Doan: NHLPA proposal 'significant'

[Rock]

Doan: NHLPA proposal 'significant'

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107003&hubName=nhl

Canadian Press

12/4/2004

When the NHL meets with the NHLPA in New York on Thursday they may see a much different proposal then the one they last saw on September 9.

At a charity event in Aspen, Colorado, Phoenix Coyotes player representative Shane Doan told TSN the players have made tangible concessions in what is widely believed to be their last proposal.

"There is a significant move in a lot of areas, not just the luxury tax, but the salaries of players" Doan told TSN. "It's a great offer. You'll probably find a lot of players who think we're giving too much now."

The union offer is expected to feature major concessions, but the key will be the payroll tax. The union's offer Sept. 9 had a tax that charged 20 cents on the dollar for payrolls over $40 million US, which the league labeled as ''window dressing.'' Money generated by the tax would then be shared among the teams.

"This proposal answers all their questions, does everything they say they wanted," Doan added. "They wanted a drag on salaries, they wanted the average salary to come down - it's all there. The only things not in there are giving up guaranteed contracts and the salary cap. Those are the only things we haven't given them."

The new proposal is believed to include a tax of 75 cents on the dollar on payrolls of $40-million.

[devils102]

I guess we'll find out on the 9th. Still, if they haven't given them the salary cap then that could be the end of the discussion right there. What Doan sees as major concessions could be viewed completely different by the owners. Lets hope this leads to something useful anyway...

[Devils731]

75 cents on the dollar? Thats pretty good. Move that 40 million down to 35 million and I think a deal could be made. The owners will want to link the level that the luxury tax kicks in with league revenues and the players should accept that with the trade-off of there being no hard cap.

-Scott

[njdevils_info]

Very interesting... but if they move it from 40 million to 35, I think they 75 cents will come down to something more like 60, or at least that's what the PA will want, if this is in fact what they are going to offer.

At the very least, I'd like to her the sides negotiating over this. As far as who I think is right in the whole CBA matter, I have always thought the League to be in better standing and more correct in what they want, but a deal like this is almost too much to pass up, and I hope they seriously consider and adopt something like this if the PA won't bend.

The only concession I have is that it not be for 10 years. Make it like 3, or something short like that, so that if this doesn't work out the way we hope, and things need to change right away, they don't have to drain the League of money for another 7 years and complain about it.

[Derek21]

Watch Bettman Inc. reject it on principle right away without even considering that it's a significant step towards negotiating a deal . I want to be wrong .

[JesterDevil]

I've always thought 40 mil was where a salary cap should start so 40 mil for a luxary tax is almost just as good. I like it. I hope this works.

[SueNJ97]

I have no idea what will happen. But for this to have ANY teeth in it, there have to be dramatic changes in the arbitration rules. I saw one player suggest that management be able to take players to arbitration to take their salaries DOWN if they have bad years. Or something like that. I don't know, but those arbitration rules HAVE to change.

[Triumph]

Sue is as usual exactly right.

The prices for UFAs can spiral out of control. I don't care how high those go, most teams can't afford it and the market will self-correct.

The problem is with arbitration and the fact that a guy like Sykora who has had 2 of his last 3 seasons be mediocre, will now get 4 million a year or else he's a UFA. That is completely unfair.

[PeteyNice]

Tri, but if the arbitrator gives Sykora $4M a year and Anaheim walks away he isn't really a UFA. Another team would have to offer him a contract of at least $3.2M per in order to make him a UFA. Otherwise, Anaheim has a right to match. If $4M is so outrageous why would another team offer him that? Arbitration, as it is designed, is not as violently pro-player as the owners would like you to believe, it is just that most owners fail to take advantage.

[sundstrom]

Tri, but if the arbitrator gives Sykora $4M a year and Anaheim walks away he isn't really a UFA. Another team would have to offer him a contract of at least $3.2M per in order to make him a UFA. Otherwise, Anaheim has a right to match. If $4M is so outrageous why would another team offer him that? Arbitration, as it is designed, is not as violently pro-player as the owners would like you to believe, it is just that most owners fail to take advantage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not correct. If the owners walk away from the award, the player is UFA and can sign with any OTHER team for any amount of money. Arbitration is still pro owner in that they can walk away from the award and the player can only hold out. The luxury tax can work if the teeth are MORE than .75. I'd make it $1.75 and take .50 and put that into the players pension plan. That's real cooperation between the two sides and shows a true partnership. Of course, that's no good for Chelios because he needs to fill the pool in his 3rd house.

[PeteyNice]

Umm, you are wrong.

Edit: I misread that article. I was totally right.

By the rules of salary arbitration, the Bruins have the right to match any offer Berard receives that is less than 80 percent of the final arbitration figure. By offering $2.51 million, the Bruins could figure to keep Berard as long as they don't have to pay him more than $2,008,000 (80 percent of $2.51 milion).

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=50149

Edited December 5, 2004 by PeteyNice

[Triumph]

Once again, these hypotheticals and assumptions are based on economic principles, that is, that the owner will always have his money and his perceived self-interest as his first concern. Owners don't and that's why we have these problems.

And you are wrong, Petey. No one was going to walk away from Sykora's contract after he scored 35 goals. My point was that Sykora has reached this $4 million RFA salary from which the team can only walk away and make him completely UFA. Sykora's award was perfectly legitimate. The problem is that he can't be paid anything less than what he got from the arbitrator. And it'd be quite foolish to think he's as good as he was in 2001. That's why arbitration is a pro-player exercise.

[PeteyNice]

RFA salary is different than arbitration. You are correct that if they did not give Sykora a qualifying offer then he would be a UFA, but that has nothing to do with arbitration.

[Triumph]

It has everything to do with arbitration. Without the process of arbitration, Sykora isn't going to be making 4 million a year. Plus, Sykora's arbitration decision and subsequent play affects all arbitration to come.

I am not saying do away with arbitration. That would be ridiculous. The problem is that Sykora's 4 million RFA contract can now be used to give worse players better salaries, because of Petr's mediocre play in the past few seasons. If players do worse after being handed down awards like this, it promotes only contract-year effort, something which fans do not want to see.

[PeteyNice]

I see what you are you saying but if they didn't think Sykora was worth $4M they can always non-tender him. Teams non-tender players and re-sign them for less money all the time. Even if he went somewhere else that is $4M that the team could use to invest in more/better players.

As for other player using Sykora's salary in their arbitration cases, I stand by what I said about arbitration before. If the team feels the award is too high they can walk away and do retain certain matching rights.

[Triumph]

Teams non-tender players all the time? Since when? They've only begun doing that this year. That is very rare in the NHL. Paul Kariya took it as a personal shot and fled to Colorado even though everyone knew he wasn't a 10 million dollar a year player.

As for arbitration, the team has the right to walk away but this effectively says that the team doesn't want the player. It's poor faith negotiating. Holik and Rolston can say it's all business after arbitration, but their actions speak much louder than those words.

[PeteyNice]

They should have done it more often. That is one of the hammers that the old CBA gave the owners and they did not start taking advantage of it until the very end. Kariya is a special case since he signed a cheap (relatively) one year deal for a chance to win the Cup and then be a UFA again. If the owners had used the non-tender and walk-away provisions in the CBA effectively from the beginning they would have a much lower average salary and we probably would not be in a lockout right now.

Yes, arbitration is an adversarial process and non-tendering can be seen as a slap in the face but if non-tendering and walking away was done often and became part of doing business then it would be much less so.