Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread LIV: Free Agency Hasn't Even Started

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
GAGLine said:
In order to claim residency in Florida, a player would actually need to have a residence in Florida for a certain amount of time, and I presume, would need to actually live there for at least a portion of the year. Panarin bought a condo in Florida a couple years ago. Not every player is going to buy a house in a non-tax state just to save on taxes. Most players aren't going to get significant signing bonuses anyway, making it moot.
Click to expand...
"Live there" can be a loose term. Buying yourself a condo because you can afford to do so to try to make a significant saving in taxes is what I would counsel any player that would be a big UFA. Spend a weekend per year there. Its not like the service is going to keep tabs on you.

Having said all that, you are completely correct on your last point regarding how many players are getting major signing bonuses.
 
duhmetreE said:
Performance bonuses cannot be used in that manner. Anything that requires 'work related stipulations'.

Because then every single team would have to give them big cash in July. Only a select few teams have that capability.
Click to expand...
Again, sorry but are we talking about signing bonuses or performance bonuses? What you posted was interesting, but referred to signing bonuses. So I am still unclear as to what the "might" be. What are the cases where it works like you evidenced and what are the cases when they cannot?

Lots of teams can make big payments in July. Whether they choose to or not is a different story.
 
True Blue said:
"Live there" can be a loose term. Buying yourself a condo because you can afford to do so to try to make a significant saving in taxes is what I would counsel any player that would be a big UFA. Spend a weekend per year there. Its not like the service is going to keep tabs on you.
Click to expand...
Our tax system is self-reporting so yeah you could do that and act like it's legit, but I can promise you the IRS would take a rather dim view of your claim.
 
SA16 said:
I highly doubt Brooks actually knows that or that the Rangers themselves even know that. Everything is just speculation now and nobody really knows anything.
Click to expand...
To be fair, he probably knows much more than we do.
 
effen said:
Our tax system is self-reporting so yeah you could do that and act like it's legit, but I can promise you the IRS would take a rather dim view of your claim.
Click to expand...
Of course they would. But the chances of them discovering it is next to zero. There is a chance, but it is so ridiculously small that it would not matter. Just a matter of business risk.. You would be amazed at what people/companies do when it comes to business risk.
 
Very curious to see if we put anyone on waivers for purposes of a buyout tomorrow, since as RB points out it's the deadline for the first window, and they don't look like they're going to have access to the second. That may provide some indication of how active they'll be in FA (and in particular, whether they believe they've got Panarin).

EDIT: actually, I just realized that such a move would only apply to Smith (or someone unexpected, like Strome). Both Staal and Shattenkirk have NMCs as regard demotion, I believe, which means they don't go on waivers first, and therefore could simply be bought out on Monday with no move in advance.
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
Very curious to see if we put anyone on waivers for purposes of a buyout tomorrow, since as RB points out it's the deadline for the first window, and they don't look like they're going to have access to the second. That may provide some indication of how active they'll be in FA (and in particular, whether they believe they've got Panarin).
Click to expand...
They'd need to be waived today if they were going to get bought out tomorrow, no?
 
Gotta say, I was pro Panarin when it was +$3m cap vs. resigning Kreider. At +$5m I’m not interested.

Still want the Rangers to bring a LEGITIMATE top6 talent if Kreider is moved this offseason, even on a shorter term. Gorton should find opportunity with he cap not rising as expected. I also won’t be against keeping him until TDA - Hayes’ trade essentially brought the Rangers back Trouba.
 
if we were buying guys out, they would already be on waivers...with the exception being anyone with a NMC since they don't require waivers but we aren't buying anyone out.
 
So realistically when would we have to announce a shattenkirk buyout by July 1st? He’s the only guy we’d buyout.
 
Gorton likely waiting for the dominoes to fall on Panarin/Kreider/etc.

Once those fall, then he should be able to get to the second buyout window and make a move there if needed.
 
Kovalev27 said:
How can you say they’re not all in when they’re going to offer 10 plus mil a year to a guy? That’s all in. Will they go nuts and pay way more than they should? No. But that to me is all in. There no other guy out there they’d pay like that. That’s all in!
Click to expand...
You're really grasping at straws here. In poker, when one is all in, that means that the player has absolutely no chips left. He or she have pushed all of their chips to the table in a belief that such a move will scare all away.

$10m per for Panarin is significantly below market rate and is about as far away from "all in" as the distance from Manhattan to Florida.

You are also contradicting your own narrative. You say "Will they go nuts and pay way more than they should? No.". Then they cannot really be "all in" as they will still have chips on the table. Unless you are trying to imply hat they are "all in", but only on their own terms, which is also not "all in" at all. If yoThat u are all in, you pay Panarin whatever he wants. If there are limits that you have said, including KNOWING that you will NOT be the highest bidder, then you are clearly not all in. You have made a rational offer based on what you think works for you current and future capital structure. That is pretty far away from "all in".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom