McMichael July 25 Arbitration Hearing

[stljrs]

Peyton Krebs 4 x 4.5 just set the floor. I could see 4 x 5.5 being reasonable. He’s been a bit more productive but Krebs likely sticks at C and McM goes to wing.

[blues2112]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

[Bubble4427]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

[Army's Mom]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

The one's that do I'd guess have a really low percentage of players extending those teams.

However, this is what they negotiated, how are you going to get upset when this is what your representatives negotiated for you and you agreed to?

It's adversarial in nature. Your team (who has the only walk-away rights) presents a public case against you getting much more than 85% of last year's salary (which is the floor). They point out all your flaws, warts, behavioral issues, on-ice failings, worst-case scenario player comps.

Then you come back with a case for the raise you want, pointing out your skills, abilities, character, best-case scenario player comps.

You hear everything the team said about you.

Then the arbiter picks your salary for the next year (or two, depending on which side filed for arbitration) - it can be the team's number, your number, or any number between or even outside the two.

Then the team decides whether to even honor the salary award, or whether to walk away and make you an UFA.

[Army's Mom]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

This is not true. The parties do not propose contract terms, only annual salary numbers. The arbiter does not decide the term - term is decided based upon which party filed for arbitration. If the player files, the team chooses the length after the award amount is announced. If the team files, then the player chooses the length after the amount is announced. The only exception is players 1 year from UFA cannot get a 2 year award, to preserve their path to UFA.

So the Blues could propose 5M and McM could counter at 7M. The arbiter could actually elect to award McM 8M annually (they're not bound by either proposal, nor do they have to award a number in between the two). Then, since McM filed for arbitration, the Blues could decide on a 1 yr or 2 yr term (unless that would delay McM's UFA).

[blues2112]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

This is not true. The parties do not propose contract terms, only annual salary numbers. The arbiter does not decide the term - term is decided based upon which party filed for arbitration. If the player files, the team chooses the length after the award amount is announced. If the team files, then the player chooses the length after the amount is announced. The only exception is players 1 year from UFA cannot get a 2 year award, to preserve their path to UFA.

So the Blues could propose 5M and McM could counter at 7M. The arbiter could actually elect to award McM 8M annually (they're not bound by either proposal, nor do they have to award a number in between the two). Then, since McM filed for arbitration, the Blues could decide on a 1 yr or 2 yr term (unless that would delay McM's UFA).

Sorry for the dumb questions, but does each side submit proposals before the hearing and are stuck with what they submit? Or negotiated during the hearing?

[kimzey59]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

This is not true. The parties do not propose contract terms, only annual salary numbers. The arbiter does not decide the term - term is decided based upon which party filed for arbitration. If the player files, the team chooses the length after the award amount is announced. If the team files, then the player chooses the length after the amount is announced. The only exception is players 1 year from UFA cannot get a 2 year award, to preserve their path to UFA.

So the Blues could propose 5M and McM could counter at 7M. The arbiter could actually elect to award McM 8M annually (they're not bound by either proposal, nor do they have to award a number in between the two). Then, since McM filed for arbitration, the Blues could decide on a 1 yr or 2 yr term (unless that would delay McM's UFA).

Sorry for the dumb questions, but does each side submit proposals before the hearing and are stuck with what they submit? Or negotiated during the hearing?

If it gets to the hearing, they’re locked in to the awarded terms.

That said, I seriously doubt that it actually gets to the hearing.

[Army's Mom]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

This is not true. The parties do not propose contract terms, only annual salary numbers. The arbiter does not decide the term - term is decided based upon which party filed for arbitration. If the player files, the team chooses the length after the award amount is announced. If the team files, then the player chooses the length after the amount is announced. The only exception is players 1 year from UFA cannot get a 2 year award, to preserve their path to UFA.

So the Blues could propose 5M and McM could counter at 7M. The arbiter could actually elect to award McM 8M annually (they're not bound by either proposal, nor do they have to award a number in between the two). Then, since McM filed for arbitration, the Blues could decide on a 1 yr or 2 yr term (unless that would delay McM's UFA).

Sorry for the dumb questions, but does each side submit proposals before the hearing and are stuck with what they submit? Or negotiated during the hearing?

Not a dumb question at all. I don't actually know, but since the hearing only lasts 90 minutes or so, and since the arbiter isn't locked into picking one of the two proposals (and is totally free to come up with something outside of both proposals), I would guess there's no chance or need for parties to change their proposals once the hearing commences.

[UMR-alum-05]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

In this case though McMichael has no history at all with the Blues. No locker room or game history, no relationships, nothing .

If it goes to a hearing it's a numbers based discussion because that's all their is.

[Army's Mom]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

In this case though McMichael has no history at all with the Blues. No locker room or game history, no relationships, nothing .

If it goes to a hearing it's a numbers based discussion because that's all their is.

That's all any of these are - they're all just "numbers based discussions". A player's locker room behavior, game history, and relationships are generally not relevant to determining compensation per the CBA and are thus not allowed. Arbiters may not consider them, and teams may not present them. Character is only relevant if tied directly to on ice performance - the CBA has clear guidelines on what is allowed and under what circumstances.

Official NHL stats are the core of any team's case. Comparable contracts, matching age, role, and experience. Role/usage evidence - only if supported by recognized metrics, and documented injury history - that's basically it. Teams are NOT allowed to present: cap dynamics/situation (affordability), market conditions, character attacks unless directly tied to on-ice performance, internal analytics (proprietary models not converted to league-recognized statistics), or negotiation history.

90% of these settle before hearing. Half of the remaining cases that go to a hearing settle before a decision is rendered. So I expect this will settle amicably.

However, every contentious arbitration started out as "just a numbers-based discussion".

Questions about his usage will certainly be relevant, and could certainly be a source of contention. We shall see.

[UMR-alum-05]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

In this case though McMichael has no history at all with the Blues. No locker room or game history, no relationships, nothing .

If it goes to a hearing it's a numbers based discussion because that's all their is.

That's all any of these are - they're all just "numbers based discussions". A player's locker room behavior, game history, and relationships are generally not relevant to determining compensation per the CBA and are thus not allowed. Arbiters may not consider them, and teams may not present them. Character is only relevant if tied directly to on ice performance - the CBA has clear guidelines on what is allowed and under what circumstances.

Official NHL stats are the core of any team's case. Comparable contracts, matching age, role, and experience. Role/usage evidence - only if supported by recognized metrics, and documented injury history - that's basically it. Teams are NOT allowed to present: cap dynamics/situation (affordability), market conditions, character attacks unless directly tied to on-ice performance, internal analytics (proprietary models not converted to league-recognized statistics), or negotiation history.

90% of these settle before hearing. Half of the remaining cases that go to a hearing settle before a decision is rendered. So I expect this will settle amicably.

However, every contentious arbitration started out as "just a numbers-based discussion".

Questions about his usage will certainly be relevant, and could certainly be a source of contention. We shall see.

I mean, do you think I don't know what an arbitration hearing is? You're the one saying it could get contentious, not me.

[TruBlueFan_1970]

He’s eligible for a 2-year deal, but if this actually goes to the hearing, my guess is the Blues elect one year to keep an extra year of control and not walk him straight to UFA.

[Bubble4427]

Questions for the knowledgeable:

In a case like this, does the arbiter merely pick between the team's proposal and the player's proposal?
Or, can an arbiter decide term, amount, clauses, bonuses?
What are team's options if it doesn't like the decision. Can it trade that player?
Does player have any options if unhappy?

arbiter can decide 1 or 2 years and unlike baseball, the arbitrator can pick a number in between the figures that was submitted by the team and player.

for example:
Blues submit 2 years at 5 million and McMichael submits 1 year at 7 million.
The judge could award 2 years at 6.25. (or any other figure and length)

This is not true. The parties do not propose contract terms, only annual salary numbers. The arbiter does not decide the term - term is decided based upon which party filed for arbitration. If the player files, the team chooses the length after the award amount is announced. If the team files, then the player chooses the length after the amount is announced. The only exception is players 1 year from UFA cannot get a 2 year award, to preserve their path to UFA.

So the Blues could propose 5M and McM could counter at 7M. The arbiter could actually elect to award McM 8M annually (they're not bound by either proposal, nor do they have to award a number in between the two). Then, since McM filed for arbitration, the Blues could decide on a 1 yr or 2 yr term (unless that would delay McM's UFA).

I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up and teaching me something.
Learning is fun!

[TheJackBurton]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

The one's that do I'd guess have a really low percentage of players extending those teams.

However, this is what they negotiated, how are you going to get upset when this is what your representatives negotiated for you and you agreed to?

It's adversarial in nature. Your team (who has the only walk-away rights) presents a public case against you getting much more than 85% of last year's salary (which is the floor). They point out all your flaws, warts, behavioral issues, on-ice failings, worst-case scenario player comps.

Then you come back with a case for the raise you want, pointing out your skills, abilities, character, best-case scenario player comps.

You hear everything the team said about you.

Then the arbiter picks your salary for the next year (or two, depending on which side filed for arbitration) - it can be the team's number, your number, or any number between or even outside the two.

Then the team decides whether to even honor the salary award, or whether to walk away and make you an UFA.

Yes I understand the process, but again, this is a player we have no relationship with to become adversarial with.

There can't be feelings to hurt because we haven't even had a chance to get to know the player. If it gets to that point this will be far different than just about every previous arbitration hearing. We haven't made promises to him, he hasn't made promises to us, we aren't telling him before this he's worth more or less, it's hard to really envision how this would be contemptuous for us and him.

[Army's Mom]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

In this case though McMichael has no history at all with the Blues. No locker room or game history, no relationships, nothing .

If it goes to a hearing it's a numbers based discussion because that's all their is.

That's all any of these are - they're all just "numbers based discussions". A player's locker room behavior, game history, and relationships are generally not relevant to determining compensation per the CBA and are thus not allowed. Arbiters may not consider them, and teams may not present them. Character is only relevant if tied directly to on ice performance - the CBA has clear guidelines on what is allowed and under what circumstances.

Official NHL stats are the core of any team's case. Comparable contracts, matching age, role, and experience. Role/usage evidence - only if supported by recognized metrics, and documented injury history - that's basically it. Teams are NOT allowed to present: cap dynamics/situation (affordability), market conditions, character attacks unless directly tied to on-ice performance, internal analytics (proprietary models not converted to league-recognized statistics), or negotiation history.

90% of these settle before hearing. Half of the remaining cases that go to a hearing settle before a decision is rendered. So I expect this will settle amicably.

However, every contentious arbitration started out as "just a numbers-based discussion".

Questions about his usage will certainly be relevant, and could certainly be a source of contention. We shall see.

I mean, do you think I don't know what an arbitration hearing is? You're the one saying it could get contentious, not me.

I don't think you know what an NHL player arbitration hearing is like, because you suggested CM's would be unique in that it was strictly "a number's based discussion". They're ALL strictly numbers-based, and a player's history with a team is by and large not up for discussion.

McMichael's case has the same chance of being contentious as any other case, regardless of the fact that he was just traded. That's my point.

]Yes I understand the process, but again, this is a player we have no relationship with to become adversarial with.

There can't be feelings to hurt because we haven't even had a chance to get to know the player. If it gets to that point this will be far different than just about every previous arbitration hearing. We haven't made promises to him, he hasn't made promises to us, we aren't telling him before this he's worth more or less, it's hard to really envision how this would be contemptuous for us and him.

The lack of history doesn't mean there can't be hurt feelings. It's been reported CM sees himself as a center and the Blues just added McTavish after adding McMichael. That could hurt his feelings. The Blues see McMichael as a winger, he wants to be a center. That could hurt his feelings.

We offer a salary commensurate with a 2LW. He asks to be paid as a 2C. That could hurt his feelings.

Again, chances are you are correct - more than 90% of these settle amicably. But the lack of history cuts both ways - McMichael has no reason to be loyal to us, and can still disagree plenty with the comps the Blues present.

If he's hell bent on being a C, it's quite likely he gets traded before a hearing, or they agree on a bridge deal where he has a chance to prove himself as a C.

[bluetunehead]

Nobody is going to talk any ish about anyone.

The Blues will say "we think the player is worth X because Iof these reasons and this data...." And the McMichael camp will counter with what they believe.

The arbiter will decide. Case closed.

That's if it gets that far.

There have been several cases, historically, that get contentious, which is precisely why so many teams come to terms before the hearing.

In this case though McMichael has no history at all with the Blues. No locker room or game history, no relationships, nothing .

If it goes to a hearing it's a numbers based discussion because that's all their is.

That's all any of these are - they're all just "numbers based discussions". A player's locker room behavior, game history, and relationships are generally not relevant to determining compensation per the CBA and are thus not allowed. Arbiters may not consider them, and teams may not present them. Character is only relevant if tied directly to on ice performance - the CBA has clear guidelines on what is allowed and under what circumstances.

Official NHL stats are the core of any team's case. Comparable contracts, matching age, role, and experience. Role/usage evidence - only if supported by recognized metrics, and documented injury history - that's basically it. Teams are NOT allowed to present: cap dynamics/situation (affordability), market conditions, character attacks unless directly tied to on-ice performance, internal analytics (proprietary models not converted to league-recognized statistics), or negotiation history.

90% of these settle before hearing. Half of the remaining cases that go to a hearing settle before a decision is rendered. So I expect this will settle amicably.

However, every contentious arbitration started out as "just a numbers-based discussion".

Questions about his usage will certainly be relevant, and could certainly be a source of contention. We shall see.

I mean, do you think I don't know what an arbitration hearing is? You're the one saying it could get contentious, not me.

I don't think you know what an NHL player arbitration hearing is like, because you suggested CM's would be unique in that it was strictly "a number's based discussion". They're ALL strictly numbers-based, and a player's history with a team is by and large not up for discussion.

McMichael's case has the same chance of being contentious as any other case, regardless of the fact that he was just traded. That's my point.

]Yes I understand the process, but again, this is a player we have no relationship with to become adversarial with.

There can't be feelings to hurt because we haven't even had a chance to get to know the player. If it gets to that point this will be far different than just about every previous arbitration hearing. We haven't made promises to him, he hasn't made promises to us, we aren't telling him before this he's worth more or less, it's hard to really envision how this would be contemptuous for us and him.

The lack of history doesn't mean there can't be hurt feelings. It's been reported CM sees himself as a center and the Blues just added McTavish after adding McMichael. That could hurt his feelings. The Blues see McMichael as a winger, he wants to be a center. That could hurt his feelings.

We offer a salary commensurate with a 2LW. He asks to be paid as a 2C. That could hurt his feelings.

Again, chances are you are correct - more than 90% of these settle amicably. But the lack of history cuts both ways - McMichael has no reason to be loyal to us, and can still disagree plenty with the comps the Blues present.

If he's hell bent on being a C, it's quite likely he gets traded before a hearing, or they agree on a bridge deal where he has a chance to prove himself as a C.

I doubt he’s that hell bent on being a C. Wants to be? Sure. But he wasn’t used that way for much of his time in Washington and there is no indication he forced his way out of town as a result.