I read some of your comments and it seems that many people are shocked by the arbitrator's decision ($3.1 mil, $3.6 mil), mainly due to the rulings handed down in Briere and Gomez's hearings last summer.
Here's a quick look at what those three players had accomplished, going into arbitration:
Mike Cammalleri
25 years old
Year 1: 28 GP, 5 G, 8 PTS
Year 2: 31 GP, 9 G, 15 PTS
Year 3: 80 GP, 26 G, 55 PTS
Year 4: 81 GP, 34 G, 80 PTS
0 Playoff Games
Scott Gomez
27 years old
Year 1: 82 GP, 19 G, 70 PTS
Year 2: 76 GP, 14 G, 63 PTS
Year 3: 76 GP, 10 G, 48 PTS
Year 4: 80 GP, 13 G, 55 PTS
Year 5: 80 GP, 14 G, 70 PTS
Year 6: 82 GP, 33 G, 84 PTS
Two Stanley Cups
86 Playoff Games
17 Playoff Goals
51 Playoff Points
Daniel Briere
29 years old
Year 1: 5 GP, 1 G, 1 PT
Year 2: 64 GP, 8 G, 22 PTS
Year 3: 13 GP, 1 G, 2 PTS
Year 4: 30 GP, 11 G, 15 PTS
Year 5: 78 GP, 32 G, 60 PTS
Year 6: 82 GP, 24 G, 58 PTS
Year 7: 82 GP, 28 G, 65 PTS
Year 8: 48 GP, 25 G, 58 PTS
34 Playoff Games
10 Playoff Goals
23 Playoff Points
Past Playoff Season: 18 GP, 8 G, 19 PTS
Gomez had averaged 65 pts a year over six years. He had two rings and 51 playoff points.
Briere was coming off a season where he put up 1.2 PPG in the regular season and had nineteen playoff points.
Cammalleri has no playoff experience and 158 career points. In my opinion the Briere and Gomez deals aren't a good point of comparison.
**************
So how do you get to a ruling of $6.7 million over 2 years? Here's some possible insight...
I took a look at all the players who put up over .9 PPG this season. From there I disregarded anyone who was over 1.1 PPG. That eliminated Crosby, Thornton, Iginla, Lecavlier, Spezza, Heatley, St. Louis, Hossa, Sakic, Jagr, Savard, Briere, Selanne, Alfredsson, Ovechkin, Jokinen and Datsyuk.
There were 28 players who put up over 65 pts and averaged between 0.9 and 1.1 PPG this past year. Cammalleri averaged .99 PPG so this seemed like a good range to look at. I also added in his teammate Alexander Frolov (0.87 PPG), who is the same age and had one more goal and nine less pts.
Of those 28 I disregarded all the players over 30, most/all of whom signed their contracts as UFAs and thus wouldn't be eligible to be used as comparables in arbitration. That removed Smyth, Elias, Drury, Kariya, Nylander, Sundin, Brind'Amour, Whitney, Kozlov, Straka, Brunette, Koivu and Langkow.
Lastly I took out players on entry level deals and players that received offer sheets as RFAs. The Vanek deal could theoretically be used as a comparable but when you look at the list below you'll see how rationally it doesn't fit in. I also took out Huselius because he pretty much came out of nowhere to have one great year. With Vanek, Huselius, Semin, Malkin and Statsny off the list, that left me with 10 comparables:
| Name | Age | Contract Details | $ Average |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | 24 | 5 yrs, $32.5 mil in 2005 | $6,500,000.00 |
| Alex Tanguay | 27 | 3 yrs, $15.75 mil in 2006 | $5,250,000.00 |
| Patrice Bergeron | 22 | 5 yrs, $23.75 mil in 2006 | $4,750,000.00 |
| Patrick Marleau | 28 | 3 yrs, $12.5 mil in 2005 | $4,500,000.00 |
| Daniel Sedin | 27 | 3 yrs, $10.725 mil in 2006 | $3,575,000.00 |
| Henrik Sedin | 27 | 3 yrs, $10.725 mil in 2006 | $3,575,000.00 |
| Andy McDonald | 30 | 3 yrs, $10 mil in 2006 | $3,333,333.00 |
| Jonathan Cheechoo | 27 | 5 yrs, $15 mil in 2005 | $3,000,000.00 |
| Henrik Zetterberg | 27 | 4 yrs, $10.6 mil in 2005 | $2,700,000.00 |
| Alexander Frolov | 25 | 5 yrs, $14.5 mil in 2005 | $2,900,000.00 |
Based on that list, I don't think that the decision is unreasonable. It's a little on the low side but very much in the right neighborhood, considering that Cammalleri is only 25 and has put up those great numbers for just one year. As well, younger players will make more per season on a long-term deal, something we've seen with Roy, Parise and Horton who will each make $3 mil or less this upcoming season.
For a transcript of the Dean Lombardi conference call last night, go to Rich Hammond's blog at insidesocal.com/kings. If it seems like I'm trying to get traffic to his site it's because I am. Rich has done an incredible job at keeping on top of all things Kings-related this season and throughout the summer, including exclusive and very revealing interviews with Dean Lombardi. Rich is a writer for the Daily News and his editors are considering moving him over to cover the Lakers but it seems that they have underestimated the popularity of the Kings and his site. The more people who know about Rich, the better chance he'll be able to cover hockey this year. And with hockey coverage in the States declining we need talented, dedicated and passionate people like Rich to help promote the game that we all love and keep us all informed.
According to Rich, Cammalleri's camp submitted a number of $6 mil/per and Lombardi had countered at $2.6 mil. Clearly that is a huge disparity but that is not uncommon for arbitration where the decision comes in somewhere in the middle. There was some talk during the lockout about switching to 'baseball-style' arbitration where the arbitrator must pick from the two numbers that are submitted but that change was never implemented. Had that occurred you wouldn't see such a wide range between the two sides because there's too much risk involved in coming in either too high or too low. But the system is what it is, so both sides have to play with the hand that they've been dealt.
I'd think that the Cammalleri camp would have expected the deal somewhere in the $4-4.5 million range so this has to be a disappointment for them. The irony is that had Cammalleri not chosen to file for arbitration, he may well have been an Edmonton Oiler with a Vanek-sized contract. Here's a quote from the conference call on the healing process that is already underway:
"After the (arbitration) hearing we spent time together and went out to eat and we started laying the groundwork for, 'OK, whatever happens, happens, but we've got to go back and be a team.'"
Quite often the arbitration process can cause a divide between the player and the team but in this case it seems like Lombardi argued against the system instead of the player. This was a great strategy because it will go a long way towards maintaining a good relationship with the team's leading scorer and also because it was successful in keeping Cammalleri's salary manageable within the team's overall salary structure.
Here's one more quote from Mr. Hammond's site from a conversation with Lombardi after the hearing:
"These younger players are getting a lot bigger share of the pie than in the past. It's just part of the market right now. You look at what happened with Vanek and Penner and they're trying to take that into account when they negotiate. Most of the hearing was... obviously you critique the player a bit, but most of it was spent talking about how much the market has changed for young players. These things for young players are different than they used to be. We're trying to put a rein on it. I think seniority matters and I think a guy who has done it four times is worth more than a guy who did it once."
One more thing worth noting is that Cammalleri is very much involved with the NHLPA and thus there is always pressure to try and get as much as you can in contract negotiations. He swung for the fences and didn't come up with a huge number but I believe that he'll be able to realize that it's not personal, just business. The key will be to start working on earning that huge deal for 2009 when Mike is set to become an Unrestricted Free Agent.
As for the Kings, they are fortunate to have two 25-year old players who combined for 69 goals last season under contract for the next two years at a cap hit of $6.25 mil (Frolov has three years at 2.9).
With young talent like Cammalleri, Frolov, Kopitar, Johnson, Brown, O'Sullivan and a boatload of top-level prospects like Bernier, Lewis, Hickey and Boyle, the Kings are poised to become a top team within the next couple seasons.
And maybe then when they lock up one of their top players to a new deal, the story might even make it onto TSN or Sportsnet's sites on the day that the contract is announced.
Until then I'm sure Lombardi will be happy to have his team fly under the radar as he continues to build piece by piece.
Today was a good day for Kings fans. Today an important piece was locked into place for the next two seasons at a very reasonable price. And you can't ask for anything more than that out of the very unpredictable arbitration process.
Danny - [email protected]
For those who are interested, I've included section 12(g) of the CBA that explains what can and can't be used as evidence in an arbitration hearing...
(g) Evidence.
(i) Subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (iii) below, the parties may present whatever witnesses, affidavits, documents and other relevant evidence they choose to present at the hearing. The Salary Arbitrator, on behalf of any party, or on his own behalf, may call witnesses or request documents or other evidence as he deems necessary to resolve the dispute. The Salary Arbitrator in his discretion shall be the judge of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered and/or the weight, if any, to attach to any evidence and shall not be bound by any formal legal rules of evidence. All evidence shall be presented in the presence of all the parties, unless a party is in default, having failed to appear for the hearing, or has waived his right to be present. Statistical evidence asserted in a party's affirmative case must be included in such party's brief in order to be admissible.
(ii) The parties may offer evidence of the following:
(A) the overall performance, including official statistics prepared by the League (both offensive and defensive), of the Player in the previous season or seasons;
(B) the number of games played by the Player, his injuries or illnesses during the preceding seasons;
(C) the length of service of the Player in the League and/or with the Club;
(D) the overall contribution of the Player to the competitive success or failure of his Club in the preceding season;
(E) any special qualities of leadership or public appeal not inconsistent with the fulfillment of his responsibilities as a playing member of his team;
(F) the overall performance in the previous season or seasons of any Player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player whose salary is in dispute; and
(G) The compensation of any Player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player, provided, however, that in applying this or any of the above subparagraphs, the Salary Arbitrator shall not consider a Player(s) to be comparable to the party Player unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the Player(s) is comparable; nor shall the Salary Arbitrator consider the compensation or performance of a Player(s) unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the Player(s) is comparable.
(iii) The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Salary Arbitrator:
(A) Any SPC the term of which began when the Player party to such SPC was not a Group 2 Player;
(B) Any SPC entered into by an Unrestricted Free Agent, including SPCs signed by Players after the Player's Club has exercised a walk-away right pursuant to Section 12.10;
(C) The SPC of any Player who is not being offered as a comparable Player to the party Player;
(D) Qualifying Offers made by the Club pursuant to Section 10.2(b);
(E) Any prior offers or history of negotiations between the Player and the Club;
(F) Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;
(G) Any reference to actual or potential walk-away rights;
(H) Any award issued by a Salary Arbitrator as to which a Club exercised its walk-away rights pursuant to Section 12.10;
(I) The financial condition of the Club or the League;
(J) References to a Club's Upper or Lower Limit, or to the Players' Share;
(K) Any salary arbitration award issued in 2005-2006; or
(L) Any reference to any salary or other compensation information in any salary arbitration opinion that took place prior to the execution of this Agreement. If any salary arbitration opinion issued prior to the execution of this Agreement is cited as precedent, all references to any Player's Player Paragraph 1 Salary or other compensation information will be redacted.
(iv) In presenting the compensation of any Player offered as a comparable in a brief, the first reference thereto shall be a complete breakdown by component parts (clearly identified) of all such Player's compensation figures in the same format as the Joint Exhibit.
(v) The League and the NHLPA shall each create an exhibit, the Comparable Exhibit, setting forth the compensation terms contained in all SPCs of Players eligible to be used as comparables for the purposes of that year's salary arbitrations. The parties shall exchange such Comparable Exhibits by June 5. A conference call will be held within three (3) business days of the exchange to identify differences and/or issues, if any, between the two versions of the Comparable Exhibits. All issues/differences are to be settled within three (3) business days of conference call. The parties may then use extracts from the Comparable Exhibit to apprise the Arbitrators of the compensation of those Players alleged by such party to be comparable to the Player who is the subject of the Arbitration.
(vi) The full Joint Exhibit and Comparable Exhibit shall not be distributed to the Salary Arbitrators. The Joint Exhibit and the Comparable Exhibit shall promptly be updated to reflect the following:
(A) the issuance of a salary arbitration decision;
(B) verified settlement of any salary arbitration proceeding; and
(C) verified recent signings of any other Player.
(D) such updates to be provided by each party to the other on a daily basis, business days only, from the date of initial exchange of the Comparable Exhibit through and including the 5th day prior to the beginning of the salary arbitration period. All updates following such period through and including conclusion of the salary arbitration period shall be made on a daily basis, without limitation to business days. Daily updates shall be exchanged via fax and email. Follow up conference calls will be held on a timely basis, as needed, to settle any differences/issues arising from such daily updates.
In the absence of a written agreement, the parties shall, in good faith, take all necessary steps in advance of the start of the hearing to jointly confirm and memorialize the occurrence of any of the events described in paragraphs (A), (B) and (C) above. The steps shall include, but are not limited to, a conference call by and between representatives of the parties no later than three (3) hours before the hearing begins.
Items (A) through (C) above, although admissible in the context of a salary arbitration hearing, shall not be deemed to constitute a contract or a substitute for an appropriately filed, registered and approved SPC.
The joint submission of the above defined supplemental evidence should not prejudice either party's position as to the relevance, weight or value attributable to any component of the package at issue.
The League and the NHLPA jointly shall provide such Salary Arbitrator with the updated information for any Player alleged to be a comparable Player during such arbitration, provided such settlement or signing is accomplished at least three (3) hours prior to the commencement of such hearing or such salary arbitration decision issues before the close of such hearing. Any signings or settlements accomplished after commencement of a hearing shall be inadmissible for all purposes for such hearing.
(vii) When dealing with a Group 2 Player whose current SPC began before he reached the age necessary to be a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent and who would be a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent at the end of his current SPC, the following rules shall apply:
(A) His current SPC is on the Comparable Exhibit for its entire term.
(B) If the Player signs a new SPC, during the term of his current SPC:
(1) the new SPC will not be included on the Comparable Exhibit if the new SPC begins after the current SPC ends.
(2) the new SPC will be included on the Comparable Exhibit if the new SPC revises the current SPC and adds additional term.
(C) If a Player has previously signed an SPC while a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent, any subsequent SPC signed by him will not be included on the Comparable Exhibit.
Join the Discussion:
»