're doing simular to that in that player agents generally choose the obsene contracts while owners go with the "smaller market" contracts. I think if they do implement the either/or type system being tossed around (I don't follow anything but CFL & NHL but apparently baseball uses it??) I think you'll see agents more often then not throw out the high contracts and go in using the somewhat realistic contracts ... ie -. if the Flames go in offering Iggy Joe Thornton type money, Iginla's camp might be more inclined to chase somewhere between Bertuzzi/Sundin/Roenick type money instead of aiming for Tkachuk/Guerin/Holik type dollars knowing the arbitrators going to choose one or the other and not somewhere in between.......

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:57 PM
  #11
no13matssundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji Frank
Right now, to an extent they're doing simular to that in that player agents generally choose the obsene contracts while owners go with the "smaller market" contracts. I think if they do implement the either/or type system being tossed around (I don't follow anything but CFL & NHL but apparently baseball uses it??) I think you'll see agents more often then not throw out the high contracts and go in using the somewhat realistic contracts ... ie -. if the Flames go in offering Iggy Joe Thornton type money, Iginla's camp might be more inclined to chase somewhere between Bertuzzi/Sundin/Roenick type money instead of aiming for Tkachuk/Guerin/Holik type dollars knowing the arbitrators going to choose one or the other and not somewhere in between.......
totally off topic, but the CFL rocks!

no13matssundin is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:07 PM
  #12
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr
How about fix the system and institute a level playing field, and then arbitration will no longer be as unfair because players will actually be getting paid according to their value and not what rich teams feel like throwing at them. Of course it has to allow the owners to take the players to arbitration without too many stipulations.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:12 PM
  #13
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
How about fix the system and institute a level playing field, and then arbitration will no longer be as unfair because players will actually be getting paid according to their value and not what rich teams feel like throwing at them. Of course it has to allow the owners to take the players to arbitration without too many stipulations.
You need to learn about the real world.

In the real world, market value is determined by the rich, not the poor.

If the owners want a level playing field they can divide all revenues evenly after accepting the players proposal.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:59 PM
  #14
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
You need to learn about the real world.

In the real world, market value is determined by the rich, not the poor.

If the owners want a level playing field they can divide all revenues evenly after accepting the players proposal.
But in sports market value being determined by the rich sums up every single problem with the system we have in place.

If anyone needs to learn about the real world its you, and the NHLPA.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 09:27 AM
  #15
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 15,614
vCash: 500
So in the new CBA proposal, can the owners take a guy like Jagr to arbitration because he is not performing up to the level of his ludicrous 11M salary??? Will they then use a comparable down, and say you only got 68 pts Jammy, and so did Mike Ryder and he only made 650K... so...........I can't see the players ever going for something like this, they only use the comparable when it jacks their salary up, not down.

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:51 AM
  #16
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how about changing the rule so that the only comparables a player can use is from his own team. this means small revenue teams will be able to insulate themselves better from payroll choices of the larger revenue teams.

dr

Too limiting. May not be enough comparable players on that team.

How about this: Comparable players playing on teams that have violated the luxury tax threshold will not be used for arbitration purposes?

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.