I've gotten a couple e-mails regarding arbitration so I wanted to share some info from the CBA, some past rulings and the complete text of a decision, to give some insight on the process and eligibility rules.
July 5th is listed as the deadline per the CBA:
12.2 Notice of Player Election of Salary Arbitration. A Player (or a Player’s Certified Agent, acting on the Player’s behalf), electing salary arbitration must do so by making a written request, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereto, utilizing the form attached hereto as Exhibit 23, by facsimile to Central Registry, the NHLPA and the Player’s Club by not later than 5:00 p.m. New York time on July 5 in the League Year in which such Player is eligible for salary arbitration.
Apparently section 31.3 doesn’t apply in this case (I’ll see if I can get some clarification as to why):
31.3 Time Periods. Unless expressly stated to the contrary, the specification of any time period in this Agreement shall include any non-business days within such period, except that any deadline falling on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal, Provincial or Civil Holiday shall be deemed to fall on the following business day.
Here’s the list of players who have filed:
BOS – Dennis Wideman
CAR – Chad LaRose
COL – Marek Svatos
DET – Valtteri Filppula
FLO – Jay Bouwmeester
MIN – Pierre-Marc Bouchard
MIN – Stephane Veilleux
NAS – Ville Koistinen
NYI – Sean Bergenheim
NYR – Dan Fritsche
OTT – Antoine Vermette
STL – Jay McClement
SJ – Marcel Goc
WAS – Brooks Laich
WAS – Shaone Morrison
Teams now have until 5 PM EST Sunday to take a Group II RFA to arbitration, if he’s eligible (see below).
Once a player or team files, a player cannot negotiate with any other teams which he isn't eligible for an offer sheet:
10.2 (B) Not withstanding the foregoing, if a Group 2 Player requests salary arbitration, or a Club requests salary arbitration, pursuant to Article 12, such Player will not be eligible to negotiate with any Club other than his Prior Club or sign an Offer Sheet pursuant to this Article 10, except as provided in Section 12.10.
Note: 12.10 relates to walk-away rights for player-elected salary arbitration.
Here's the section regarding eligibility for arbitration:
12.1 Eligibility for Player or Club Election of Salary Arbitration
(a) A Player is eligible for salary arbitration if the Player meets the qualifications set forth in the following chart and in Section 12.1(b) below:
First SPC Signing Age * Minimum Level of Pro Experience
18-20 * 4 years professional experience
21 * 3 years professional experience
22-23 * 2 years professional experience
24+ * 1 year professional experience
A Player aged 18 or 19 earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more NHL Games in a given season. A Player aged 20 or older (or who turns 20 between September 16 and December 31 of the calendar year in which he signs his first SPC) earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more Professional Games under an SPC in a given season.
(b) Only Players who qualify as Restricted Free Agents as described in Section 10.2 of this Agreement, who meet the qualifications in Section 12.1(a) above, and who have not signed an Offer Sheet are eligible either to elect salary arbitration or be subject to a Club-elected salary arbitration.
(c) As used in this Article, “age”, including “First SPC Signing Age”, means a Player’s age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he first signs an SPC regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC.
Some Group II RFAs who weren’t eligible for arbitration:
Patrick O’Sullivan, Andrej Meszaros, Steve Bernier, Niegel Dawes, Daniel Carcillo, Erik Ersberg, Jaroslav Halak, Corey Crawford, Al Montoya
And the top Group II’s who could have filed but didn’t:
Pascal Leclaire, Kari Lehtonen, RJ Umberger, Jarret Stoll, Dan Paille, Matt Stajan, Christian Ehrhoff
Those players are still eligible for Club-Elected Arbitration:
12.3 Eligibility for Club-Elected Salary Arbitration
Subject to subsections (c) and (d) below and the eligibility requirements set forth in Article 12.1, a Club will have the right to elect to take a Player to salary arbitration under the following conditions:
(a) Club-Elected Salary Arbitration for Players With Paragraph 1 NHL Salaries plus Signing, Roster, and Reporting Bonuses Greater Than $1,500,000 in the Prior League Year.
(i) If a Player who is otherwise eligible to receive a Qualifying Offer and become a Group 2 Restricted Free Agent had a Paragraph 1 NHL Salary plus Signing, Roster and Reporting Bonuses in excess of $1,5000,000 in the aggregate in the final League Year of his most recent SPC, a Club may elect to file for salary arbitration to determine the Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary for the upcoming League Year in lieu of making a Qualifying Offer to such Player.
(ii) In any salary arbitration that takes place pursuant to this Section 12.3(a), the Salary Arbitrator may not award the Player a Paragraph 1 Salary that is less than eighty-five (85) percent of the aggregate sum of Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary plus Signing, Reporting and Roster Bonuses in the final League Year of his most recent SPC.
(b) Club-Elected Salary Arbitration for Players Who Receive Qualifying Offers.
(i) If a Group 2 Restricted Free Agent has not accepted his Club’s Qualifying Offer, nor filed a request for player-elected salary arbitration in accordance with Section 12.2 above, the Club may elect to file for salary arbitration to determine that Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary for that League Year.
(iI) If a Club elects salary arbitration in accordance with this subsection, the Club’s offer in salary arbitration must be equal to or higher than the Player’s aggregate Paragraph 1 Salary plus Signing, Reporting and Roster Bonuses in the final League Year of the Player’s SPC.
(c) A Player will be subject to only one Club-elected salary arbitration in his career. Notwithstanding Section (a) or (b) above, a Player as to whom a Club has elected salary arbitration, regardless of whether a hearing took place in connection with that arbitration, is no longer eligible for Club-elected salary arbitration. If a Club subsequently elects to take such a Player to salary arbitration, that election will be null and void.
(d) Notwithstanding Section (a) or (b) above, a Club may exercise its right to elect salary arbitration not more than twice per League Year. If a Club elects salary arbitration more than twice per League Year, any subsequent election after its second election will be null and void.
12.4 Notice of Club Election.
(a) A Club electing salary arbitration pursuant to Section 12.3(a) above must do so by making a written request, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereto, utilizing the form attached hereto as Exhibit 22, by facsimile to the parties listed in Section (c) below by not later than 5:00 p.m. New York time on the later of June 15 or 48 hours after the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals in the League Year prior to the League Year for which the Club seeks to determine a Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary by arbitration.
(b) A Club electing salary arbitration pursuant to Section 12.3(b) above, must do so by making a written request, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereto, utilizing the form attached hereto as Exhibit 22 by facsimile to the parties listed in Section (c) below, during the period commencing upon the Player’s deadline to select salary arbitration and continuing for 24 hours thereafter (i.e., commencing July 5 at 5:00 p.m. New York time and ending July 6 at 5:00 p.m. New York time).
(c) The Player; the Player’s primary Certified Agent, if any; National Hockey League Players’ Association; and National Hockey League.
*********************************
OK that's enough CBA for one day.
Last season, thirty-one players filed for arbitration and only seven cases weren’t settled before the hearing:
Antti Miettinen: 1 year, $885k
Steve Montado: 1 year, $880l
Mike Cammalleri: 2 years, $6.7 mil
Trent Hunter: 1 year, $1.55 mil
Sean Avery: 1 year, $1.9 mil
Ryan Craig: 1 year, $850k
Brooks Laich: 1 year, $725k
Here are some prior significant arbitration hearings:
1993
Ray Bourque, Boston
- prior season salary: $1.196 mil
- awarded $2.25 mil for two years
- was seeking $4.25 mil
1999
Dmitri Khristich, Boston
- awarded: $2.8 mil
- Boston walked away
2000
John Leclair, Philadelphia
- awarded: $7 mil
2003
Bryan Berard, Boston
- prior season salary: $850k
- awarded: $2.5 mil
- Bruins walked away
Brian Rolston, Boston
- prior season salary: $2.2 mil
- awarded: $3.17 mil
Tom Poti, NY Rangers
- prior season salary: $1.8 mil
- awarded: 2 yrs, $2.8 mil, $3.1 mil
Pavol Demitra, St. Louis
- prior season salary: $3.975 mil
- awarded: $6.5 mil
2004
Sergei Gonchar, Boston
- prior season salary: $3.65 mil
- awarded: $5.5 mil
Joe Thornton, Boston
- prior season salary: $5.5 mil
- awarded: $6.75 mil
Miika Kiprusoff, Calgary
- prior season salary: $800k
- awarded: $2.95 mil
Milan Hejduk, Colorado
- prior season salary: $3.2 mil
- awarded: $5.7 mil
Scott Gomez, New Jersey
- prior season salary: $1 mil
- awarded: $2.9 mil
Scott Niedermayer, New Jersey
- prior season salary: $4 mil
- awarded: $7 mil
Kim Johnsson, Philadelphia
- prior season salary: $1.25 mil
- awarded: $2.8 mil
Cory Stillman, Tampa Bay
- prior season salary: $2.75 mil
- awarded: $3.9 mil
- Tampa Bay walked away
2006
Scott Gomez, New Jersey
- prior year salary: $2.2 mil
- awarded: $5 mil
Daniel Briere, Buffalo
- prior year salary: $1.9 mil
- awarded: $5 mil
Mike York, NY Islanders
- prior year salary: $2.05 mil
- awarded: $2.85 mil
J.P. Dumont, Buffalo
- prior year salary: $1.6 mil
- awarded: $2.9 mil
- Sabres walked away
David Tanabe, Boston
- awarded: 1 year, $1.275 mil
WALKAWAYS:
1999 - Dmitri Khristich
2003 - Bryan Berard
2004 - Cory Stillman
2006 - David Tanabe
2006 - JP Dumont
The most famous hearing may have been Tommy Salo's, deemed by a GM "the most horrific character assassination ever seen in an arbitration for an NHL player." (per a Newsday article by Jim Smith in 1997). Salo was called "one of the worst-conditioned athletes on the Islanders" and in the team brief they said his conditioning led to goals in the final six minutes of 18 games. As the story goes, he broke down in tears during a process that saw him awarded $750k.
To give you some further insight into the arbitration process, here is an arbitration decision in its entirety, from Dimitri Khristich's 1998 hearing. The next year Khristich would go to arbitration once again and the Bruins would walk away from the hearing, later sending his rights to Toronto (Khristich was a UFA but Boston held the right to match any contract less than 80% of the $2.8 mil).
(Bold added to certain segments for emphasis)
IN THE MATTER OF A SALARY ARBITRATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
DIMITRI KHRISTICH AS A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS’ ASSOCIATION,
hereinafter referred to as the “Player”
AND
THE BOSTON BRUINS, A MEMBER CLUB OF THE
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE,
hereinafter referred to as the “Club”
Before: Claude H. Foisy, Arbitrator
Appearances:
For the Player: Messrs. Robert F. Riley and
Michael D. Dolenga, Counsels
Mr. Larry Kelly, Agent
For the NHLPA: Mr. J.P. Barry
For the Club: L. Bertuzzi, Counsel
Mr. Harry Synden, President and General Manager
Mr. M. O’Connell, Assistant General Manager
For the N.H.L.: Mr. David Zimmerman
Mr. Claude Loiselle
Hearing: Toronto, August 11, 1998
I
This is a matter of an arbitration involving Dimitri Khristich and the Boston Bruins pursuant to Article 12 of the collective bargaining agreement between the N.H.L. and the N.H.L.P.A.
The Player signed a 4-year contract after the 1993-1994 season ending with the 1997-1998 season. In addition to a signing bonus of $ 100,000, he received $ 800,000 for the first year and $ 1,000,000 for each of the subsequent three years of the contract. At the election of the Club, this award is to determine the Player’s remuneration for the 1998-1999 season.
The Player is requesting a salary of $ 2,850,000; the Club is offering $ 1,400,000.
II
Khristich is a 29 year old, 6’2”, 200 pound forward with the Boston Bruins. During the 1997-1998 platform year, he played left wing on the first line of the Club. Khristich made his debut in the N.H.L. with the Washington Capitals in December 1990. He played for Washington until the end of the 1994-1995 season when he was traded to the Los Angeles Kings. He played 2 years with the Kings and was traded to the Boston Bruins at the end of the 1996-97 season. Here are the relevant statistics of this 8-year N.H.L. veteran in relation to his career, the four years of his most recent contract through his platform year and that of his platform year.
Regular Season
Season GP G A TP +/- PIM PPG GPG PIM/G Ice Time
Career 4 Years through Platform 548 196 240 436 83 322 0.80 0.36 0.59 --
281 87 125 212 33 165 0.75 0.31 0.59 18.69 (3 years through Platform)
Platform (97-98) 82 29 37 66 25 42 0.80 0.35 0.51 19.27
Playoffs
Career 48 11 19 30 -1 35 0.63 0.23 0.73 --
Platform 6 2 2 4 1 2 0.67 0.33 0.33 --
The Player’s brief describes Khristich as a complete 2-way forward who is used on power plays and to kill off penalties. He is a good face-off man and can take draws in both the offensive and defensive zones. Khristich is also a power play specialist.
During his platform year, his +/- was +25 and he had 13 power play goals, 2 short-handed goals and 1 game winning goal. For the numbers of games played he was tied for first on his team, he was second in relation to goals, assists, points, points per game and shooting percentage. In relation to power play, goals and power play points he was first, second in penalty killing. For short- handed goals and short-handed points +/- he was second and in relation to ice time he was second amongst Boston’s forwards in minutes played and minutes per game average.
On a league-wide basis he was 25th in scoring and tied for eight in +/- amongst forwards. He was tied for second in number of games played, 23rd in minutes played, 50th in minutes per game, 22nd in goals scored and tied for 7th in power play goals, tied for 33rd in assists, 25th in points, tied for 5th in +/- and 3rd in shooting percentage. With 66 points, Khristich played a role in 29.86% of the Bruins offense. He scored 13.12% of Boston’s goals. The Player points out that although the average scoring in the League dropped from 7.25 goals per N.H.L. game in 1992-93 to 5.28 goals per N.H.L. game at the end of 1997-98, his goal per game average remained constant. His platform year saw an increase of goals per game to .35 from a 4 years through Platform average of .31.
In relation to Khristich’s place on the marketplace, he points out that in 1994-95 at the time he signed his last 4-year contract he was the 70th highest paid forward in the N.H.L.
Today, even though his statistics place him amongst the League’s best forwards for a sustained excellence over time, he now stands 122nd amongst N.H.L. forwards in terms of salary. All this while there has been a tremendous increase of average League compensation where the average League compensation went from $ 733,000 for the 1994-1995 season to $ 1,167,713 for the 1997-1998 season.
The Club recognizes that in relation to goals and points per game, the Player has been consistent throughout his career and that he delivers a similar performance each season with little deviation.
It points out however that his production should be higher due to the fact that he is playing on the first line and on power plays. The Club states that Khristich has the tools to excel and be a top-performing goals and points scorer. He can, when he choses to play, contribute at both ends of the ice at even strength, power play or short-handed.
The Club readily acknowledges that he has the talent. The Club however views Khristich as a most inconsistent player who does not bring his talent or the requisite desire to use it every night he plays. It states that he remains a constant source of frustration to determine which game he will play on any given night. It points out that 13 of his 29 goals were scored on the power play, only 14 goals were scored while playing at even strength, ranking him 5th on the Club in this respect despite the fact that he is playing on the top line.
Seventy-two percent of his goals were scored while the Club was ahead and 45% were scored while the Club was separated by two or more goals. Although scoring the second highest number of goals on the Club, he scored only 1 game winning or game tying goal in the Club’s 52 wins and ties. The Club describes the Player’s scoring as streaky and inconsistent. It does not view Khristich as a team player but one that should improve his attitude towards the Team and his teammates. It also points out to the fact that during the playoffs, his points per game and goals per game tailed off.
In relation to the Player’s marketability, the Club points out to the fact that he was traded twice during his last 4-year contract, once to the Los Angeles Kings and then to the Boston Bruins. First, having scored 36, 31 and 29 goals in his three full seasons, Khristich was traded by Washington with goaltender Dafoe who only had 10 N.H.L. games at the time for a first round and fourth round draft pick in the following year entry draft. Significantly Washington did not receive any players in return. Again in the 1997 trade that saw Khristich go from Los Angeles to Boston he was traded with Dafoe. The Club through its Assistant General Manager O’Connell’s testimony stated that it was looking to acquire Dafoe who was the most important element of that trade.
It stated that the target for the trade was Dafoe. Joseph Stumple was the key player for Los Angeles having just completed a 76 point season with the last place Bruins. Essentially, Khristich on the one hand and Moger, and the fourth round draft pick on the other hand rounded up the trade. It stated that in both cases Khristich was traded for little value despite being amongst the top scorerson the club which was trading him away.
The Club also states that Khristich who became a group 2 free agent at the end of his contract on July 1, 1998, although he was able to negotiate with any of the other 26 clubs to secure a contract, failed to reach an agreement with any club and the Player subsequently elected the present arbitration to fix his compensation.
III
In his search for finding comparables, the Player focussed on his career total points (436) and his .59 penalty in minutes per game average. Players who came within plus or minus 30% of Khristich’ total points were selected and those who had a penalty in minutes per game of 0–1.0. The Player also focussed on his number of points during the four last years of his contract (212 points) and his average of .59 penalty in minutes per game during that period. He then searched players who were within plus or minus 30% of his total points production and who had PIMS per game of 0–1.0.
This process identified 6 players, namely:
Player Platform year
Andrew Cassels 1997-98
Robert Holik 1997-98
Joe Juneau 1997-98
Tony Amonte 1996-97
Peter Bondra 1996-97
Robert Reichel --
This method of selection which focussed on the total points production as opposed to points per game average places less importance on the number of games played. In referring to a 4-year composite through the platform year, he places less emphasis on his platform year performance. It is to be noted, however, that in this case the Player’s performance appears to be very consistent from year to year except in relation to his PIM/G who is 0.51 in his platform year. The Player’s search was limited to players in
the age category 27-31.
The Player points out that in selecting a fair set of comparables, although the process should start on an objective basis, due regard must be given to varying skills level, physical attributes, current and platform year performance, length of N.H.L. service, whether players play a two-way game and the role they
play.
The Club also agrees with these subjective factors but places a different interpretation as to the value to the Team of the Player as evidenced by its position referred to above. In its search for objective comparables, the Club first identified players who during their platform year came within 40% of goals, points and penalty in minutes on a per game basis. This group was then cross-referenced with all forwards who had within 40% of Khristich’s goals per game, points per game and penalty in minutes per game over their career to and including their platform year. This group was then limited to those who had played within 40% of Khristich’s 548 career games at the time of their contract signing. This produced the following nine comparables:
Player Platform year
Stu Barnes 1997-98
Randy Burridge 1995-96
Andrew Cassels 1997-98
Martin Gelinas 1996-97
Travis Green 1996-97
Shawn McEachern 1997-98
Marty McInnis 1997-98
Mark Recchi 1997-98
Paul Isebaert 1994-95
IV
Having heard the parties’ submissions and read their briefs, I am satisfied that the methodology used by both sides to track down comparables is acceptable. No method is perfect and whatever the method used, names of players who are not comparables will be identified in the search. In the present case, the Player, in setting criteria, put less emphasis on the platform year and more on career and composite 4 years through platform year. The 4-year composite corresponds with the last four years of the expired
contract. Although the platform year element is an important one, it may be less critical in the case of a player who is ending a 4-year contract as opposed to the situation of a player who is seeking year to year renewals. Whatever the methodology used, it can be said by either party that if emphasis had been given to one factor rather than to the other, a given player or group of players would have been included or excluded. Be that as it may, as an arbitrator I cannot introduce my own set of comparables and I must
work with those identified by the parties.
Khristich is not a power player, i.e. an offensive player who notches up a fair amount of penalty minutes per game. In his search for comparables, the Player has used the criteria of 0–1.0 penalty minute per game and the Club has used more or less 40% of Khristich’s PIM/G. PIM/G is used as an indicia that a player is a more aggressive and physical type of player and this, in the N.H.L., is worth more money. However, for players below 1 PIM/G, I question whether averaging .60 or .80 PIM/G can make a difference in qualifying a player as a “power player”. More particularly when the player in question has no fighting major. Unless there appears a substantial difference between the comparable and Khristich in relation to his PIM/G both in relation to career and platform year, this factor should not have great weight. We are dealing here with offensive players and more weight should be given to their offensive statistics.
As mentioned above, 14 comparables were identified by the parties.
Only the name of Andrew Cassels is common to both searches. A review of the parties’ briefs and their oral submissions brings me to the conclusion that the following players identified in their search are not useful in the present case and should not be considered as comparables. They are: Randy Burridge whose contract was bought off by the Buffalo Sabres and who does not play any more in the N.H.L.; Andrew Cassels and Joe Juneau who accepted their team’s qualifying offer for 1997-1998 and in that context their salary is not indicative of their performance; Shawn McEachern is also struck out from the list because, as of the time of the hearing, the arbitral award to fix his 1998-1999 salary had not been rendered; Robert Reichel is eliminated because he played in Europe during his platform year. His previous platform year would have been the short 1994-95 season. In the end, such a dated contract would only have had nominal weight and little relevancy; Marty McInnis’ statistics in terms of games played to platform year and to career show too much discrepancy. So are his points per game of .59 to Khristich’s .80; Mark Recchi has just been awarded 19 a $ 4.5 Million 1-year contract in arbitration. There is no dispute between the parties that Khristich is not a comparable player to Recchi. I also have struck out the name of Paul Ysebaert whose platform year was the 1994-95 season at which time he had only played 346 games to Khristich’s 548. Furthermore, his career point per game average of .64 to Khristich’s .80 is not comparable.
I am therefore left with the following comparables:
Player Platform year 1998-99 Salary
Tony Amonte 1996-97 $ 2,800,000
Stu Barnes 1997-98 $ 1,500,000
Peter Bondra 1996-97 $ 3,425,000
Martin Gelinas 1996-97 $ 1,200,000
Traves Green 1996-97 $ 1,500,000
Robert Holik 1997-98 $ 2,400,000
Tony Amonte
On a career basis, Khristich has played approximately 100 more games than Amonte. Both have a .80 point per game, Amonte having a better goal per game average, .38 to .36. In his platform year, however, Amonte has scored 41 goals or .51 GPG compared to Khristich’s .35. This is almost 50% superior. In his platform year, Amonte averaged .95 PPG compared to Khristich’s .80. In +/- Khristich, careerwise, is 83 compared to Amonte’s 64 but the latter has played 100 less games. In relation to their playoff performance, both have played approximately 50 games and Amonte has a better point per game average of .70 to Khristich’s .63. On a 2-year composite to platform year, Amonte has 72 goals to Khristich’s 48 and a goal per game average of .44 to Khristich’s .31. On a point per game basis, Amonte is superior at .86 to Khristich’s .78.
M. O’Connell, the Club’s Assistant General Manager, has testified that even though the Player’s and Amonte’s statistics may be somewhat similar, Amonte is a much better player. He is an exceptional goal scorer, he is fast and people come to the game to see him play, which is not the case for Khristich. Both Amonte and Khristich have 5 seasons of 25 goals plus, Khristich has six 50 point seasons to Amonte’s five. They both have four career .80 point per game seasons. Amonte however, during the 1997-98 season, was the 17th overall scorer in the League while Khristich was 25th. Amonte, during his platform year’s playoff games had 4 goals and 2 assists for a point per game average of 1.0 to Khristich’s .67.
In relation to +/- Khristich was 25 and Amonte 21. As mentioned above, in 1997-98 both Amonte and Khristich had a 50 point season with the same number of games played, 82. Amonte contributed to 38.02% of his team’s offense while Khristich contributed to 29.86%. Leaguewise for games played during 1994-95 to 1997-98, Amonte played in 292 games and was 6th in the League while Khristich played in 281 games and was 28th. Also of importance, during his platform year Amonte received 10 votes for the All-Star Game and was 5th in the League. He also received 5 votes for the Hart Trophy which placed him 17th in the League.
I conclude that of the two, Amonte is a better player in terms of offense: he scored 12 more goals in his platform year, had 11 more points with a point per game average of .95 to Khristich’s .80. On a 2-year composite, Amonte had 72 goals to Khristich’s 48 with a better average of PPG of .86 to .78. When one looks at the ice time, Amonte has superior ice time in his platform year by more than 3 minutes per game when compared in their respective platform year. Over a 3-year composite, Amonte averages nearly 3 more minutes ice time per game.
Stu Barnes
Barnes is an 8-year veteran, first with Winnipeg then with Florida before being traded to the Pittsburgh Penguins. During his platform year 1998, he played on the first line with Yaeger and Francis. He had his best year in the N.H.L. playing 78 games, scoring 30 goals, 35 assists, for total points of 65, PIM/G of .38, a +15 in the +/- column and a point per game average of .83. This compares with that of Khristich who had 29 goals, 37 assists, with a +/- 25, a PPG of .80 and a PIM/G of .31. During that year, Khristich had 66 points to Barnes’ 65.
When one compares their career to platform year performances, however, Khristich’s statistics are much superior. Having played one full season more, his point per game is .81 to Barnes’ .63. Even if we do not take into consideration Khristich’s last year in relation to +/-, he still would be way ahead of Barnes at 58 versus -14. Careerwise, Khristich is .36 goal per game and Barnes is .28, a difference of more than 25%. If we consider 4 years to platform, that is the length of Khristich’s contract, Khristich has shown more consistency year in year out, with a point per game average of .75 to Barnes’ .69. If PIM/G is considered, Khristich is .59 to Barnes .41. During their platform year, Stu Barnes saw more ice time, 21.59 minutes per game to Khristich’s 19.27. I do not have Barnes’ ice time for 1996 and 1997. In relation to offensive production, Khristich participated in 29.86% of his team’s offense while Barnes participated in 28.51% during their platform year. Barnes has had one 25 goal season to Khristich’s 5. Barnes has had one 50 point season to Khristich’s 6. Khristich has had 4.80 seasons to Barnes’ one. All in all I find Khristich to be a superior player than Barnes. He has shown more consistency over the years. Coming off a 4-year contract, that consistency is an important factor.
Peter Bondra
Peter Bondra is a right winger with the Washington Capitals. Both Khristich and Bondra started their career with Washington in 1991. He is a power play specialist like Khristich. However, he is a superior goal scorer. In his platform year, he scored 46 goals for a goal per game average of .60 to Khristich’s .35. As mentioned in the Player’s brief, Bondra has developed over the last three seasons into one of the top goal scorers in the League. In the two seasons leading to his 1996-97 platform season, he scored 98 goals.
Bondra had six 25 goal seasons to Khristich’s five. He has four .80 point per game seasons, same as Khristich, and he has five 50 point seasons to Khristich’s six. In relation to ice time, Bondra in the 1997-98 season had 22 minutes to Khristich’s 19.27 and on a 3-year basis he is 20.7 to Khristich’s 18.69.
Examining the statistics, one must conclude that Bondra has recently emerged as a top goal scorer. M. O’Connell in his testimony testified that there was no comparison regardless of the statistics between Khristich and Bondra as far as types of players were concerned. Bondra has exceptional speed, is an exciting player and he is the type of player that sells tickets. In his platform year, Bondra was very close to the 1.0 PIM/G mark with .94. That is 80% more than Khristich.
On a 2-year to platform composite, Bondra has 98 goals to Khristich’s 48 and a point per game of 1.09 to Khristich’s .78. On a 3-year composite, Bondra has 132 goals to Khristich’s 75 and a point per game of 1.05 to Khristich’s .80.
Furthermore, in 1996- 97, Bondra received 5 votes for the All-Star Game and was tied for 6th in the League. Bondra near the end of the 1997-98 season was able to renegotiate his contract. If the 1997-98 season is used as his platform year, it shows that Bondra received 35 votes for the All-Star and was tied for 5th in the League. He received 40 votes for the Hart Trophy and was 6th in the League. He received 2 votes for the Selky Trophy and was tied for 34th.
All in all, I find that Bondra is to be placed in a different category of players than Khristich.
Martin Gelinas
Martin Gelinas played his platform year 1996-97 with Vancouver. He had a very good platform year where in 74 games he scored 35 goals and had 33 assists, for 68 points or a .92 point per game average. This bettered Kristich’s .80. Gelinas had a .57 PIM/G to Khristich’s .51. On a 2-year composite to platform year, Gelinas had 65 goals and 86 assists for a point per game average of .80 to Khristich’s 48 goals, 74 assists and a .78 PPG. On a 3-year composite, Gelinas had a point per game average of .73 to Khristich’s .80. Career to platform year Gelinas is .56 point per game to Khristich’s .80. Careerwise to platform year Gelinas had played 523 games to Khristich’s 548. Careerwise to platform year Gelinas had +/- +23 to Khristich’s +83. In terms of 25 goal seasons, Khristich has 5 to Gelinas’ 2. He has six 50 point seasons to Gelinas two and he has four .80 point per game seasons to Gelinas one.
Although I recognize that Gelinas has had two good seasons including his platform year, he does not offer the consistency of Khristich and for that I rank Khristich a better player. The evidence is also that Khristich is a power play goal specialist having scored 70 power play goals in his career and being ranked 29th. Gelinas has 21 and is ranked 141th in the League. Leaguewise, they have approximately the same number of games played. Khristich has scored 190 goals and is ranked 45th in the League to Gelinas 150 and 72nd in the League. In terms of assists, Khristich has 240 and is ranked 52nd to Gelinas 151 and ranked 108th. In terms of points, Khristich has 436 and is ranked 46th to Gelinas 306 and ranked 96th.
Travis Green
Travis Green played with the New York Islanders at the time of his platform year 1996-97. During that year, he scored 23 goals and had 41 assists, for 64 points in 79 games, for a PPG of .81 to Khristich’s .80. He had a .48 PIM/G, very similar to Khristich’s .51. In the +/- column however, Khristich was +25 to Green -5. In terms of games played, Khristich played 82 to Green 79. On a 2- year to platform composite, Green had the same number of goals, 48, but a superior point per game average of .91 to .78. Their PMIG was almost equal, .54 to .51. On a 3-year composite, however, Green has 53 goals, Khristich 75, and a PPG of .77 to Khristich’s .80.
On a career basis to platform year, Green has a .63 PPG to Khristich’s .80. In terms of 25 goal seasons, Khristich has 5 and Green has none. In terms of 50 point seasons, Khristich has 6 and Green has two. In terms of .80 point per game seasons, Khristich has four and Green has two. When one looks at the 4-year composite statistics, i.e. the length of Khristich’s expired contract, one can see he has played in 281 games and is ranked 29th amongst active forwards in the League. Green has played 266 games and is ranked 74th. In relation to goals, Khristich has 87 and is ranked 48th to Green 71 and ranked 83rd. In relation to points, Khristich has 212 and is ranked 38th to Green 187 and ranked 61st. In regards to power play goals, Khristich, for the same period, had 36 and is ranked 20th while Green has 23 and is ranked 32nd. In the +/- column, Khristich is 33 and ranked 35th to Green -65 and ranked 608th.
Although I recognize that the +/- statistic may at times be somewhat unreliable because different teams play different styles, it nevertheless remains that over a long period of time that it is an indication of the player’s defensive ability.
Given the Player’s consistency, his two-way offensive/defensive versatility and his overall performance, I find that he is a better player than Travis Green.
Robert Holik
Robert Holik is a forward with the New Jersey Devils. During his platform year he played the same number of games as Khristich,82, had the same number of goals, 29, had 1 assist less at 36, +/- of 25 to 23 in favour of Khristich, had a point per goal average of .79 to Khristich’s .80. PIM/G wise, there was a huge difference, Khristich with .51 and Holik with 1.22. In relation to ice time in the platform year, Holik has 16.78 to Khristich’s 19.27. Over a 3- year composite, the ice time of Khristich is 18.69 to Holik’s 16.05. On a career basis, Holik has played 560 games to Khristich’s 548. Khristich has 436 points to Holik 337, +/- is almost equal, 83 to 88 in favour of Holik. In point per game average, Khristich has a big edge, .80 to .6. In terms of goal per game, Khristich has the edge, .36 to .27 while in PIM/G Holik has the edge, .96 to .59. On a 4-year through platform composite, Khristich’s point per game average is .75 and Holik’ .64. Holik maintains the edge in relation to PIM/G.
The Club testified that Khristich is a streaky scorer that does not come out to play every night. When considering Holik’s month by month goal distribution, I can see that on four 15-day periods he had no goals during that time. Although he played the last 16 games of the season, he had no goals. In the case of Khristich, the only 15-day period where he did not score one goal was during the January 16th to 31st period. In relation to playoffs, during their platform year Holik played in 5 games, had no points and a +/- 4 to Khristich’s 6 games with 2 goals and 2 assists for 4 points, and 2 penalty minutes while Holik had no penalty.
In terms of percentage of team offense, in 1997-98 Holik had 28.89% to Khristich’s 29.86%. In 1996-97, they were almost equal, 26.84% to 26.17% for Khristich. In 1995-96, Holik was 13.95% to Khristich’s 25.00%. As far as durability ratio is concerned, Holik has 91.21% and Khristich 94.60%.
Khristich has had five 25 goal seasons to Holik’s one. He had six 50 point seasons to Holik’s two, he had four .80 point per game seasons to Holik’ zero. During the playoffs, on a career basis Holik has played more games, 73 to 48. In playoffs, on a point per game basis, however, Holik is .26 to .63 for Khristich.
In relation to the value that each player adds to his team, Holik during the platform year led his club in scoring while Khristich was second.
On a careerwise basis, on a 2- or 3-year composite to platform year, there is no doubt that Khristich has better offensive statistics.
There are however a number of considerations which lead me to believe that overall, Holik is a better player. First, M. O’Connell testified that Holik was an intimidating power forward. There is objective evidence to back that testimony. First, in his platform year Holik has a PIM/G of 1.22 which is superior by far to all other comparables. Furthermore, his .96 career PIM/G indicates that this is not a flash in the pan. This is an indication that Holik plays a tougher game than Khristich. Furthermore, Holik during his platform year led his team in scoring and, as such, it can be said that he has a major impact on his team. This is buttressed by various factors namely that Holik had 8 game-winning goals and 1 game-tying goal while Khristich had 1 winning goal and zero tying goal. Furthermore, Holik received 7 votes for the All-Star, placing him 6th in the League, he received 1 vote for the Hart Trophy, placing him tied for 20th, and he received 85 votes for the Selky Trophy placing him 5th. These considerations lead me to conclude that although on a purely offensive statistical point of view Khristich has the edge, Holik is more of an impact player which warrants a higher remuneration.
I have compared the performances of 6 players to Khristich. I have found Amonte and Bundra to be superior to Khristich and in a different class of player mostly because of their goal scoring abilities. I have found that Khristich’s offensive performances during his platform year mirrors those of Holik. On a careerwise basis or on a 4-year composite to platform year Khristich’s are better. On the other hand, I have found that because of other characteristics, Holik is more of an impact player than Khristich and should receive a better compensation.
I have also found Khristich on his performances to be a better player than Stu Barnes, Martin Gelinas and Travis Green. I have found that even though these last players had good platform years, they do not offer the consistency of offensive performance that Khristich delivers regularly. The highest paid players of that
group of three are Stu Barnes and Travis Green at $ 1,500,000 with Martin Gelinas receiving $ 1,200,000.
Given the above, I determine that Khristich’s salary should be set at a point between those of Barnes and Green on the one part, and Holik on the other part. I therefore set Khristich’s salary for 1998-1999 at $ 1,950,000.
By doing so, I have been mindful of the parties’ representations as to what type of player Khristich is. The Club has argued that although the Player is a very talented one, he does not come to play every night and this is very frustrating. It is difficult for me to give great weight to these considerations because I do not have the same information in relation to comparables. The objective evidence that I have is that Khristich
is not more streakish than most of the comparables, at least not in relation to Holik. On the other hand, if the Player is as talented as agreed by the Club and if he plays every night, then his offensive statistics would be much better and he would accordingly be compensated at a higher salary. I have also been mindful of the Player’s consistency in the context where less goals are now being scored in the N.H.L. than at the time he signed his previous contract.
AWARD
Dimitri Khristich is to receive a salary of $ 1,950,000 for the 1998-99 contract season. He is also to participate in any standard team bonus plan which other members of the Club receive.
OTTAWA, this 13th day of August 1998.
CLAUDE H. FOISY
ARBITRATOR
*********************************
I thought that was a fascinating read and if you guys found it interesting I’ve got five other rulings that I could share (Bill Ranford, Josef Beranek, Krystof Oliwa, Robbie Tallas and Todd Ewen) at some point.
I’m also working on two other posts for this week before I take a little vacation from hockey - one on all the moves from the past week (don't worry, Jeff Finger isn't the only contract I have issues with) and the other regarding the League Constitution and the Boots Del Biaggio saga.
Stay tuned for those..
Danny -
[email protected]
Join the Discussion:
»