I really disagree with this. I know some fans are tired of seeing players they liked moved for cap reasons but I don't think this is the answer. We'll say you lucked into a top 5 pick because your team was awful. You fired your coach. You lost the last 2 weeks. Whatever the reason. Now you draft a player who turns into a stud and is commanding 9+ million right after the ELC, the team should get 10-20% cap break? How about you just drafted the #1 twice in 4 years because you can't seem to ever get out of the basement - that team should be rewarded with a cap saving on 2 studs?I always believed if you drafted a player and developed them you should get a break on the cap.
For example 10-20% off against the cap.
All that time in the minors and time should give teams a break.
Now you are wrong. “The tax thing is fans of shitty teams”..? What kind of like-farming, crock of shit is that?It didn't shift anything to other teams, all teams have to abide by the hard cap. It doesn't create any imbalance, it forces all teams to the same salary limitations.
Fan spending has no bearing on league balance.
The tax thing is literally fans of shitty teams whining about why their teams sucks without looking at the real reasons. If the tax thing was such a huge advantage, the only teams that would be winning the cup would be Dallas, Tampa, Florida, Vegas and Seattle in the cap era, and as has been shown, that really isn't the case. Dallas up until the past couple years has mostly been irrelevant, Tampa had a run then fell to obscurity till a few years ago and are already trending back into bubble team, Florida is just starting to show up, Vegas had what has to have been one of the oddest inception drafts/player build ups I've ever seen.
Two countries is meaningless, players all paid in USD. It's not like Canadian teams take a 36% hit because their players are paid in CAD. If anything, the disparity in USD to CAD benefits Canadian team players.
Players have tax accountants and money managers that put them in the best tax advantaged situation possible. But again, fan spending has no bearing on balance. The real imbalances occur where coaching, scouting and non ice related costs are. Big market teams can spend significantly more to lure coaches, GMs, scouts, and analytics people than small market teams and despite that disparity, those same big market teams are still mostly non factors.
What do you mean traded again? By the original team or the team that is borrowing him?What happens if the player is traded again. Do they lose the player to the original team?
You can't do that to a player. We're trading you for 2-3 years and then you'll be back here. So don't sell your house!!
The original team trades a player with a 5 year contract remaining, but only for 3 years. So what happens if that player is traded from the "borrowing team"? Are you saying that team is glued to that player now for 3 years and then will return their shiny used toy back to the original team after 3 years, hopefully in working condition?What do you mean traded again? By the original team or the team that is borrowing him?
Your second argument is negligible, at best. Players are already on short term deals, two way deals, traded as a deadline rental…it isn’t like a player loan would be that drastic of upheaval compared to what players already deal with…
Yeah. It's a completely unworkable idea. Not only for the reasons you outlined, but for the simple fact that a teams roster ci structure can change drastically in 3 years (or whatever the term is). You think it's a nightmare making moves now? Imagine having to plan around having to take back a player after a certain period that nay not fit the teams concept at that point. Or worse yet maybe the team can't even fit the players cap hit in at that point. No sugar coating it. It's a ridiculous ideaThe original team trades a player with a 5 year contract remaining, but only for 3 years. So what happens if that player is traded from the "borrowing team"? Are you saying that team is glued to that player now for 3 years and then will return their shiny used toy back to the original team after 3 years, hopefully in working condition?
2 way deals and being traded at the deadline isn't the same thing and telling a player to pack their shit, sell their house, but go house hunting again in 3 years because we're bringing you back is very bush league. In some leagues players on loan can't play against the team that still holds the contract rights.
And in others they can…but that is irrelevant to the players housing situation…which, once again, players live like this constantly anyways…The original team trades a player with a 5 year contract remaining, but only for 3 years. So what happens if that player is traded from the "borrowing team"? Are you saying that team is glued to that player now for 3 years and then will return their shiny used toy back to the original team after 3 years, hopefully in working condition?
2 way deals and being traded at the deadline isn't the same thing and telling a player to pack their shit, sell their house, but go house hunting again in 3 years because we're bringing you back is very bush league. In some leagues players on loan can't play against the team that still holds the contract rights.
The tax difference is marginal at best. People who make millions a year have lots of ways of tax avoidance. Hell, I have lots of ways of tax avoidance. There are all kinds of ways money is sheltered, offset etc. And the fact they make millions a year is why they have money managers and tax accountants, not because of a cap or any other reason, it's because they are hockey players and not accountants/finance people. I don't make anywhere near what they do and I utilize both as it's not my area of specialization.Now you are wrong. “The tax thing is fans of shitty teams”..? What kind of like-farming, crock of shit is that?
It’s created imbalances. Tax advantages are real. Regardless of what fans of small market teams here want to admit. There would be no need for tax accountants/money managers (as you put it) if the playing field was even.
You literally listed the most successful teams of the last 4-5 seasons and a team that went to the finals last year, poised to do the same this year. All “tax haven” teams that have massively benefited from their tax advantages. You think Kucherov signs the same deal in MTL? What about Tkachuk in CGY?
Mark Methot literally said he would have been taxed approx 15% higher plying in Ottawa than Dallas a couple years ago.. is he a fan of a “shitty team whining about why his team sucks”? Maybe he needs to read your post about “money managers”? Or maybe, you (and other fans on here) don’t completely understand what you’re talking about regarding tax variances from country to country.
Don’t sit here and talk about balance when it’s an unbalanced system. It’s not balanced. It wasn’t here to create balance. Balance has been shifted from profitable pre-cap teams having benefits, to post-cap tax free states having benefits. Trying to pretend that’s not a reality is ridiculous.
It is an option. Zadina did it.I think ultimately we’ll see some kind of cap/contract reform. In some respects the PA loves contracts like Huberdeau’s because it means big, guaranteed salaries for the players.
But the flipside is players are stuck with a team if their play doesn’t warrant their contract. Huberdeau is miserable in Calgary. But because of that contract he’ll never be able to leave. It’s great for him financially, but I think he’d negate it and sign for less elsewhere if he could. At the moment that’s not an option.
I see both sides of that argument, but I also see a happy medium here. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cap relief on any player that is signed to his second contract if he was drafted outside of the first round. I also don’t see a problem, if you get some cap relief signing a first round draft pick to his third contract. Of course the percentages would have to be ironed out where they made sense but there still some logic to this. Way too often teams that don’t draft well get the benefit. I’m signing somebody else’s star without having to do any of the heavy lifting. There’s a lot more wrong with that.I really disagree with this. I know some fans are tired of seeing players they liked moved for cap reasons but I don't think this is the answer. We'll say you lucked into a top 5 pick because your team was awful. You fired your coach. You lost the last 2 weeks. Whatever the reason. Now you draft a player who turns into a stud and is commanding 9+ million right after the ELC, the team should get 10-20% cap break? How about you just drafted the #1 twice in 4 years because you can't seem to ever get out of the basement - that team should be rewarded with a cap saving on 2 studs?
Even if you say they spent some time in the AHL, college, or juniors, it seems to benefit the teams at the bottom, or were once at the bottom, rather than the non-contending teams that are always pushing to the cap and re-tooling. And 10% on a mid-contract isn't the same as 10% on a high-end contract.
The total salary will be different than the cap. Buyouts would become an issue because you still owe the full money making it potentially not worth the cap saving. Trading that player would require the real cap hit. I don't really think this is the way to go.
That seems like a you problem
Premier league, drafts a player from a relegated team, top players don’t end up in second division.You know any relegation leagues that have drafts?
Would be a great strategy to banish the top prospect to the 2nd division every year
No it doesn'tPremier league, drafts a player from a relegated team, top players don’t end up in second division.
was a suggestion, as a good way to keep players from going down, guess needed the sarcasm emoji. Should be implemented.No it doesn't
No you googled it and read the athletic article suggesting that it should be a thing and you thought it was realwas a suggestion, as a good way to keep players from going down, guess needed the sarcasm emoji. Should be implemented.
Great idea in article, I was facetious, just playing with ya, and the dumb relegation leagues.No you googled it and read the athletic article suggesting that it should be a thing and you thought it was real
Premier League 2023-24 draft: Each team gets one pick from Southampton, Leeds or Leicester
Which one player should Luton sign from the relegated clubs? And how about Man City? Welcome to the 2023-24 Premier League draft...www.nytimes.com
Of course folks have tax people to help them save each penny, and im sure different environments have different breaks, but i wouldn't go as far saying that this evens things out in terms of exemptions between low and high tax states. Cap friendly has a neat tax calculator that puts all this in perspective; a 10M contract may actually bring you close to a million more in your pocket depending which market you choose. HR Block will not give you that whole amount back.The tax difference is marginal at best. People who make millions a year have lots of ways of tax avoidance. Hell, I have lots of ways of tax avoidance. There are all kinds of ways money is sheltered, offset etc. And the fact they make millions a year is why they have money managers and tax accountants, not because of a cap or any other reason, it's because they are hockey players and not accountants/finance people. I don't make anywhere near what they do and I utilize both as it's not my area of specialization.
Any player who thinks they understand their tax situation to reduce it to "15% more" is a fool and hopefully seeks professional guidance/assistance. I only have to deal with 3 states for Income tax + federal, I can't imagine having to deal with 2 countries for "federal" and then 5 providences, and 19 or so states. The odds Methot does his own taxes are probably similar to how often he gets audited. Ie if he's doing them himself, the IRS probably has an annual meeting with him to review just how messed up he is.
Ohnoes, the cap has been in place for what 19 seasons now and we just now see a few tax free state environments competing at the same time? Yea, it's not the deal you think it is and your attempt at overemphasizing it says you're most likely a Toronto fan that hasn't come to terms yet with how mid your "all star players" are.
all goodGreat idea in article, I was facetious, just playing with ya, and the dumb relegation leagues.
What cap friendly lacks is all of the various write-offs, deductions, investment structures and so on and what player uses what. Without seeing a year end tax return, none of us really know what they pay.Of course folks have tax people to help them save each penny, and im sure different environments have different breaks, but i wouldn't go as far saying that this evens things out in terms of exemptions between low and high tax states. Cap friendly has a neat tax calculator that puts all this in perspective; a 10M contract may actually bring you close to a million more in your pocket depending which market you choose. HR Block will not give you that whole amount back.
If i was a free agent, the contract amounts being offered would definitely be one of my considerations; i mean of course the higher amount would be more appealing. So if i am looking at the gross, why doesn't it make sense to look at the net amount?
I would like to see this looked at for sure, over an 80M$ cap , this can mean something like 8M that some teams have to play with more than others.
Also, f*** the leafs!
by capitalizing on maximizing revenues in big markets. I am against removing the cap in favor of having a system where bigger markets can surpass that cap in return for a "luxury tax" because i prefer sportsmanship and competition that is coming from an equal footing.How?