Arbitration completely offsets "Cost Certainty" fought for

[LexLuthor871]

Now that arbitration has ended, it's pretty clear to me that arbitration has rendered null and void some of the principles of the new CBA. I guess my question is why couldn't the owners have eliminated arbitration? I think they had enough leverage to do it especially by the end. To me arbitration has ruined baseball and it ruins hockey. The large market teams payout some of these stupid contracts and the figures are cited in arbitration hearings. Does anyone know if the owners considered eliminating arbitration during the last lockout? I remember the owners fighting for the right for reverse arbitration, i.e. with a dog like Yashin, but don't know if that was every included.

 

The upshot is that this CBA didn't "protect the owners from themselves" as had been originally thought. With a 44 million salary cap now and the Sabres only able to realistically afford to pay 30-35 million, I might even contend that this agreement is WORSE for them than the system they played under before. Just some things I've been musing about...I'd be interested to hear what the pretty avid fans on here say.

[Taro T]

Now that arbitration has ended, it's pretty clear to me that arbitration has rendered null and void some of the principles of the new CBA. I guess my question is why couldn't the owners have eliminated arbitration? I think they had enough leverage to do it especially by the end. To me arbitration has ruined baseball and it ruins hockey. The large market teams payout some of these stupid contracts and the figures are cited in arbitration hearings. Does anyone know if the owners considered eliminating arbitration during the last lockout? I remember the owners fighting for the right for reverse arbitration, i.e. with a dog like Yashin, but don't know if that was every included.

 

The upshot is that this CBA didn't "protect the owners from themselves" as had been originally thought. With a 44 million salary cap now and the Sabres only able to realistically afford to pay 30-35 million, I might even contend that this agreement is WORSE for them than the system they played under before. Just some things I've been musing about...I'd be interested to hear what the pretty avid fans on here say.

Yashin's deal was NOT an arbitration special. It was a Mike Milbury special. BIG difference. (No collective bargaining agreement can totally legislate out stupidity, although this one does go a long way towards that goal.)

 

This CBA DID "protect the owners from themselves". Although a Tampa Bay can give Richards $7MM+ and St. Louis can give Jay $4MM, neither team can go over $44MM total. In the old system, teams were coming close to spending $70MM. Although the playing field isn't completely level, it's a lot closer than it was. Every $ that Tampa gave to Richards is a $ they couldn't give to Kubina or Modin. Teams have a budget and can spend it however they want, but when the $'s are gone, they are gone. NJ will get hit severely by that and Buffalo will get hit as well, as will several others.

 

The players would never give up the right to go to arbitration unless the league guaranteed the players a much bigger slice of the pie. Without arbitration, the ONLY guys getting the huge bucks would be the UFA's. Telling a 20 year old kid coming into the league that if he stays healthy until he's 27, he can have a big payday doesn't do much to inspire solidarity within the ranks, especially when European leagues are opening the pursestrings wider than they have in the past.

 

BTW, although it IS a much better system than it was before, I wanted to see the cap last year at about $34MM.

[deluca67]

Now that arbitration has ended, it's pretty clear to me that arbitration has rendered null and void some of the principles of the new CBA. I guess my question is why couldn't the owners have eliminated arbitration? I think they had enough leverage to do it especially by the end. To me arbitration has ruined baseball and it ruins hockey. The large market teams payout some of these stupid contracts and the figures are cited in arbitration hearings. Does anyone know if the owners considered eliminating arbitration during the last lockout? I remember the owners fighting for the right for reverse arbitration, i.e. with a dog like Yashin, but don't know if that was every included.

 

The upshot is that this CBA didn't "protect the owners from themselves" as had been originally thought. With a 44 million salary cap now and the Sabres only able to realistically afford to pay 30-35 million, I might even contend that this agreement is WORSE for them than the system they played under before. Just some things I've been musing about...I'd be interested to hear what the pretty avid fans on here say.

 

Any system in place will require some type of self control. What it does is give teams like Buffalo the final say. The Sabres could have walked away from the $5 million joke of an award given to Briere. They chose at this point not to. ;)

[inkman]

First, I feel the salary structure as a whole will take time to get in order. Teams are still overpaying for FA and arbitrations are being awarded in lieu of said excess. Teams will realize once they have 2/3 of their payroll being dished out to a handful of aging, overpriced lugs that perhaps 5-8 million dollar salaries is not going to work in the NHL. This will take time to right itself, my prediction: 5 years.

 

Secondly, The NHL will not experience revenue growth at the level it did this season. I think if anything the league revenues will either stay put or even regress. The league found itself with quite a few unique situations to propell it to new found success. The salary cap is a direct result of the revenue and if teams are dishing out big, escalating contracts to today's stars, tomorrow they will reap what they sew. Teams payroll will increase every year without signing players, limiting the amount of $ to throw around senselessly.

 

Therefore, teams will ultimately be forced to spend less on FA and will drive down these arbitration deals that we are seeing explode at an astronomical rate. IMO, of coarse... :)

[fushetti]

Arbitration has killed baseball.... It may ruin hockey as well.

[inkman]

Arbitration has killed baseball.... It may ruin hockey as well.

 

 

no cap in baseball...one team alone can ruin it...pssst...Yankees

[Stoner]

....The salary cap is a direct result of the revenue and if teams are dishing out big, escalating contracts to today's stars, tomorrow they will reap what they sew....

 

I think I saw that on a fortune cookie once: "Seamstress reaps what she sews."

[Bmwolf21]

no cap in baseball...one team alone can ruin it...pssst...Yankees

 

That Yankees are far and away the worst offenders in North American sports in terms of total payroll. The struggle I have is that they aren't doing anything wrong, per se - there is no rule preventing them from paying $200M-plus for a team payroll, assuming they are willing to pay the luxury tax.

 

Although initially I thought it was a joke, the MLB luxury tax seems to finally be making an impact, since Georgie boy will have to pay a 40% tax on the payroll that exceeds the luxury "cap" and carrying some excess debt could help curb their free-spending ways. Of course, what differene is the luxury tax when you play in the the largest media market in the world?

 

BTW, I guess we should all be glad that we aren't Florida Marlins fans - can their team payroll really be only $15M? Link

[LexLuthor871]

Thanks for informative responses to all...it was one of those thoughts that was gnawing at me. I understand a little bit more that this process will adjust itself.

 

Re: Yankees, I think in one way shape or form, their spend-thrift ways and some bad decisions + paying out luxury taxes does/will eventually catch up. i.e. not signing Carl "Perennial Vacation" Pavano, did hurt the Yanks in their efforts to sign Beltran as someone on here alluded to.

[Fighting Chicken]

I really think that the arbitration process needs looking at.

 

First rule written in should be that no comparison to any RFA or UFA player signed to long, huge, dumb contracts by the Mike Milburys, Glen Sathers and Dale Tallons of this world will be admitted to the case in hand.

 

Personally, I don't think any UFA contracts should be used as comparison in arbitration because they're always going to be top-loaded due to the nature of players themselves to the highest bidder. I think if a player is re-signing with the same team, the comparison should be made against players in a similar situation. That would also rule out the trade-and-sign stupidity deals like Yashin (Isles) and Havlat (Hawks) from the equation.

 

Also, the use of projected numbers, used for the Dumont and Briere arbitration deals. I'm not sure what the arbitrators crystal ball looks like, or how accurate it really is, but who is to say that Dumont and Briere wouldn't have slumped at some point last season if they hadn't been injured? Knock the points per game down a few notches due to a slump and a million falls off those salaries in an instant. What if that's the start of multiple seasons of 'fragile' play by Briere and Dumont? What if they never play more than 55 games per season for the rest of their careers? Is that really value for money if they miss 25 - 30 games per season?

 

Don't get me wrong, we'd all like to get the biggest paycheque (UK spelling!) that we can, but I wish the players would quit with the "I want to stay in Buffalo..." BS when they quite clearly mean "I want big money, right now." and don't give a rat's ass about keeping the competitive team together at all.

[Stoner]

Do you think players should accept less than they are worth to help keep the team together? Is such generosity ever "paid back" by the team, in the cutthroat, bottom line business of sports?

[Fighting Chicken]

Do you think players should accept less than they are worth to help keep the team together? Is such generosity ever "paid back" by the team, in the cutthroat, bottom line business of sports?

 

That depends on if you think the players are awarded their worth in arbitration.

 

If a player really wants the front office to keep the same squad of players together for another run at the Cup, they should know that to do so means sacrifice. That means that the team have to pay more money (that it may not be able to realistically afford) but the players may need to take a hit too.

 

Who wants to win the Cup?

 

Everyone. Surely being on a competitive team that has a realistic chance to win the Cup is what each player wants way more than that extra million dollars on a four or five million dollar contract? Havlat is one of those players who just seems to want the money, I just hope Briere doesn't just talk the talk like he does.

 

This is a team game, if you want to win you have to make a lot of sacrifices. That means blocking a shot, taking a hit or signing for less money than you believe you're worth in order for your team mates (that you say you respect and care about so much) can be retained.

 

Basically, if they want the core of the team to remain together, they have to suck it up and do their part to help that happen.

[Stoner]

And would the team agree to overpay cooperative players on their next contract by 20%, should the team win the Stanley Cup? No. We really need to separate the game from the business. Players should sacrifice in every way, except at the bargaining table. That's just the real world. Players are given no quarter in this business, and they shouldn't give any.

 

P.S. I've always believed that by definition what a player gets is what he deserves. If Tom Golisano and Darcy Regier think Daniel Briere is worth five million dollars, who can argue? He got it. He's worth it.

[Bmwolf21]

Problem is, you can't separate the game from the business. Can't be done. The business side of the sport has the highest affect on the on-ice product and the team's chances of winning a championship.

 

The players walk a fine line in their attitude towards salaries. They try to say the right things - "I love it here, I want to stay in Buffalo, etc." but most will not give a "hometown discount" which, in many cases, enables the team to put more talent on the ice with him. So the player takes the higher offer from another team, and that's his right, to take whatever the market will bear; but in most cases they have to make the tradeoff that while they are getting the maximum contract they can, they may do so at the expense of their chance at a championship.

 

In the past, teams' own budgetary limitations would prevent most teams from overpaying for a Briere or Dumont and building a Cup-worthy team around them; now, the salary cap all but ensures that most teams can't pay nearly $3M for a Dumont or over $5M for a Briere (just my WAG on what his long-term deal will end up at) and still build a Cup contender. This year's playoffs proved that having a bunch of good, skilled players is better than having two or three above-average players or superstars.

[nfreeman]

 

The players walk a fine line in their attitude towards salaries. They try to say the right things - "I love it here, I want to stay in Buffalo, etc." but most will not give a "hometown discount" which, in many cases, enables the team to put more talent on the ice with him. So the player takes the higher offer from another team, and that's his right, to take whatever the market will bear; but in most cases they have to make the tradeoff that while they are getting the maximum contract they can, they may do so at the expense of their chance at a championship.

 

 

How do we know this? This is a pretty unfair statement to make without full information. For example, we have no idea what we offered McKee. Did we offer him $6.5 million for 3 years? $10 million for 4 years? $8 million? $14 million? Who knows? Nobody on this board does, except for Larry Quinn, and until he comes out and says it for attribution, then nobody knows.

 

Bottom line is we have no idea whether McKee would have stayed here for $14.5 million if the Sabres had offered it instead of leaving for $16 million. Since we don't know, it's not fair to say he's being greedy or that he won't give a hometown discount.

 

FWIW, it seems pretty clear to me that Max did give us a hometown discount, since he probably would've gotten more in arbitration and then with another year like last year would've gotten a lot more as a UFA.

[Fighting Chicken]

Bottom line is we have no idea whether McKee would have stayed here for $14.5 million if the Sabres had offered it instead of leaving for $16 million. Since we don't know, it's not fair to say he's being greedy or that he won't give a hometown discount.

 

Personally speaking, I was talking more of Briere and his approach to a new contract, not McKee.

 

I think they dicked McKee around long enough (when they could have negotiated with him during the season) that he felt it only right to test the free agent waters come July, Briere mouthed off in the press early and then went for the short, big deal with an easy-out option after the season. I think there's a huge difference.

[Bmwolf21]

How do we know this? This is a pretty unfair statement to make without full information. For example, we have no idea what we offered McKee. Did we offer him $6.5 million for 3 years? $10 million for 4 years? $8 million? $14 million? Who knows? Nobody on this board does, except for Larry Quinn, and until he comes out and says it for attribution, then nobody knows.

 

Bottom line is we have no idea whether McKee would have stayed here for $14.5 million if the Sabres had offered it instead of leaving for $16 million. Since we don't know, it's not fair to say he's being greedy or that he won't give a hometown discount.

 

FWIW, it seems pretty clear to me that Max did give us a hometown discount, since he probably would've gotten more in arbitration and then with another year like last year would've gotten a lot more as a UFA.

 

You're right, I have no firsthand knowledge of every contract negotiation ever completed in major league sports, and have no basis for that opinion. <_< I guess I'll have to go on the fact that year in and year out, dozens of fan favorites across North American pro sports are traded or sign with other teams b/c the franchise who drafted them, developed them, and put them in position to hit the FA jackpot, couldn't compete with the FA $$ being thrown at them by another club.

 

Likewise, there's always been anectodatal eveidence of other leagues' Players Associations pressuring their members to grab every dollar available, so that other players can use their contracts as benchmarks to keep driving salaries up. If you think the NHLPA isn't doing the same thing, pressuring its guys to take every dollar available to get back at the owners, then I don't know what to say.

 

How do you know players will (or do) give a hometown discount? Is Danny Briere giving us a hometown bargain at $5M+ (which is what it will probably take to sign him long-term?) He was the one who came out and "acted like a leader" to some of the posters here, by running his mouth about the team needs to pony up and pay to keep the core together. Well, let's remember, contract negotiations are a two-way street. Its not like the Sabres come and say "here Danny, $2.5M for 4 years, take it or leave it." They're called negotiations - Danny's agent comes back with another deal, and they work from there. If there is such a difference on what a players' worth is, then they can go to arbitration. Does anyone know how much they were apart in negotiations? You're telling me they couldn't bridge a $1M per year gap (if that's what it was?) Please - don't insult us. If Danny wanted to be the true leader his comments suggested, he & his agent could have worked with the Sabres to sign a reasonable three-year deal like the rest of the team has. Instead, I really think he had a lot of pressure from his fellow union members to go to arbitration and set the bar for other FA signings, and he decided to see if he could hit the jackpot with the arbitrator. Good for him - it worked out in his favor.

 

FWIW, I was not talking about individual players specifically. But if you want to look at indiviudal Sabres as examples, fine. McKee? IMO, this offseason he was gone no matter what. He wasn't going to sign for what we all assume the Sabres were going to offer to a one-dimensional defenseman. Maybe we could have signed him long-term last year, and the team dicked him around too much. Whatever - its all water under the bridge.

 

Max? While the number he settled for is probably lower than what an arbitrator would have awarded him, I don't think he is a $3M/year player. To echo other people's sentiments about other Sabres players - he has had one good (not outstanding) regular season, followed by an average (at best) playoffs. He never even cracked 50 points until this year. IMO, Darcy locked him up because Max signed for ~$3M for 3 years is more valuable to this team than Max at 1-year, $3.5-4M+, facing FA next season. Signed to three years means he's more valuable as both part of the club's financial structure and as a trade asset.

 

Like I said, I was not trying to point individual players specifically, only to offer an opinion on the pressure of players to get the maximum value contract while maintaining a reasonable shot at winning a championship. If guys were really inetrested in staying in one place, building a winner, etc., they would find a way to get a contract done that is agreeable to both sides, and allows the team to keep building the team. Instead, we hear BS about "not being respected" and "I'm worth more than that" and other such nonsense, as they are packing up their lockers and heading for a bigger contract with another franchise.