what exactly is arbitration?

Question

...?

:)

Answer 1

It's when a team and a player (or their agent) cannot agree to terms of a new deal, so they each plead their case to a 3rd party (arbitrator), and that person decides what the player's salary should be.

It is only used for restricted free agents, since their rights are still "owned" by their team. If the team decides not to sign the player after the arbitration decision, the player becomes an unrestricted free agent (I believe).

Answer 2

In a broad legal sense, abritration is a process by which a third party is used to negotiate a contract during a stalemate.

How is this applied in pro sports?

When a player enters the National Hockey League by way of signing a contract, they remain property of the team that has signed them for a period beyond the time their contract. The length of this period of time depends upon the player's age and years of experience in the NHL.

However, since no NHL player can suit up without a contract, they must either agree to a new contract with the team they 'belong' to, or sit out until they old enough that they do not belong to the team any longer. It's a bit like turning 16 vs. turning 21- at 16, you can drive a car. But at 21, you can do anything you want. In this case, if a player is 18, they are allowed to play in the NHL. But they belong to the team that drafted them until at least the age of 25.

If negotiations on a new contract have not progressed, the player can elect to have a neutral person decide how much their next contract should be. This neutral person will be presented with evidence from both the team and the player, and will decide how much that player should earn based on how they performed, how much they are 'worth' to their team, and how much similar players are earning. This is what we refer to as arbitration. The evidence presented is called a 'case', and the neutral person who views the 'case' is called an 'arbitrator'.

Why would a player opt to go this route? Let's use Mike Cammalleri as an example, as he is one of the players who has elected to use arbitration this year.

Mike Cammalleri plays for the Los Angeles Kings. During the 2006-07 season, the 24 year-old center scored 34 goals, 46 assists, and 80 points. He had the most assists and points out of all the players on the Los Angeles team, and had the second-most goals.

When Cammalleri and his agent present their evidence to the neutral person- the arbitrator- they may say the following:

"I am eight years younger than Paul Kariya, who plays for the Nashville Predators. This season, Kariya scored 24 goals, had 52 assists, and 76 points. He earned $4.5 million. Since I scored more goals and had more points, I am worth more than Kariya. Therefore, I should earn more than him. I want $5 million."

The Los Angeles Kings would then be given time to present evidence showing Kariya is a better player. They might say:

"Since Paul Kariya is a star, the other teams used their best defensemen to stop him. You are not a star, and the other teams did not use their best defensemen against you. Therefore, you had it easy. You are NOT worth more than Kariya. You should get $4 million."

The arbitrator considers the evidence, and decides that Los Angeles is correct- if Cammalleri had to play against star players, he would have had less points. He decides to award Cammalleri $4 million instead of $5 million.

Now, this is a highly simplified example. But you can see why teams don't like arbitration- Cammalleri may be offended by the remarks, and demand a trade. In fact, one player was so offended by what the other team said about him that he cried!

Answer 3

The team and the player sit opposite on another in a room. Each has a chance to defend to a third party why the figure they put forward should be the one that is used for the player for the coming season. The third party then decides on one figure or another. Players win more than half the time.
It's an ugly mess. The team has to sit there and basically insult the payer to get their way. In doing so, they basically alienate him forever. Rarely do players taken to arbitration sign on again with their teams once they are UFAs.
I do believe Buffalo didn't like a figure a player got so much once that they let the guy walk (Dumont).
It's sort of stage one of divorce sports style.

Answer 4

Picture it like a Court room where there is a judge that tells the managers what the player is worth!

Its only for free agents, if you don't sign your player before an arbitration hearing, then that what happens!

Thats a good way to think of it!

For ex. If Lou doesn't sign Parise before an arbitration is scheduled! I Think hell be worth around 4 million

Answer 5

aww i wanted to answer this one lol
But everyone else is exactly right.

Its pretty much if a player and a team dont settle on a contract they go to an Arbitration hearing where the GM, the player, and a third party (arbitrator) propose a salary for the upcoming season.

Most players must have four years of NHL experience before they are eligible for salary arbitration

Answer 6

It's a legal process common in Union negotiations. They have agreed in the contract in certain situations that if they don't agree - in this case, a hockey team and a player and his agent - that they both present their case to a neutral third party (arbitrator) who decides for them.

Oh, I play like this and that player and they make this much more than my team is offering me, yet my +/- is the better, or I get this many points, the same as him. Then the teams says yes but we got a better goalie that accounts for the +/- and he plays with a 50 goalscoring sharpshooter is why his points are higher......

They are then stuck with the decision. It's one step more extreme than mediation, where a mediator would try get them all to agree.

Answer 7

In hockey, it's when a team and a player can't agree on a salary. Then, they take their case to a third party. The third party then decides the player's salary. There are strict limits to the amount of statistics used to plead your case.

Answer 8

Greg W is right on the money.

It's a mini-strike w/one player. If you do this w/Burke don't plan on staying on the team..ie Vish and Rusty aka Ruslan

Answer 9

Jenni M is right on the money about Greg W being right on the money.
Puck paints a pretty good mental picture of it.
Resolve this thing. :P