Arbitration is the process the league uses to settle salary and contract disputes. A player aged 25 or older with at least five years experience qualifies for arbitration when his contract expires.

The NHL and NHLPA jointly appoint impartial arbitrators to rule on these cases. The player, the team, the league and the NHLPA present evidence and arguments at arbitration hearings before the arbitrator makes a decision. Teams have the option to walk away from arbitration awards, but then the player can elect to become an unrestricted free agent within seven days.

The league and team owners feel players and agents hold too much influence over current arbitration procedures. The NHLPA wins the majority of arbitration cases.

Bill Daly, NHL executive vice president and chief legal officer, has suggested any new arbitration system would have to operate more equitably.

"It would have to be bilateral," Daly told the Eagle-Tribune in December, "if it even continues."

It is believed the NHL might push for a final-offer arbitration process similar to the one used in Major League Baseball. MLB arbitrators are presented two salaries – one from the owner and another from the player. The arbitrator must pick one of the figures, with no middle ground to work with. Currently, the NHL process gives arbitrators leeway to pick a salary amount somewhere in the middle.

The owners might also propose a system in which a team could force a high-salary, under-performing player into arbitration to reduce his salary for the next season. Or the league could lobby for the ability to sign players to two-way, non-guaranteed deals in which they could be sent to the minors to play for less money.

The players have emphatically stated they would not go for any two-way deals or arbitration system in which they stand to have salary decreases.

It is believed the NHLPA could send a message to the league this June by bringing more players to arbitration than usual.