Speculation: 2016 Salary Arbitration Tracker (players and dates in OP)

[henchman21]

Yandle and Goligoski were UFA's, hence irrelevant. Only players that signed RFA contracts can be used as comparables in salary arbitration.

That is true, but not all RFA deals are considered comparables. Those are negotiated and by a certain date (early June). The Krug deal came too late and thus can't be used as a comparison for this year's arbitration hearings. The PA may argue to have Josi's deal thrown out and the NHL may concede if Subban's is and so on.

The trading of players pending arbitration is tricky... the wording is unclear (not surprising and see below for it) and it really doesn't happen. People point to Beck, but that could have been a deal in principle and all parties were willing to waive. I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of any pending arbitration player who was traded and didn't have a contract nearly immediately.

(b) On the first business day following the final date for a Club to request salary
arbitration pursuant to Section 12.3(b) above, the League and the NHLPA shall jointly compile a list of all Player and Club requests, listed by Player in alphabetical order (the "Player List"). The Player List shall also set forth for each Player: (i) his primary Certified Agent, if any, as set forth in the Certified Agent List and (ii) his Club. The Player List may not be changed for the remainder of the process outlined in this Section.

 

[Moosetache]

So, can anyone post players that they think might either be walked away from their arbitration award or accept the award and then forced to trade that player or another in order to make room for it.

Think we will see another flurry of action after these decisions are made?

Of course, as someone stated, only 1 went to arbitration last year, so those questions could all be moot. Either way, humor me, and still give us some names or situations. Thanks!

 

[boredmale]

Hoffman's the case I think could be the most interesting.

UFA next summer

If I am correct they can award 2 year contracts in arbitration which they usually do in cases like this

 

[boredmale]

is Jordan Weal filing for minimum wage?

Maybe a 1 way deal

 

[mouser]

true, he could still be hurt during that window in August. But it's possible that they rule in Cowen's favour that he was still hurt during the buyout window in June and hurt in a manner that prevents his buyout(so for example something other than he just went and got surgery to get his money), but is now recovered and healthy enough to be bought out during the 2nd window.

Honestly I don't like his chances of winning his grievance. Getting a surgery done without the teams knowledge when you were deemed healthy to play back when he was traded doesn't sound like something that would hold up but who knows. If it does I'm glad we've opened the 2nd window just in case it does and he's healthy in August.

There's been almost nothing made public on Cowen's surgery and Toronto's knowledge of it happening.

I wouldn't assume anything about how it will ultimately play out until we have a lot more details.

 

[mouser]

That is true, but not all RFA deals are considered comparables. Those are negotiated and by a certain date (early June). The Krug deal came too late and thus can't be used as a comparison for this year's arbitration hearings. The PA may argue to have Josi's deal thrown out and the NHL may concede if Subban's is and so on.

Krug is a comparable. You're confusing 12.3(a) and 12.3(b). Josi, Subban and at this moment every other RFA contract can be used as a comparable. Any RFA contracts signed after today cannot be used.

The trading of players pending arbitration is tricky... the wording is unclear (not surprising and see below for it) and it really doesn't happen. People point to Beck, but that could have been a deal in principle and all parties were willing to waive. I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of any pending arbitration player who was traded and didn't have a contract nearly immediately.

The wording is clear. There is nothing in the CBA that states a player electing arbitration can't be traded. If you'd like to find some language in the CBA that says those players can't be traded then I'd love to see it. There are CBA rules that players who sign Offer Sheets can't be traded, often people get that mixed up with Salary Arbitrarion. There are many many examples of players traded while pending arbitration.

(b) On the first business day following the final date for a Club to request salary
arbitration pursuant to Section 12.3(b) above, the League and the NHLPA shall jointly compile a list of all Player and Club requests, listed by Player in alphabetical order (the "Player List"). The Player List shall also set forth for each Player: (i) his primary Certified Agent, if any, as set forth in the Certified Agent List and (ii) his Club. The Player List may not be changed for the remainder of the process outlined in this Section.

The last day for 12.3(b) this season was July 6th. Hence the list would be compiled on July 7th. Again you're mixing up 12.3(a) in June with 12.3(b) in July.

 

[Benji Frank]

If I am correct they can award 2 year contracts in arbitration which they usually do in cases like this

there are rules as to when a 2 year ruling cannot be awarded. One is if it eats up any of a players UFA years. So if Hoffman is UFA elgible next year, the most he can be awarded is one year. My guess is because of this, Sens will get a deal done beforehand ...

 

[Edmonton East]

Palmieri will 100% get signed. The question is whether it will be to a 2/3 year deal or 5+.

Devils have so much cap space and no high end contracts expiring in the near future.I'm expecting:

2 or 3 years @ 5.75 per
5+ @ 5.25 per

 

[Pestilence]

Seriously **** Marcus Johansson and his bs

Yeah **** Johansson for using his arbitration rights! **** Johansson and his hamster too!

 

[mytduxfan*]

Palmieri will 100% get signed. The question is whether it will be to a 2/3 year deal or 5+.

Devils have so much cap space and no high end contracts expiring in the near future.I'm expecting:

2 or 3 years @ 5.75 per
5+ @ 5.25 per

I don't know what it is, but, for some reason, I have a feeling it will be 5 years at <5M

 

[Edmonton East]

I don't know what it is, but, for some reason, I have a feeling it will be 5 years at <5M

I'm revising my guess to 5 years, 4.65 average. Just a gut feeling

 

[henchman21]

Krug is a comparable. You're confusing 12.3(a) and 12.3(b). Josi, Subban and at this moment every other RFA contract can be used as a comparable. Any RFA contracts signed after today cannot be used.



The wording is clear. There is nothing in the CBA that states a player electing arbitration can't be traded. If you'd like to find some language in the CBA that says those players can't be traded then I'd love to see it. There are CBA rules that players who sign Offer Sheets can't be traded, often people get that mixed up with Salary Arbitrarion. There are many many examples of players traded while pending arbitration.



The last day for 12.3(b) this season was July 6th. Hence the list would be compiled on July 7th. Again you're mixing up 12.3(a) in June with 12.3(b) in July.

Here is the comparable section (under 12.9... not even looking at 12.3 as it isn't for evidence):

The League and the NHLPA shall each create an exhibit, the Comparable
Exhibit, setting forth the compensation terms contained in all SPCs of
Players eligible to be used as comparables for the purposes of that year's
salary arbitrations. The parties shall exchange such Comparable Exhibits
by June 5. A conference call will be held within three (3) business days of
the exchange to identify differences and/or issues, if any, between the two
versions of the Comparable Exhibits. All issues/differences are to be
settled within three (3) business days of conference call. The parties may
then use extracts from the Comparable Exhibit to apprise the Salary
Arbitrators of the compensation of those Players alleged by such party to
be comparable to the Player who is the subject of the salary arbitration.

It is clear that the list is compiled by June 5th and there is negotiation on who is included.

The wording posted was the one that may preclude a trade without an agreement.

The Player List shall also set forth for each Player: (i) his primary Certified Agent, if any, as set forth in the Certified Agent List and (ii) his Club. The Player List may not be changed for the remainder of the process outlined in this Section.

Once the player list is complete (on July 6th), it may not be changed. Meaning the player can't change his agent and the club can't be changed. It may not be explicit, but it signals that there can't be changes. I don't recall a single instance since the 04-05 lockout where a player coming up on arbitration was traded and not signed within a very short time (within a day where a deal might be in principal, but not formally signed). Either teams are just directly avoiding it, or it is prohibited. There are signals that teams adhere to a player needing to be signed or have a deal in principal where the parties are willing to waive (Wisniewski and Beck)

 

[Bfreezy40]

Oh good. No more Barrie crap.

Barrie won't go to the Oilers Aves management doesn't wanna regret it for years to come so hes gonna go to the east if traded.

 

[mouser]

Here is the comparable section (under 12.9... not even looking at 12.3 as it isn't for evidence):

The League and the NHLPA shall each create an exhibit, the Comparable
Exhibit, setting forth the compensation terms contained in all SPCs of
Players eligible to be used as comparables for the purposes of that year's
salary arbitrations. The parties shall exchange such Comparable Exhibits
by June 5. A conference call will be held within three (3) business days of
the exchange to identify differences and/or issues, if any, between the two
versions of the Comparable Exhibits. All issues/differences are to be
settled within three (3) business days of conference call. The parties may
then use extracts from the Comparable Exhibit to apprise the Salary
Arbitrators of the compensation of those Players alleged by such party to
be comparable to the Player who is the subject of the salary arbitration.

It is clear that the list is compiled by June 5th and there is negotiation on who is included.

If you look at section 12.9(g)(vi), which immediately follows the section you quoted, it states the process for updating the list after June 5th. So yes, there is an initial list created on June 5th, but it is not finalized on that date. In fact it actually allows for updates throughout the arbitration period.

The wording posted was the one that may preclude a trade without an agreement.

The Player List shall also set forth for each Player: (i) his primary Certified Agent, if any, as set forth in the Certified Agent List and (ii) his Club. The Player List may not be changed for the remainder of the process outlined in this Section.

Once the player list is complete (on July 6th), it may not be changed. Meaning the player can't change his agent and the club can't be changed. It may not be explicit, but it signals that there can't be changes. I don't recall a single instance since the 04-05 lockout where a player coming up on arbitration was traded and not signed within a very short time (within a day where a deal might be in principal, but not formally signed). Either teams are just directly avoiding it, or it is prohibited. There are signals that teams adhere to a player needing to be signed or have a deal in principal where the parties are willing to waive (Wisniewski and Beck)

Yeah, the wording on that one is certainly muddled. Is the intent that the Players on the list can't be changed, or that no detail associated with the Player on the list can't be changed? It would be fully understandable for teams to avoid acquiring a player headed to arbitration without having everything settled beforehand. So I wouldn't necessarily take any absence of action as a confirmation that the action isn't permitted.

 

[mytduxfan*]

I'm revising my guess to 5 years, 4.65 average. Just a gut feeling

- Fantastic deal though. NJ look scary good upfront. Not so much on the back though. Schneider is going to have his work cut out for him.

 

[Dallasman]

I am loving the Jordan Weal comments in here. Keep them coming! Literally laughing my butt off at my desk at work reading them.

I don't get that one at all!

 

[britdevil]

- Fantastic deal though. NJ look scary good upfront. Not so much on the back though. Schneider is going to have his work cut out for him.

Trade us Fowler. I promise Shero will play fair this time.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Trade us Fowler. I promise Shero will play fair this time.

I don't trust you. Shero is on a roll.

 

[henchman21]

If you look at section 12.9(g)(vi), which immediately follows the section you quoted, it states the process for updating the list after June 5th. So yes, there is an initial list created on June 5th, but it is not finalized on that date. In fact it actually allows for updates throughout the arbitration period.



Yeah, the wording on that one is certainly muddled. Is the intent that the Players on the list can't be changed, or that no detail associated with the Player on the list can't be changed? It would be fully understandable for teams to avoid acquiring a player headed to arbitration without having everything settled beforehand. So I wouldn't necessarily take any absence of action as a confirmation that the action isn't permitted.

They are negotiated though, and not guaranteed to be included. Krug's contract could be negotiated in, or it could be negotiated out. There is no guarantee either way. Not all RFA contracts are used as comparables. For obvious reasons, the NHL and PA may want to exclude certain contracts as comparables in the process. Krug's contract specifically, he would likely be included with the updates to the list... so my statement about him not being able to be used, was wrong.

I'm not saying the lack of action confirms. I'm saying it is unclear if trades are allowed on these players or not, at least without a contract. It was stated there is nothing prohibiting it, that may not be exactly true. Practically, it doesn't matter if there is a contract agreed to. Teams are acting in a manner where a contract may need to be in place, it probably isn't without reason. That reason may or may not be this clause. It could be they want to avoid it, it could be that it just isn't allowed.

 

[SullivanT]

wrong

Right actually

 

[mouser]

They are negotiated though, and not guaranteed to be included. Krug's contract could be negotiated in, or it could be negotiated out. There is no guarantee either way. Not all RFA contracts are used as comparables. For obvious reasons, the NHL and PA may want to exclude certain contracts as comparables in the process. Krug's contract specifically, he would likely be included with the updates to the list... so my statement about him not being able to be used, was wrong.

I wouldn't read that clause as saying which contracts are included is subject to negotiation. The clause says the the exhibit should include "all SPC's of Players eligible to be used as comparables". The CBA spells out the requirements for which players are eligible. The resolution section discusses "issues/difference" between the two sides lists. Most likely that resolution process is applied when the two lists differ on whether a player contract was signed as an RFA and/or if the compensation terms are listed correctly.

 

[Mad Brills*]

22/24 left.

 

[mytduxfan*]

22/24 left.

You sure? Only Palmieri has signed so far.

 

[Mad Brills*]

You sure? Only Palmieri has signed so far.

Wings signed Coreau per general fanager.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Wings signed Coreau per general fanager.

Good spot. 22/24 it is then.