An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[Jerzey Devil]

I say all o6 teams pay extra taxes or reduced salary cap just because we have to listen to their fans whine all of the time.

 

[westc2]

St. Louis is at a disadvantage because we don't have any pretty mountains or beaches near the city to attract free agents. The league should install a mountain range in north county, and turn Western Illinois into a giant Great Lake, to make it fair for us.

 

[Crede777]

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.

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are not within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. That's the highest bid. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews. At that point, Tampa can either tell Austin Matthews "hang on we will submit another offer" or tell him "sorry we can't fit you."

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. There are upsides and downsides both on the player and the team front. So it's unclear who would support it and who would reject it when CBA negotiations came about. My guess is that teams would actually support it while players would not like the reduction in choice once they become UFA's. But it would increase player salaries which they might like a lot.

From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews.

Thats the absolute dumbest idea i've ever heard. Good luck convincing players and agents that they cannot set market prices and value themselves and are instead beholden to the league making sure someone spends enough. Further, so anyone Toronto wants to f*** with financially can just offer more money, forcing someone else to have to up an offer? I'm sure that won't be abused or gamed in any way.

 

[norrisnick]

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews.

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. The downside is reduced bargaining power and expediting the increase in player salaries over time (an upside if you're a player). The upside is that it basically negates certain team advantages such as low (or no) state tax, location desirability, etc. From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

This basically eliminates free agency all together. f*** where you wanna play, your current team can just keep you indefinitely if they want.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

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.

Tax is not the burden of the League, it is the burden of the Player. Why the hell is this so hard for people to understand? You as some pleb at some pleb company that has multiple locations around North America gets paid. Your company has an "X" allotted budget for employee wages, they pay those wages based on the taxation in your jurisdiction. If those taxes on your wages are wrong, the government doesn't go after the employer. They go after you, the pleb. You know why? Its not up to your employer to be responsible for the taxes you pay.

Now, in the NHL, a corporation, is paying their employees, the players. They don't give a shit what those players do with those wages. Taxes are their responsibility. You are expecting Teams to withhold taxes or artificially make a "tax cap". Like what?

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are not within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. That's the highest bid. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews. At that point, Tampa can either tell Austin Matthews "hang on we will submit another offer" or tell him "sorry we can't fit you."

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. There are upsides and downsides both on the player and the team front. So it's unclear who would support it and who would reject it when CBA negotiations came about. My guess is that teams would actually support it while players would not like the reduction in choice once they become UFA's. But it would increase player salaries which they might like a lot.

From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

Yeah the PA is going to love not making a competitive market and competitive edge for UFA's. You realize every year that contracts increase is better for the players right? Also Matthews pays significantly lower taxes because he is a resident of Arizona. The vast majority of his contract is signing bonus so it gets paid in Arizona.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

These always seem like silly attempts to fix perceived disadvantages that some fans imagine that their teams are in.

Are taxes considered by some free agents? Sure, but so is proximity to home, general opinion about a given city or organization, access to marketing opportunities, media attention (or lack thereof), nightlife, assorted amenities, climate, etc., etc., etc.

Focusing on a perceived disadvantage for taxes, but ignoring everything else FAs consider, seems to be little more than pushing an agends to try to get an advantage for one's own team.

Plus, plenty of high-taxed cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston found ways to build sustained success and championships. It's not just lower tax markets succeeded, it's well-run and creative teams.

 

[Crede777]

This basically eliminates free agency all together. f*** where you wanna play, your current team can just keep you indefinitely if they want.

Yes but you'll be making more money so...

 

[norrisnick]

Yes but you'll be making more money so...

There are places in the world you can't pay me enough to live and work.

 

[Crede777]

There are places in the world you can't pay me enough to live and work.

If you can't stand living in a city that has an NHL team and making millions, that's kinda a you problem.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are not within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. That's the highest bid. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews. At that point, Tampa can either tell Austin Matthews "hang on we will submit another offer" or tell him "sorry we can't fit you."

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. There are upsides and downsides both on the player and the team front. So it's unclear who would support it and who would reject it when CBA negotiations came about. My guess is that teams would actually support it while players would not like the reduction in choice once they become UFA's. But it would increase player salaries which they might like a lot.

From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

Thanks for explaining. The big issues IMO is that this enables a team to keep a player's rights forever, as long as they're willing to pay his "market" rate. I would see this as an absolute "no go" from the NHLPA perspective.

I think that Bocephus put it best earlier - player UFA decisions get made on a HUGE number of factors, and each player has different priorities. Tavares didn't want to play in SJ for more $'s. Gadreau wanted to get closer to home. Hossa wanted a chance to play for a contender. Any system that arbitrarily "forces" a choice is shortsighted and likely to not be effective.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Ah the semi-anual tax thread.

I always enjoy the salty tears that come from these threads.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are not within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. That's the highest bid. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews. At that point, Tampa can either tell Austin Matthews "hang on we will submit another offer" or tell him "sorry we can't fit you."

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. There are upsides and downsides both on the player and the team front. So it's unclear who would support it and who would reject it when CBA negotiations came about. My guess is that teams would actually support it while players would not like the reduction in choice once they become UFA's. But it would increase player salaries which they might like a lot.

From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

players aren’t giving up their UFA rights

 

[Crede777]

Thanks for explaining. The big issues IMO is that this enables a team to keep a player's rights forever, as long as they're willing to pay his "market" rate. I would see this as an absolute "no go" from the NHLPA perspective.

I think that Bocephus put it best earlier - player UFA decisions get made on a HUGE number of factors, and each player has different priorities. Tavares didn't want to play in SJ for more $'s. Gadreau wanted to get closer to home. Hossa wanted a chance to play for a contender. Any system that arbitrarily "forces" a choice is shortsighted and likely to not be effective.

I definitely agree. I actually don't think taxes are a big deal provided players have agents who employ decent accountants. Jock tax, signing bonuses getting paid while you're at your summer residence, etc. Provided Ontario doesn't keep pushing its tax enforcement efforts even further after this Tavares matter, it isn't a huge deal.

You're also right that this basically introduces golden handcuffs. Which is why the NHLPA would likely not go for it (although as I mentioned... more money is always nice).

Destination is less of a concern IMO compared to getting stuck on a bad team that's not close to competing or in a locker room with drama.

players aren’t giving up their UFA rights

Players aren't giving up UFA rights. They can still sign wherever they want and refuse to sign with a team if they don't want to... provided the team has put forward a qualifying offer. If they were asked to give up a right, it would be the right to *make less money* which for most players would never be a consideration anyways.

This solution would just put limits on the offers teams can make. Similar to how implementing a salary cap did.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

This thread was also clearly created by a salty Canucks fan over Guentzel signing in Tampa as well.

Makes it all that much better to laugh at

 

[Minnesota Knudsens]

Bugs. Big F'in bugs.



If you don't gamble or give a crap about the total touristy zoo down by the Strip, other towns have way more to offer.

I have a condo in Florida and I’ve never seen a bug in it. And I’m not rich. This is probably not a rich guy problem. Downtown Tampa is really affluent. There seems to be an obsession with physical fitness. There are beautiful people everywhere. And if you aren’t into that, you can live on the beach which is maybe a 15 minute drive (I think).

Vegas has near perfect weather. Is there even a week of rainfall in a year? Plus NHL players are there from September to June (if that), so they can go back to Canada when these places get unbearably hot.

 

[JPT]

Not quite. I simplified the idea in my initial post for brevity.

Basically, teams would be unable to submit offers to players that are not within a pre-determined margin of the highest bid for that player.

For example, suppose Austin Matthews is a pending UFA. Toronto submits an offer to him for 8 years $13.5 million AAV. That's the highest bid. Tampa submits an offer to him for 7 years $10 million AAV. Tampa's offer would not be close enough to the highest offer (Toronto's) so Tampa would be forced to rescind their offer and either update it so that it is either sufficiently close to Toronto's or they cannot submit an offer for Austin Matthews. At that point, Tampa can either tell Austin Matthews "hang on we will submit another offer" or tell him "sorry we can't fit you."

There's a much more detailed framework for how this would be implemented by the league. But the key parts are that it basically forces teams to pay players what would be market value for their services and restricts players from taking discounts. There are upsides and downsides both on the player and the team front. So it's unclear who would support it and who would reject it when CBA negotiations came about. My guess is that teams would actually support it while players would not like the reduction in choice once they become UFA's. But it would increase player salaries which they might like a lot.

From a team management perspective, I like it because it basically enforces the need to draft/develop talent and adequately manage your cap space.

Let's go back to brevity

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Players aren't giving up UFA rights. They can still sign wherever they want and refuse to sign with a team if they don't want to... provided the team has put forward a qualifying offer. If they were asked to give up a right, it would be the right to *make less money* which for most players would never be a consideration anyways.

This solution would just put limits on the offers teams can make. Similar to how implementing a salary cap did.

This solution removes competition and the ability for players as a whole to increase wages. Owners and Teams would just stifle wage growth. You understand player contracts raise with multiple factors, but the two major factors it raises with are HRR and a Competitive market.

Basically:

Toronto offers "X" player $5M
Dallas offers "X" player $5M
Anaheim offers "X" Player $5.5M
Carolina offers "X" Player $7M

Removing this competition between teams for players effectively lowers the HRR between owners and players. They would effectively lower their own wages by removing that competition that drives the contract up. In your scenario Dallas, Anaheim, and Carolina would have to bring down their offers to match Toronto. Why would Players agree to this?

Also Teams already have a competitive edge to retain players. They get to offer them an 8th year on a contract. In your example, Tampa's 7y/$10M deal, even with those evil taxes, is still short $30M+ compared to Toronto's offer. It's like....now hear me out....Maybe other factors would come into account of why someone wouldn't want to play in Toronto.

 

[TheFinalWord]

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

That was kind of the point. Great catch, though.

 

[Crede777]

This solution removes competition and the ability for players as a whole to increase wages. Owners and Teams would just stifle wage growth. You understand player contracts raise with multiple factors, but the two major factors it raises with are HRR and a Competitive market.

Basically:

Toronto offers "X" player $5M
Dallas offers "X" player $5M
Anaheim offers "X" Player $5.5M
Carolina offers "X" Player $7M

Removing this competition between teams for players effectively lowers the HRR between owners and players. They would effectively lower their own wages by removing that competition that drives the contract up. In your scenario Dallas, Anaheim, and Carolina would have to bring down their offers to match Toronto. Why would Players agree to this?

Also Teams already have a competitive edge to retain players. They get to offer them an 8th year on a contract. In your example, Tampa's 7y/$10M deal, even with those evil taxes, is still short $30M+ compared to Toronto's offer. It's like....now hear me out....Maybe other factors would come into account of why someone wouldn't want to play in Toronto.

In this scenario, Toronto, Dallas and Anaheim would have to bring their offers up (or walk away) to meet Carolina's since Carolina is setting the price with the highest bid.

The biggest flaw in the proposed scheme would be that if a player wanted to join a team at a discount, they would simply need the team to offer a 1 year high AAV contract and then turn around and re-sign them to a longer, lower AAV contract for the following years.

 

[TheFinalWord]

The concern of unfair advantages would also only fall to those Free Agents and players re-signing. What happens with the entry level contracts? Would a team like Tampa get to pay less to these players because of tax advantages? Seems unfair to the players. Would this new cap be adjusted depending on where the player signed? If they sign out of their Entry Level deal, and can't leave, how do we treat them...we don't really know that Tampa had an advantage because of taxes. What about arbitration awards? Are they going to give those players less on Tampa? Is this cap going to be adjusted otherwise, because the arbitrators aren't factoring in taxes?

This is way too much hullaballoo over something that isn't a significant enough issue. Every team has advantages and disadvantages. Nobody is avoiding New York and Los Angeles because they're great destinations. How do we adjust for that?

 

[DistantThunderRep]

In this scenario, Toronto, Dallas and Anaheim would have to bring their offers up (or walk away) to meet Carolina's since Carolina is setting the price with the highest bid.

The biggest flaw in the proposed scheme would be that if a player wanted to join a team at a discount, they would simply need the team to offer a 1 year high AAV contract and then re-sign them to a longer, lower AAV contract later.

Ok, but then that means speculation is gone and then all offers would have to be public. I also don't see why owners and gm's wouldn't collude and just be like "let's not offer crazy contracts" because players would have no choice in the drive of their market. You've managed to make a scenario where its the most detrimental to the players themselves.

 

[JPT]

Ok, but then that means speculation is gone and then all offers would have to be public. I also don't see why owners and gm's wouldn't collude and just be like "let's not offer crazy contracts" because players would have no choice in the drive of their market. You've managed to make a scenario where its the most detrimental to the players themselves.

It would reduce concussions, though, because there would be a strike

 

[tarheelhockey]

GMs are gonna scramble to get players with 5+ kids. Look at all those deductions!

 

[norrisnick]

If you can't stand living in a city that has an NHL team and making millions, that's kinda a you problem.

Money doesn't fix everything. These players have partners and children. And there are many places in this country that are openly hostile to people for things beyond their control.