McMichael July 25 Arbitration Hearing

[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.

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.

That's fair. I just don't know as well as I might if it was a Blues player. That "not knowing" is what I find a bit unnerving, especially in contrast to everyone saying it will be fine. Odds are it will be, but I'm not as convinced as I want to be...

[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.

That's fair. I just don't know as well as I might if it was a Blues player. That "not knowing" is what I find a bit unnerving, especially in contrast to everyone saying it will be fine. Odds are it will be, but I'm not as convinced as I want to be...

I don't think the risk of it being contentious really goes down because he's new. It's actually a potentially terrible way to start his career in St. Louis, so I hope they avoid the hearing. Most do these days.

[callitwhatyouwant]

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.

That's fair. I just don't know as well as I might if it was a Blues player. That "not knowing" is what I find a bit unnerving, especially in contrast to everyone saying it will be fine. Odds are it will be, but I'm not as convinced as I want to be...

I don't think the risk of it being contentious really goes down because he's new. It's actually a potentially terrible way to start his career in St. Louis, so I hope they avoid the hearing. Most do these days.

I think the "contentious" point is overblown in this situation. Things get really awkward when your boss has to tell you how much you stink at your job but they still want you. In this example, it's just business. They traded for you, and they will just explain why they find value the way they do. Shouldn't be that complicated to be honest. The hardest part is that you have to take Kyrou's contract and factor it in as a starting point minus the 1st round pick. There's 2 ways you can look at it, the contract should be around 6m because of the 1st rounder. Or you could argue that the Blues gave Kyrou that 8m contract 3 stages of cap ago and it's more like a 10m contract.

like you said, hopefully it doesn't get there, but relationally I don't see why it's a problem.

[hotrivets]

If any of these guys get butt hurt over salary negotiations I don't want them anyway. Get what you can out of them and peddle them to somebody else. Next!

[UMR-alum-05]

I don't even know where the contentious concern even came from.

[Sunneez Teef]

I don't even know where the contentious concern even came from.

+1. Bizarro.

[b-a-a-a-rclay]

"I've known a great many troubles in my life. And most of them have never happened." Mark Twain (the quote is close enough)

[JK92]

I too believe that CM would never have been acquired if the Blues knew that the McTavish trade was happening...it's too bad, because CM is a better player than MM

I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a player. IMO MM (what we needed) is a better player than CM. Actually, I'm hoping CM is moved out to Vcr for EP40.

[tfriede2]

I don't even know where the contentious concern even came from.

Multiple examples. During arbitration, the team is literally required to present evidence explaining why the player is less valuable than he believes he is. The player then sits in the room and listens to those arguments. Several players, including Jeremy Swayman and P.K. Subban, have described the process as difficult, with Subban referring to “emotional bruises” and Swayman saying “I never want to do that again.” While there was no evidence of it, many folks on here speculated that the last Blues’ arbitration with Edmundson led to his trade…it’s at least a bit ironic that the only Blues’ arbitration in decades led to the player being traded shortly thereafter.

[bluetunehead]

I don't even know where the contentious concern even came from.

+1. Bizarro.

Because historically it has been a problem with arbitration. Craig Custance did a look back for The Athletic a few years ago and found that over 3/4s of players in the 2010s who actually went through the full process ended up traded within a couple seasons.

There’s also the story of Tommy Salo leaving his hearing in tears because his GM (Milbury) was so harsh in his assessments.

Nobody wants to sit through a meeting where your employer outlines why you aren’t good at your job and not worth the money you believe you’re worth. That’s just human nature.

The restrictions about what can be discussed in hearings have helped mitigate the Milbury situations recently, but there is a reason why teams and players strive to avoid going to a hearing.

[UMR-alum-05]

Just because there are examples of unpleasant arbitration hearings doesn't mean there is anything to worry about with McMichael

[TBone]

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.

And the real fear from the Blues side is he's, in fact, a 3LW.

If you pay him for 5 years as a 2LW then you've got a another Buchy contract on your hands.

[Section315]

1 year @ 5.5 million is my estimate

I can see this as well. I'd prefer a 6 year deal, but it's going to be at 7M per at least.

[IsDurbanodoingtime]

Just because there are examples of unpleasant arbitration hearings doesn't mean there is anything to worry about with McMichael

Any labor matter that proceeds to an actual arbitration hearing and is completed (i.e. evidence presented, testimony heard, closing arguments made for and against) is quintiessential adversial litigation. The notion that there should be no concern about hard feelings is magical thinking at best.

[bluetunehead]

Just because there are examples of unpleasant arbitration hearings doesn't mean there is anything to worry about with McMichael

Any labor matter that proceeds to an actual arbitration hearing and is completed (i.e. evidence presented, testimony heard, closing arguments made for and against) is quintiessential adversial litigation. The notion that there should be no concern about hard feelings is magical thinking at best.

Yeah, exactly. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm not particularly worried about McMichael because he seemed pretty flexible about his playing situation in Washington, and the Blues don't tend to let these things go all the way to the hearing anyway. But it's still a possibility that is probably better to avoid.

[UMR-alum-05]

Does anyone have any evidence there's any hard feelings between the Blues and McMichael?