Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest AriGold

How Salary Arbitration Works....

68 posts in this topic

I can completely understand why Raymond opted to go through arbitration, and even Hansen seems somewhat justifiable as it's somewhat difficult to peg down what he's worth versus what he may think he's worth, etc.

But Tanner Glass...if i were a bit of a fringe player with a team like Vancouver i think i'd be very careful in how i dealt with the situation. He's essentially a role player, plain an simple. I like him a lot as a role player, and i'm sure Gillis does as well...but role players tend to be replaceable. I'm not sure what he's hoping to accomplish here, and hopefully the arbitrator comes down with a very fair ruling for a role player such as Glass...and there's no further issue. But it seems like a risky move for Glass. If he's awarded too much, he stands a legitimate chance of having the team walk away. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum, he could end up getting far less than he thinks he's worth. To me, it just seems like Glass isn't in a position where he is unreplaceable and doesn't have nearly enough leverage and value to the team to land a significant pay raise and make it all worth it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Raymond and his agent do not use Nikolai Kulemin's (who was RFA) contract from a few days ago as part of their arguement. That guy now gets 2.35 million per year for scoring 16 goals and 36 points last season, that also being a career high. If that is used as a comparison, Raymond will easily get 3 million per year, which I think is too high for him at this point. I believe that he should sign a contract like Burrows did. The contract should be reasonable but still cheap for the Canucks because as good as he is and as good as he could potentially be, Raymond has only had the one good so he should have to prove it again and again in the upcoming seasons that he is worth 3+ million.

Burrows realized this, so he said that 2 million per year is plenty of money because he could have easily had a bad year and played on the 3rd line the entire time. Thankfully he had an amazing year and now that 2 million cap hit is the best bargain (either that or the Sedins 6.1) in the league.

Let's just hope Raymond has the same thought process and will only ask for 2.5 per year. I would give him the Samuelsson and Malhotra contract 3 years/7.5 million. And now that Grabner is no longer on the team, we do not have a whole lot of top 6 depth on the wing (Schroeder/Hodgson not ready for top 6 duty quite yet), so MG will likely have no choice but to accept what the arbitrator gives Raymond even if it's a bit high like 3-3.5 million. So then MG will also have no choice but to trade Bieksa, even if it's not for as much as he should get back. I believe that Raymond is the kind of guy that will take a "discount" and will stay here for less than 3 million even if that is what he could get in arbitration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info to digest. Quite informative.

+1

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can completely understand why Raymond opted to go through arbitration, and even Hansen seems somewhat justifiable as it's somewhat difficult to peg down what he's worth versus what he may think he's worth, etc.

But Tanner Glass...if i were a bit of a fringe player with a team like Vancouver i think i'd be very careful in how i dealt with the situation. He's essentially a role player, plain an simple. I like him a lot as a role player, and i'm sure Gillis does as well...but role players tend to be replaceable. I'm not sure what he's hoping to accomplish here, and hopefully the arbitrator comes down with a very fair ruling for a role player such as Glass...and there's no further issue. But it seems like a risky move for Glass. If he's awarded too much, he stands a legitimate chance of having the team walk away. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum, he could end up getting far less than he thinks he's worth. To me, it just seems like Glass isn't in a position where he is unreplaceable and doesn't have nearly enough leverage and value to the team to land a significant pay raise and make it all worth it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm just read that along with Raymond, Glass and Hansen have also filed for arbitration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the decision is announced, the team has the right to decline, or "walk away" from the award. If the team exercises this right, the player can declare himself an unrestricted free agent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does the player has the right to decline from the award? If so, what happens if the player walk away?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, The player is stuck with the result if they filed for it. They usually file with the thought that they will get more money than offered. They wouldnt file with the team if they didnt want to stick around. If the result is too great only the Canucks can walk away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

abritration is only for a 1 year term right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean that MG can use Burrows' contract against them?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean that MG can use Burrows' contract against them?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burrows has 15 goals and 10 assists when he signed his contract on February 4th approximatly 60 game into the season. He was paid market Value when signed.

He finished with 28G and 23A which means because Raymond got 25G and 28A last year they are not allowed to be compared.

Based on:

.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Burrows signed before becoming a UFA. Could that clause only mean people that went out on the UFA market and (potentially) got into a bidding war with other teams?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some deeper digging, Found out that they can use comparable players against each other but 1 party must mention them and the arbiters must agree at least 2-1.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.