Axl Rhoadz
Binky distributor
- Apr 5, 2011
- 5,343
- 3,960
I’ll bookmark your post and respond in a couple years.How is that dramatic?
I’ll bookmark your post and respond in a couple years.How is that dramatic?
The whole state taxes issue is so overblown and exaggerated by fans. It's not as simple and black/white as some make it seem -- like a NV or Florida player isn't paying state taxes. I won't go into those boring details again. But just to say that it's based on where the games are played -- so half you paycheck at most we're taking about. Further, there are other issues and factors in play (residency, etc.). There's also higher other taxes (property taxes, etc.) typically in states with no income tax. Finally, a good tax firm can mitigate a lot (if not all) of the remaining state tax damage to someone wealthy with proper tax planning. The state income tax issue is a MUCH smaller issue for athletes/entertainers than the general public makes it out to be.When Hedman signed, he and Doughty were roughly equal, but he as able to sign for 4 million less to have an equivalent take home pay
That's not true.The whole state taxes issue is so overblown and exaggerated by fans. It's not as simple and black/white as some make it seem -- like a NV or Florida player isn't paying state taxes. I won't go into those boring details again. But just to say that it's based on where the games are played -- so half you paycheck at most we're taking about. Further, there are other issues and factors in play (residency, etc.). There's also higher other taxes (property taxes, etc.) typically in states with no income tax. Finally, a good tax firm can mitigate a lot (if not all) of the remaining state tax damage to someone wealthy with proper tax planning. The state income tax issue is a MUCH smaller issue for athletes/entertainers than the general public makes it out to be.
That's not true.
Yeah. Sure. But how was the comment dramatic? I thought it was a reasonable observation that was applicable to the conversation we were engaged in.I’ll bookmark your post and respond in a couple years.
I’ll bookmark your post and respond in a couple years.
That's not true.
Dramatic = daring to say anything slightly "negative" about the team and doing anything other than defending management and coachingYeah. Sure. But how was the comment dramatic? I thought it was a reasonable observation that was applicable to the conversation we were engaged in.
I never said don't question them.
Question them all you want.
BUT
If you question something/someone that I don't think needs questioning or focus your questioning on something that I don't think is the main thing to be questioned then I'll question you about why you're questioning that and not questioning the thing I think is more deserving of being questioned.
This post is just beautiful. so many people love to act like the prospects just need more time and fail to acknowledge how bad the top picks have been in context. I don’t think people realize how close we are to a second rebuild already with all the bad drafting. Kings are heading into Edmonton oilers territory with the terrible top picks. And our old core dying off. This team will likely head into another rebuild and if it doesn’t it’s going to be through trades and ufas.What that I mentioned doesn't deserve questioning? Does anything deserve to be questioned?
Between 2017 and 2021 this team had 6 first round picks, including two top 5 picks, a #7 and a #11. They also had 8 second round picks and traded for multiple U-23 players who are now regulars on the team. But now that things aren't going as expected with the picks instead of blaming the boss for the poor results it is that there wasn't really a rebuild because they still had The "Core Four" on the roster? What were they the ones making the picks and the poor development decisions? Why do I get the feeling that had the Kings drafted Thomas/Seider/Stutzle, Norris/Caufield/Stutzle or Suzuki/Zegras/Raymond that you would be here (correctly) telling us how great the Kings rebuild has been and how much credit everyone deserves. And again, I'd be right there with you, because this is a results oriented business and those would be awesome results. But now we pretend that none of those picks existed or there wasn't a rebuild (albeit a to short one)
The Turcotte pull is an obvious example. We can't question this clearly poor decision? And don't even say hindsight in 20/20, all the risks with prematurely pulling a NCAA player and all the previous examples of it severely effecting development of players were known to Blake, if they were discussed here you can bet the Kings discussed those things internally, yet he still did it and damaged the prospects development. Again, this shouldn't be questioned heavily? Every ridiculous excuse used here to justify that brain fart has gone up in flames.
Get to the NHL quicker? The sad thing is it had the opposite effect. All his peers made the show quicker.
Away from awful Wisconsin development and loser team? K'Andre Miller and Cole Caufield's playoff performances the last two years proved the first part to be BS. And UW won the Big Ten the next season while the Reign sucked and the HC mentally checked out.
Getting into the AHL to learn the system and work with Nelly and Muzz? Ok, this one is saved for last, because that was one of the reasons Blake was actually quoted as saying to justify the signing, and gets back to another huge issue that should be questioned, the Kings ridiculous obsession with overusing their AHL affiliate and damaging the development of certain types of players.
Turcotte is at 62 games and very likely counting. The forwards drafted around him.
Hughes - 0 AHL Games
Kakko- 0 AHL Games
Dach - 3 AHL Games
Cozens - 0 AHL Games
Zegras - 17 AHL Games
Podzolkin - 0 AHL Games
Boldy - 24 AHL Games
Newhook - 18 AHL Games (Jumped straight into NHL lineup from college at end of D+2)
Caufield - 2 AHL Games
Every single player on this list is a lock to begin the year in the NHL, and these 9 forwards have a combined 64 AHL games. Does that not seem a bit strange to you with the disparity in AHL usage?
Byfield is at 44 AHL Games (and some on this board want to add to that). Byfield has more AHL games than all the top 3 picks combined from the last 6 drafts, 17 other players. You have to go back to Dylan Strome to see a top 3 pick who spent as much time in the AHL as QB did. And even Strome made the NHL at 18 and 19 and was only demoted for performance reasons. Maybe next time you talk to Blake you can ask him why he didn't have his most gifted prospect in years playing a lot on a team going nowhere in a rebuild year (or whatever you want to call it). Instead we got Vilardi looking like Pujols running the bases while trying to play center and QB rotted away his age 18 season gaining nothing in the AHL that translated the next season to the NHL. Once again, doesn't the disparity in AHL usage between QB and other similar players concern you?
Why do other teams not use their AHL affiliate for high end guys like the Kings do? Are we unfair to question that? What is so special and complex about the Kings system that it requires putting players in the AHL that probably no other team would? Are Colorado, Montreal, Boston and most other teams systems just so much easier to grasp that players like Caufield, McAvoy and Newhook can literally jump from NCAA hockey right into playoff races? And if it is, could this complex system that apparently no one else uses be the reason the team has struggled to score goals? Or is that another question that isn't important?
I guess the more important things to question are the PP, Marco Sturm, AA and Maata. Even though none of those mean a thing for the Kings trying to win the cup in the next 6 years, while every single thing I discussed does.
What that I mentioned doesn't deserve questioning? Does anything deserve to be questioned?
Between 2017 and 2021 this team had 6 first round picks, including two top 5 picks, a #7 and a #11. They also had 8 second round picks and traded for multiple U-23 players who are now regulars on the team. But now that things aren't going as expected with the picks instead of blaming the boss for the poor results it is that there wasn't really a rebuild because they still had The "Core Four" on the roster? What were they the ones making the picks and the poor development decisions? Why do I get the feeling that had the Kings drafted Thomas/Seider/Stutzle, Norris/Caufield/Stutzle or Suzuki/Zegras/Raymond that you would be here (correctly) telling us how great the Kings rebuild has been and how much credit everyone deserves. And again, I'd be right there with you, because this is a results oriented business and those would be awesome results. But now we pretend that none of those picks existed or there wasn't a rebuild (albeit a to short one)
The Turcotte pull is an obvious example. We can't question this clearly poor decision? And don't even say hindsight in 20/20, all the risks with prematurely pulling a NCAA player and all the previous examples of it severely effecting development of players were known to Blake, if they were discussed here you can bet the Kings discussed those things internally, yet he still did it and damaged the prospects development. Again, this shouldn't be questioned heavily? Every ridiculous excuse used here to justify that brain fart has gone up in flames.
Get to the NHL quicker? The sad thing is it had the opposite effect. All his peers made the show quicker.
Away from awful Wisconsin development and loser team? K'Andre Miller and Cole Caufield's playoff performances the last two years proved the first part to be BS. And UW won the Big Ten the next season while the Reign sucked and the HC mentally checked out.
Getting into the AHL to learn the system and work with Nelly and Muzz? Ok, this one is saved for last, because that was one of the reasons Blake was actually quoted as saying to justify the signing, and gets back to another huge issue that should be questioned, the Kings ridiculous obsession with overusing their AHL affiliate and damaging the development of certain types of players.
Turcotte is at 62 games and very likely counting. The forwards drafted around him.
Hughes - 0 AHL Games
Kakko- 0 AHL Games
Dach - 3 AHL Games
Cozens - 0 AHL Games
Zegras - 17 AHL Games
Podzolkin - 0 AHL Games
Boldy - 24 AHL Games
Newhook - 18 AHL Games (Jumped straight into NHL lineup from college at end of D+2)
Caufield - 2 AHL Games
Every single player on this list is a lock to begin the year in the NHL, and these 9 forwards have a combined 64 AHL games. Does that not seem a bit strange to you with the disparity in AHL usage?
Byfield is at 44 AHL Games (and some on this board want to add to that). Byfield has more AHL games than all the top 3 picks combined from the last 6 drafts, 17 other players. You have to go back to Dylan Strome to see a top 3 pick who spent as much time in the AHL as QB did. And even Strome made the NHL at 18 and 19 and was only demoted for performance reasons. Maybe next time you talk to Blake you can ask him why he didn't have his most gifted prospect in years playing a lot on a team going nowhere in a rebuild year (or whatever you want to call it). Instead we got Vilardi looking like Pujols running the bases while trying to play center and QB rotted away his age 18 season gaining nothing in the AHL that translated the next season to the NHL. Once again, doesn't the disparity in AHL usage between QB and other similar players concern you?
Why do other teams not use their AHL affiliate for high end guys like the Kings do? Are we unfair to question that? What is so special and complex about the Kings system that it requires putting players in the AHL that probably no other team would? Are Colorado, Montreal, Boston and most other teams systems just so much easier to grasp that players like Caufield, McAvoy and Newhook can literally jump from NCAA hockey right into playoff races? And if it is, could this complex system that apparently no one else uses be the reason the team has struggled to score goals? Or is that another question that isn't important?
I guess the more important things to question are the PP, Marco Sturm, AA and Maata. Even though none of those mean a thing for the Kings trying to win the cup in the next 6 years, while every single thing I discussed does.
That's not true.
There is no way to escape the CA taxation for athletes. The 183 days rule in CA is crazy enforced on people who make waaaaaaaaaaaay less, trust me. It would be illegal stuff to say you are there less than 183 days as a pro athlete. The NHL season basically runs from camp in September through April if you miss the playoffs and through June if you make the finals. Yes it is true if you are an athlete you pay alot of the taxes in the place you play but look at the Pacific Divison and where the teams are located. You get 2-3 games in Vegas and then the rest of your division games are California, Washington, BC and Alberta. Dadonov would have lost a significant amount of money going to the Ducks, both in income taxes and also in cost of living increase, unlike a teacher or accountant moving from NV to CA he wouldn't be getting a raise.
Again, if you know what you are doing, then these things are mitigated. Which all these athletes have done Believe me, I personally know. Regardless, the main point is it's not some all or nothing huge tax bill. It's a lazy, exaggerated argument. Everyone is getting hit -- some (i.e., NY/CA) more than others sure. But it's not as huge as say a teacher in CA and then moving to NV (as per your example).There is no way to escape the CA taxation for athletes. The 183 days rule in CA is crazy enforced on people who make waaaaaaaaaaaay less, trust me. It would be illegal stuff to say you are there less than 183 days as a pro athlete. The NHL season basically runs from camp in September through April if you miss the playoffs and through June if you make the finals. Yes it is true if you are an athlete you pay alot of the taxes in the place you play but look at the Pacific Divison and where the teams are located. You get 2-3 games in Vegas and then the rest of your division games are California, Washington, BC and Alberta. Dadonov would have lost a significant amount of money going to the Ducks, both in income taxes and also in cost of living increase, unlike a teacher or accountant moving from NV to CA he wouldn't be getting a raise.
Isn't this really a Turcotte & Byfield issue only? Those are the one two top 15 pick guys who have the AHL/NHL issue for the Kings.
Turcotte, well sure -- almost everything that could go wrong (his injuries, college/AHL decision, Kings development, etc.) has gone wrong for that dude.
But Byfield, personally i discount his first year due to his extreme young age and being a big/tall dude -- that takes some additional time rather than a smaller / older age guy who is more apt to make that big step into the NHL. So really I consider this past season as his first. Under that context/theory, he fits right in with limited AHL time and into the NHL.
The rest of the Kings forward prospects are about where you would expect. What more can you expect from late 1st (Kupari) and all the other 2-7th round picks. Actually, Kaliyev has exceed expectations at his draft spot & age imo.
Yeah i do agree mostly with you. My main point was that i personally discount Byfield's first year. I actually forgot about GV -- yes, not ideal at all. The back issue complicates his timeline, but still agreed he's been jerked around and not handled/developed properly.No, Kupari was also in the AHL as a teenager, instead of having the chance to take another step offensively in Finland. Kaliyev was in the AHL as wel, although I will say Kaliyev was probably the right decision.
But saying it's only mistakes with QB and Turcotte minimizes that those are the two highest picks of the rebuild. Developmental mistakes for players you use that kind of draft capital on is crippling to a rebuild attempt.
I also don't know how you can say Vilardi and JAD are where you would expect. JAD made the team out of camp at 19 and at 22 he spent the majority of the year in the minors. The organization gave Vilardi the keys to 2C in 20-21 and gave him a chance to run with that spot, and in 21-22 he spent the majority of the year in the AHL learning a new position. There is no way you can be happy with where those guys stand. They both enter their age 23 (and waiver eligible seasons) as AAAA players with their last chance at being regulars with the Kings.
Kaliyev was a great pick, no one disputes it. We've all been waiting for years for the Kings to draft a player like this (wish they had done it the day before too). But Kaliyev being a hit won't matter unless guys taken before him can end up being hits too.
Yeah i do agree mostly with you. My main point was that i personally discount Byfield's first year. I actually forgot about GV -- yes, not ideal at all. The back issue complicates his timeline, but still agreed he's been jerked around and not handled/developed properly.
The other guys outside the 1st round -- I just don't think you can expect those guys to turn into NHL players -- let alone a certain timeline/path. Top 5-10 -- yes absolutely. 2-7th round -- your percentages to get even a valid NHLer is way down by that point. AHL and everything for them -- that's out of my knowledge development wise. You could be right on them idk. I just think you can't say any of them are failures. Development stunted for an older, advanced guy like JAD -- agreed on that point.