Beezeral
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2010
- 10,028
- 5,222
Because players have been taking discounts to go to a preferred destination since the beginning of time. More often than not, it’s because they want to play for a well run organization that gives them a chance to win the cup. Lately those organizations just happen to be in non-traditional markets that have no state income tax.Why jump to whataboutisms? This is obviously a nuanced conversation. But if you haven't seen enough undermarket contracts to star players in tax-free states to think it needs to be looked to see if all teams are operating on an equal playing field then I don't think you've been paying attention to contracts the last few seasons.
That little fact has the Canadian media and people like you all up in arms for the wrong reasons.
You weren’t making threads when Panarin took less to play in NY because he wanted to live in a big city.
You weren’t making threads when Tavares took less to play for the Leafs because he slept in Leafs bed sheets.
For the first time in the league’s history, the best run teams in the NHL are teams like the lightning, golden knights, and panthers. Teams with shrewd GMs that make tough roster decisions which sacrifice feelings for putting the best roster on the ice.
Look at zito with the panthers. Just won the cup and made the tough decision to let a bunch of players walk to bloated contracts. Who did he keep? The two players who were willing to play ball and take less to keep a good thing going. Those who wanted their payday were wished well. Barring injury, there isn’t a single contract on that roster you worry about 3-4 years down the road.