Arbitration - PA prosposes elimination of 'Walking away' from ruling
Just wanted to tackle this little tidbit from their proposal...
I think we could gather the data ourselves to determine the feasibility of whether this would be good for teams.
The process of how to do this:
- gather a recent list of players that teams have walked away from
- the contract awarded that was passed on by the team
- subsequent contract signed with his new club, and maybe the contract after that as well.
- subsequent performance of said player the following season.
- And then the subjective part - did the player's subsequent performance justify or not the team walking away from the orginal award.
A- In general most of the players managed show they were deserving of their awards thru their subsequent seasons (PA proposal to eliminate the walk-away right is justified)
B- In general most of the players' subsequent seasons appeared to justify their original team's decision to walk away for the awarded contract. (PA proposal to eliminate the walk-away right would not be justified)
Whoa.. just found a list of walk-aways to make this very easy...
I don't like the PA's stance on this, and I do wonder how serious they are on this subject...
A GM has to operate under a cap. And many does not have alot of room to work with. Then all of a sudden you end up with a player getting a 3-4m raise, that you have no interest to pay for, and nobody else either I guess in some cases.
I think it also can fire back at the players. Like seriously, I think a coach/GM could match a player diffrently if they fear that he could end up with a contarct in the summer that could really hurt the team. If you have a D that you think is a 2m D, you have 4m of cap space and need to resign 3 players of which one you think is really important and that you absolutely not want to loose, do you play the said D on the PP if you think he could get 35 pts from it and close to 3-4m in arbitration when you can't walk away from that award in an emergency?
That's what the Pens did with Kennedy. They did no send him a QO so it had not arbitration rights and the Pens didn't have to be scared of an offer sheet. Obviously, it doesn't work with star players.
this is false, given that every team could actually send him an offer sheet. the only difference is that the Pens wouldn't have to match (but also wouldn't be allowed to match without Kennedy's approval even if they wanted to).
After realizing the frequency at which 'walking away' occurs, this is NOT an important point of the CBA process...
But in general, it does appear teams were for the most part justified for walking away...
Stillman and MacArther stand out to the contrary.
The Thrashers never argued against MacArthur in his arbitration hearing. Essentially, the arbitrator only had one side of the argument to consider (MacArthur's) and gave him exactly what he was asking for.
The Thrashers were never planning to match anyways, so they walked away and the Leafs ended up taking a flyer on him for one year.
Here is a pretty good article summing up what happened with MacArthur. Essentially, the Thrashers wanted to make sure he was awarded MINIMUM $1.6 million so they could walk away, so they never challenged the arbitration.