An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[TheFinalWord]

Do Canadians not realize that the people in those states still pay federal taxes?

Do Americans not realize that it's not only Canadians complaining in this thread?

 

[Viqsi]

Where was all this outrage when Florida sucked major f***ing ass for like twenty years lmfao

Back then it was all about how hockey in the South was impossible and could never be a thing and they were all clearly failing. Which was fun because they'd gloss right over Carolina's and Tampa Bay's cup wins (or insist they were unfairly rigged, especially TB) and pretend Dallas didn't exist. Instead, they'd exclusively point at the stuggles of Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, and Columbus as evidence of how southern hockey was doomed.

Incidentally, the answer to your likely follow-up questions, once you realize what's bothering you about that last sentence, are "correct, it's not", and "yes, they did, even if you provided them with maps."

 

[DistantThunderRep]

No. People like Number4 has never advocated against a Salary Cap. I still support the Salary Cap, even though my Oilers would be benefitted largely if we were able to spend our near League leading revenue on better players. I've always advocated for a fair playing ground or competitive balance, which may not have been spoken about as the "primary" goal of the Salary cap, at a time when the League was losing money hand over fist, but was still an intended effect of the Salary Cap.

You know what a luxury tax is? It's an advantage for a select few rich teams to say f*** you to the the rest of the league and throw an unlimited amount of money to players. You're disingenuous fake concern is pathetic. You have zero solutions, just nothing but crying and whining about fairness when the league has never been more competitive. You seriously just need to shut the hell up especially when you have countless people laughing at your stupidity.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

I had the idea to have taxes added on seperately so if a player is traded to a high-taxed state that it's added onto the salary as opposed to the same base salary no matter where they go.

Do you understand how taxes work? This doesn't even make sense

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Do you understand how taxes work? This doesn't even make sense

On the cap. Say if they're making $5M in Vegas they add 33.3% and if they're playing in Canada they add 50% to the contract so it doesn't make a difference where they play they'd still be making the same amount.

That or just lower the cap for teams in areas with lower taxes.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Do Americans not realize that it's not only Canadians complaining in this thread?

They are the loudest critics, and the way they speak about the topic, it sounds like they generally believe that NHL players in Florida pay zero taxes.

 

[TheFinalWord]

They are the loudest critics, and the way they speak about the topic, it sounds like they generally believe that NHL players in Florida pay zero taxes.

'Canadians' are not the loudest critics. A very, very small subset of fans are the largest critics. Are Americans always over the top with their generalizations? Or is it just you?

 

[cowboy82nd]

On the cap. Say if they're making $5M in Vegas they add 33.3% and if they're playing in Canada they add 50% to the contract so it doesn't make a difference where they play they'd still be making the same amount.

That or just lower the cap for teams in areas with lower taxes.

So, are you saying that the TEAMS should make up for the tax difference? So, if I sign a player to a 5 million dollar contract, but because of the tax structure in my state or province, that contract could be a 6 million dollar contract? If that is what you are saying, yeah, that is not going to work at all for the owners.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Im just using the halfway point of the salary cap era to denote early infancy salary cap era vs. Mature, well understood salary cap era.

And It does take time for a league to transition from an entirely no cap league to a hard cap league. How much time can be anywhere from 5-10 years for team builds to finally mature and for these no tax benefits to take effect. The list of top 4 teams success supports my theory. The next 10 years wil confirm it further.

From the looks of the contracts Toronto has previously handed out they still haven't figured it out.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Are Americans always over the top with their generalizations?

Sorry, I just have to point out the irony of this comment.

 

[Bocephus86]

Back then it was all about how hockey in the South was impossible and could never be a thing and they were all clearly failing. Which was fun because they'd gloss right over Carolina's and Tampa Bay's cup wins (or insist they were unfairly rigged, especially TB) and pretend Dallas didn't exist. Instead, they'd exclusively point at the stuggles of Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, and Columbus as evidence of how southern hockey was doomed.

Incidentally, the answer to your likely follow-up questions, once you realize what's bothering you about that last sentence, are "correct, it's not", and "yes, they did, even if you provided them with maps."

I also enjoy the reoccurring theme from that same type of poster that Columbus, a city in Ohio further north than DC, is a 'Southern Market' team. You know, your team that is named 'The Blue Jackets', because people from that area wore 'Blue Jackets' along time ago vs a bunch of guys in 'Grey Jackets'.

The gymnastics we are seeing right now over the last few pages is just another variation of this; it's someone else's fault always.

 

[JPT]

I also enjoy the reoccurring theme from that same type of poster that Columbus, a city in Ohio further north than DC, is a 'Southern Market' team. You know, your team that is named 'The Blue Jackets', because people from that area wore 'Blue Jackets' along time ago vs a bunch of guys in 'Grey Jackets'.

The gymnastics we are seeing right now over the last few pages is just another variation of this; it's someone else's fault always.

Teams in areas with higher taxes should get first dibs on free agents. It's only fair.

 

[Bocephus86]

Teams in areas with higher taxes should get first dibs on free agents. It's only fair.

As a fan of the Bruins, let's do it! We have to be near the top of the list. And it's not like we've had a success signing any free agents since the cap went in...

(Please don't mention Chara, Savard, all of the players we retained on good contracts, Hall waiving only for us, Ullmark, Lindholm, medium-Z...)

 

[Golden_Jet]

How we this far deep into this conversation and you still don't understand this point. In the last 10 years, 40 team appearances in the Final Four. 16 of those 40 teams were No Tax Teams. A bit less than half. But No Tax teams don't make up half the League, there are only 6 out of 32 teams that are considered No Tax Teams, essentially about 19% of the League is made up of No Tax Teams and yet they make up about 40% of the successful teams in this League. This stat points to the very OBVIOUS advantage these No Tax Teams have because they can and do sign contracts lower than what their competition can.

Keep tripling down on your cherry picking.
lmao it takes 10 years to understand some states have no tax laws.

It’s become entertainment now.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

The first thing to do is to identify how much of a problem this is. It sure feels like tax-free states continually sign players under the market value. For every Forsling, Kucherov, Tkachuk, Hanafin, Stone, and Reinhardt you have the Toronto core, MacKinnon, McDavid, Petterson, and Pastrnak. If you can quantify that tax-free teams are getting a competive advantage then fix the problem. It isn't hard to do. This is about fairness. There's a lot of other factors the NHL can never make equal or it would be extremely messy to even try but a tax-advantage? This is an easy one.

 

[Golden_Jet]

They are the loudest critics, and the way they speak about the topic, it sounds like they generally believe that NHL players in Florida pay zero taxes.

lol there is no they, it’s a few posters and a few Americans.
It’s always about the “they” with you, grow up and stop painting everyone with the same brush.

 

[JPT]

The first thing to do is to identify how much of a problem this is. It sure feels like tax-free states continually sign players under the market value. For every Forsling, Kucherov, Tkachuk, Hanafin, Stone, and Reinhardt you have the Toronto core, MacKinnon, McDavid, Petterson, and Pastrnak. If you can quantify that tax-free teams are getting a competive advantage then fix the problem. It isn't hard to do. This is about fairness. There's a lot of other factors the NHL can never make equal or it would be extremely messy to even try but a tax-advantage? This is an easy one.

I think you're the fifth or sixth person to come in talking about how it's a simple fix without proving there is an actual problem, much less describing their simple fix.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

No. People like Number4 has never advocated against a Salary Cap. I still support the Salary Cap, even though my Oilers would be benefitted largely if we were able to spend our near League leading revenue on better players. I've always advocated for a fair playing ground or competitive balance, which may not have been spoken about as the "primary" goal of the Salary cap, at a time when the League was losing money hand over fist, but was still an intended effect of the Salary Cap.

Did you just speak of yourself in the 3rd person?

 

[FiveTacos]

Did you just speak of yourself in the 3rd person?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

The first thing to do is to identify how much of a problem this is. It sure feels like tax-free states continually sign players under the market value. For every Forsling, Kucherov, Tkachuk, Hanafin, Stone, and Reinhardt you have the Toronto core, MacKinnon, McDavid, Petterson, and Pastrnak. If you can quantify that tax-free teams are getting a competive advantage then fix the problem. It isn't hard to do. This is about fairness. There's a lot of other factors the NHL can never make equal or it would be extremely messy to even try but a tax-advantage? This is an easy one.

Strongly agree and disagree with the bolded.

"This isn't hard to do" - 100% false. Tax law is incredibly nuanced, and you can't make assumptions about YOUR taxes and project it on NHL players. You have to be an expert on international tax law, and understand the local requirements for 32 seperate municipalities, which can have VERY different requirements. Spend 5 minutes looking on Youtube and you can identify SME's discussing tax differences that are HUGELY impactful.

"This is about fairness" - One of the secondary benefits of the CBA with the hard cap was to improve competitive balance. The goal was NEVER to achieve 100% parity. I say that because if it was, every team would be required to spend to exactly the midpoint of the cap, and every team would also have limitations spend on scouting and coaching/development staffs. The CBA understood that there were significant external impacts that impact the league, and it doesn't try to address all of those factors. Some things you can't distill down to dollars and cents. Things like general "attitude" towards certain locations due to a combination of climate, cost of living, media coverage, night life, travel requirements for geographic location, etc. Some things you can distill down to dollars and cents - front-loading contracts with signing bonuses, potential for endorsements, etc. The NHL/NHLPA put all of those into "the juice isn't worth the squeeze" bucket, and everyone knew that it was incumbent on the organizations to deal with those the best that could.

The issue we have is that some people in this thread believed what some shady people published where they intentionally and knowingly DOUBLED the impact of the no-income tax states. There is an advantage - but we're probably talking about roughly 5% in most cases. It should be noted that there are some other differences (CAN highest federal tax rate at 33% vs. 37% for the US) that never get brought up in these discussions.

 

[Crede777]

Teams should be able to bid on free agents with the league requiring whatever team that eventually signs that player to pay the player an amount or AAV that is within a narrow margin of the highest amount or AAV offered. This would negate players taking a discount to join lower tax teams.

 

[Bocephus86]

No it’s not.

It takes time for the effect of the salary cap era and therefore affects no tax advantages contracts to take effect. And there’s many reasons for this outside of GM, agents understanding of it. Which yes takes time. For example the first time an expansion draft happened was handled a whole lot differently than the second time an expansion draft happened by NHL teams. Then just use common sense, how many contracts can a team sign for their active impactful roster every year? 1-3 contracts at most? There will be a time lag until a team is built fully optimizing the No tax advantage they have. It’ll also take time for agents and GMs to figure out how to use that no tax advantage optimally. They may not have even talked about that in Negotiations in contracts done early in the cap era.

Yes the last 10 shows that no tax teams are having way more success than other teams. I never said the appearances in the final 4 had to be a majority for this effect to show, only 6/32, so only 20% of teams in the league can even habe that advantage and look how prominently they are featured in final 4.

Is this actually a serious post? You realize that players paid taxes prior to the salary cap, right? Like state, local, and federal taxes didn't get added when the cap went in. For players that are concerned about after tax income, they were concerned about it before the cap as well.

The expansion draft was something brand new, and Vegas played GMs apprehension towards losing players perfectly. Tax differences are not new.

The first thing to do is to identify how much of a problem this is. It sure feels like tax-free states continually sign players under the market value. For every Forsling, Kucherov, Tkachuk, Hanafin, Stone, and Reinhardt you have the Toronto core, MacKinnon, McDavid, Petterson, and Pastrnak. If you can quantify that tax-free teams are getting a competive advantage then fix the problem. It isn't hard to do. This is about fairness. There's a lot of other factors the NHL can never make equal or it would be extremely messy to even try but a tax-advantage? This is an easy one.

Pasta has a pretty reasonable contract. Bergeron signed a reasonable contract. Marchand has a reasonable contract.

Well it's incredibly common, you are working from a conclusion and then using that to drive your evidence. Over the last few pages, multiple posters and posts have provided hard evidence that tax differences are, at best, marginal to team success.

And it has also been pointed out that there are many other differences between teams that should be considered at least as critically, some examples being: team fit, weather, team coverage / media, player privacy / pressure, team success, sponsorship opportunities, night life / entertainment options, cost of living, proximity to family, etc.

And guess what? Different players will have very different preferences on all of these options, and weigh them very differently. Personally, I am a partner in a company and have worked from home for 8 years. I can live anywhere. One of my business partners moved out of the country even. Yet I chose to live in MA because I like it here and I want to be close to my family. That is more important to me than a difference in take home pay.

Pro athletes are not monoliths. Fans from some teams are just upset that their teams are not as successful as 'undeserving' places like Florida or Vegas. Focusing on the tax differences only is just a way to put a simple boogeyman in place. I also think there is an underlying reason many people focus solely on taxes, and it probably aligns with how they vote. We've seen some of that sentiment brought up in this very thread.

PS: Most of this post wasn't directed exclusively at you, but the colloquial language was easier for me to use while typing this out.

TLR - Tax differences are one small piece of a complex decision making progress players go through when negotiating contracts. I believe it is brought up so much as an attempt to excuse team struggles with a simple boogeyman, often driven by an underlying, let's say philosophy, to avoid politics.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Luxury tax needed.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Teams should be able to bid on free agents with the league requiring whatever team that eventually signs that player to pay the player an amount or AAV that is within a narrow margin of the highest amount or AAV offered. This would negate players taking a discount to join lower tax teams.

So the team the player chooses has to pay the player within a narrow range of the highest bidder? That seems impossible to execute on, because it forces a team to live with the decision of the GM who was willing to make the biggest mistake.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

The first thing to do is to identify how much of a problem this is. It sure feels like tax-free states continually sign players under the market value. For every Forsling, Kucherov, Tkachuk, Hanafin, Stone, and Reinhardt you have the Toronto core, MacKinnon, McDavid, Petterson, and Pastrnak. If you can quantify that tax-free teams are getting a competive advantage then fix the problem. It isn't hard to do. This is about fairness. There's a lot of other factors the NHL can never make equal or it would be extremely messy to even try but a tax-advantage? This is an easy one.

Kucherov makes 9.5m and the contract went into effect in the 19-20 season, not sure how you're getting "under market value" from that.