Why Avoiding Arbitration is Paramount in Today's NHL

It’s the middle of the summer, which means most NHL executives are in vacation mode. For some teams, there is work to be done with arbitration hearings approaching quickly. It would be best for all parties if arbitration was avoided, and everyone could enjoy their vacation. It’s less about the vacation time and more about the damage the arbitration does to a relationship.

For example, Geoff Molson intervened and helped hand P.K. Subban an eight-year contract after an emotional arbitration hearing. The relationship was never the same, and Subban was shipped to Nashville two years later.

Arbitration hearings are a way for teams to air the dirty laundry, discuss all the flaws of their player and paint him in a negative light. That is no way to treat an employee, and you cannot fault players for taking offense to some of the things that get said in these hearings. It is the team’s job to paint the player in as negative a light as possible to suppress the rewarded salary.

That is where problems arise. The team has an opportunity to build a case and lay out why the player is not worth the money he is asking for. Traditionally, the team low balls, and the agent goes above their valuation. This is because the arbitrators are known for splitting the difference and awarding a middle-ground salary. However, each side presents evidence to convince the arbitrator why their number makes sense.

For the player, the agent can argue contribution to the team, goals, assists, time on ice with favorable comparisons to other NHL players. The team does the same but on the low end of the comparable scale. They make every effort to poke holes in the player’s game, criticize various aspects of the player, and make him out to be replaceable at that salary. 

A lot of times, the words “You’re good, but not at the level of this guy who makes 'X' amount, so we can’t pay you what you’re asking.” If the player truly believes he is better or at the same level as the comparable players, he may feel slighted and underappreciated by his team.

That is a situation you want to avoid at all costs. In the Subban situation, we do not know what was said, but we know it was ugly. Montreal management did their best to suppress the value of their star defenseman and reportedly offended him deeply in the hearing. Their relationship was never the same. 

While the owner made Subban more than whole, the writing was on the wall. Subban and Montreal management never seemed to be on the same page after that. After Subban donated $10 million to the Montreal Children’s Hospital, Max Pacioretty was named captain and nominated for the King Clancy Award. While I am not saying Pacioretty was undeserving, it is a little difficult to overlook a $10-million children’s hospital donation. The fact Pacioretty's teammates selected him further cemented the fracture between Subban and the Canadiens. It started in the arbitration hearing and snowballed from there.

While Vince Dunn and Troy Terry aren't the same caliber of players, I have to imagine the Seattle Kraken and Anaheim Ducks do not want a similar situation with them. They are key pieces for their team, as Subban was, and teams should be keen to avoid fracturing their relationship with their best players. This time is also different since agreements can now only be made before the hearing. 

Both players are success stories in their own right – Dunn found a new home and exploded offensively, while Terry is a late-round development success story. There is no denying the positive impact they have on their respective teams. Seattle will do its best to demonstrate Dunn’s 64-point season as a one-off and present him as undeserving of his ask. Anaheim will point to a significant drop-off in goals for Terry and paint him as a perennial 25-goal scorer instead of a 30-goal scorer. There is plenty of opportunity for both hearings to result in raw emotions and hurt feelings.

Ross Colton, Noah Cates and Alex DeBrincat were all notable players in line for arbitration. Their teams got down to business and signed them to fair contracts, thus avoiding any hearing. In the cases of Colton and DeBrincat, it could have been ugly as their team would have had to paint a picture of their worth before the player put on the uniform. That is a recipe for disaster.

While arbitration is a mechanism available in the CBA, the arbitrator usually splits the difference. If the team and player can do that without airing any grievances, it avoids the potential fracturing of a relationship between team and player. Players talk, and you can bet they will share what was said in their hearing. They will make their teammates aware of the grievances that were aired. It makes the working environment more difficult than it needs to be and is not a recipe for building a dressing room with Stanley Cup aspirations. In certain cases, with star players, it should be avoided altogether, as players will remember what was said when they hit unrestricted free agency.