Trades & Free Agency Thread: 2024-2025 - Trade Deadline Approaches

[ULF_55]

Give teams a pro-rated salary cap, based on taxes paid by jurisdiction.

Been used in business for many decades, COLA based on location.
Worked for a national bank decades ago and going from a small town/city to Toronto automatically got a COLA.

 

[Americanadian]

Give teams a pro-rated salary cap, based on taxes paid by jurisdiction.

Owners in Carolina or Ottawa wouldn't sign up to pay more money to ice the same product as the teams in Florida, Nevada, Texas, etc.

Also player contracts would have to based off post-tax $ or the players would get screwed if they were traded from a low tax state to a high tax state.

 

[Americanadian]

Been used in business for many decades, COLA based on location.
Worked for a national bank decades ago and going from a small town/city to Toronto automatically got a COLA.

Entirely feasible in a free market. Not so much under a CBA.

 

[thusk]

Brady earns 14% less than Matthews. Ottawa was paying a 21 year old based off projection (just like the Leafs did with Matthews and Marner on their 2nd contracts) and it worked out for them.

Florida had leverage and they used it. If they didn't get a contract they liked they wouldn't have made the trade. They also had an internal cap structure that Matthew adhered to.

Bring this all back around to the Leafs. If their contracts weren't overpays - who is the comparable for Nylander at 11.5M?

1-Brady signed after a a 25 goal 53 carreer high pace...
-Matthews signed at a 45 goal and 88 pts pace
-Marner 26 goal 94 pts

Tkachuknproduction is closer to knies than matthews/Marner

2-You can't compare a city like Toronto to an heavenly destination like Florida. Just with the weather, Lorida is a high praised destination, you add the tax exempt and everything.

Outside if you're coming from Toronto, they are ZERO good reason for a player to choose toronto over any other city.

most wanted city to play in
#1-2 Both Florida team
bottom 7: canadian team

 

[Legion34]

Brady earns 14% less than Matthews. Ottawa was paying a 21 year old based off projection (just like the Leafs did with Matthews and Marner on their 2nd contracts) and it worked out for them.

Florida had leverage and they used it. If they didn't get a contract they liked they wouldn't have made the trade. They also had an internal cap structure that Matthew adhered to.

Bring this all back around to the Leafs. If their contracts weren't overpays - who is the comparable for Nylander at 11.5M?

Brady earned 1% aav less at the time of signing. Matthew signed later.

Again it’s clear that (pre pandemic) the high tax markets LA/SJ/chi/NY/Montreal/Ontario all paid their top stars between 13.5-14.5%.

Different cities/weather/languages/market size. They all got top end of the scale.

LA and New York are extremely popular. They don’t get discounts. Igor didn’t take less to stay. Is he selfish?

Karlson/price/matthews/JT/doughty/panarikane/toews etc.

The low tax teams (generally have similar weather) but regardless of market size, competitive cycle they all signed between 11-12.5%. Barkov, point, kuch, Herman, vast, forsberg, Ekblad etc.

NHL players, gms and coaches openly acknowledge this. As soon as gm goes to a no state tax market. He is a genius negotiator. The second they leave (Stevie Y) they can’t get the same deal.

Is it really more likely that all the generous self less players end up in no state tax markets? The Florida players wanted to win but the kings/hawks didn’t?

Or they are basing their salaries on the take home?

 

[Legion34]

Entirely feasible in a free market. Not so much under a CBA.

They don’t have to do that. You can just have the same salary every where you go but the cap is charged differently. Same money changes hands.

10 million in real dollars could have a cap hit of 9 in ontario, la, NYR 10 in a middle ground market (Boston?) and 11 in no state tax markets.

or just allow different teams to have different caps. As long as the players get 50% it doesn’t mean all 32 teams have to get equal caps any more than holmberg needs to get paid the same as Matthews.

 

[Americanadian]

They don’t have to do that. You can just have the same salary every where you go but the cap is charged differently. Same money changes hands.

10 million in real dollars could have a cap hit of 9 in ontario, la, NYR 10 in a middle ground market (Boston?) and 11 in no state tax markets.

or just allow different teams to have different caps. As long as the players get 50% it doesn’t mean all 32 teams have to get equal caps any more than holmberg needs to get paid the same as Matthews.

So an owner in Florida pays the same amount out of pocket as an owner in Toronto but the cap hit is different? This ultimately comes back around to owners having to pay more money to ice the same product which is the opposite of the parity that the owners fight so hard to maintain.

 

[Legion34]

NMC and Taxes are important considerations.

Sign a lower contract with a No State Income Tax team, and then get traded to Quebec, BC or Ontario ... California, ...

Tough one to tackle without being creative.

Flex cap. You sign the contract and 10 million is assigned a hit based on your market.

So you agree to the money. And then it gets charged against the cap based on where you are.

If you make 10 million. Your cap is 9 in Toronto and 11 in Tampa. You still get the same money either way. You still get the take home advantage. But now the team doesn’t just get to cram in a whole bunch of extra players

 

[Legion34]

Brady earns 14% less than Matthews. Ottawa was paying a 21 year old based off projection (just like the Leafs did with Matthews and Marner on their 2nd contracts) and it worked out for them.

Florida had leverage and they used it. If they didn't get a contract they liked they wouldn't have made the trade. They also had an internal cap structure that Matthew adhered to.

Bring this all back around to the Leafs. If their contracts weren't overpays - who is the comparable for Nylander at 11.5M?

Ok also to go back to Willy.
On his first contract. He was highly comparable to other players in his market based on has first 3 years. He was right in line.

This one. As I said we bought high on him as a top 10 scorer. Typically a top 10 scorer in ufa in a high tax market could command 14%
He took 13%. BUT he probably wasn’t that. Top 10 scorers can command that but he wasn’t that outside of the 50 games. Marner is probably a 13% player (now if that’s the new bar?) Willy was probably a 12% plater.

Right now he looks good compared to EP40. But I wouldn’t have done that.
Pasta is clearly the better player

Reinhart and guentzel surprise took less in no state tax markets.

Also.
You didn’t notice that all the top ufas just went to no state tax markets?

 

[Torontonian]

Praise in public. Criticize in private.

100%

 

[Legion34]

So an owner in Florida pays the same amount out of pocket as an owner in Toronto but the cap hit is different? This ultimately comes back around to owners having to pay more money to ice the same product which is the opposite of the parity that the owners fight so hard to maintain.

No? You are literally paying the exact same money.
10 million in Florida, 10 million in Toronto.

Same money. They don’t have to pay any more. They pay 50% of the league hrr. There is no “paying more”. It’s always equal split

 

[Americanadian]

No? You are literally paying the exact same money.
10 million in Florida, 10 million in Toronto.

Same money. They don’t have to pay any more. They pay 50% of the league hrr. There is no “paying more”. It’s always equal split

I'm referring to the proposal you just laid out:

10 million in real dollars could have a cap hit of 9 in ontario, la, NYR 10 in a middle ground market (Boston?) and 11 in no state tax markets.

 

[Americanadian]

Brady earned 1% aav less at the time of signing. Matthew signed later.

He earned 14% less AAV: 8.2/9.5=0.86. I think what you mean is 1 less percentage of the cap - which I am not sure how each player is valued based on % of the cap. That's like saying Holmberg earns 14% less than Matthews when in reality he earns 94% less.

Again it’s clear that (pre pandemic) the high tax markets LA/SJ/chi/NY/Montreal/Ontario all paid their top stars between 13.5-14.5%.

Different cities/weather/languages/market size. They all got top end of the scale.

LA and New York are extremely popular. They don’t get discounts. Igor didn’t take less to stay. Is he selfish?

Karlson/price/matthews/JT/doughty/panarikane/toews etc.

The low tax teams (generally have similar weather) but regardless of market size, competitive cycle they all signed between 11-12.5%. Barkov, point, kuch, Herman, vast, forsberg, Ekblad etc.

NHL players, gms and coaches openly acknowledge this. As soon as gm goes to a no state tax market. He is a genius negotiator. The second they leave (Stevie Y) they can’t get the same deal.

Is it really more likely that all the generous self less players end up in no state tax markets? The Florida players wanted to win but the kings/hawks didn’t?

Or they are basing their salaries on the take home?

Sorry - we need to recalibrate this conversation. I am not arguing that players don't factor in taxes. I am arguing that the mismanagement of the Leafs shouldn't be blamed on taxes. 4 out of the last 5 cup winners are from no-tax states and 8 of the last 10 cup finalists.

The post that you quoted to start all of this was me stating that there should be no expectation for the Leafs to win if they are expected to pay 20-30% more on all of their contracts vs. no-tax states. You have just gone on for 3 pages trying to prove my point.

I can't explain why the NFL doesn't have the same issue despite also having a hard cap. There has been 1 team in the super bowl over the last 5 years from a no-tax state.

1-Brady signed after a a 25 goal 53 carreer high pace...
-Matthews signed at a 45 goal and 88 pts pace
-Marner 26 goal 94 pts

Tkachuknproduction is closer to knies than matthews/Marner

Sorry that was a typo. I meant Matthew (Tkachuk) not (Auston) Matthews.

 

[Legion34]

I'm referring to the proposal you just laid out:

Yes. And it that proposal. The money where ever you go is the exact same.

The player makes the same money. The team pays the same. The cap hit changes based on the market.

The cap hit isn’t real money. It’s a representation. It can easily fluctuate.

You could also just make high tax teams have higher caps than low tax teams.

As long as the 750 ish players get 50% of the HRR it’s legal

 

[Americanadian]

Yes. And it that proposal. The money where ever you go is the exact same.

The player makes the same money. The team pays the same. The cap hit changes based on the market.

The cap hit isn’t real money. It’s a representation. It can easily fluctuate.

You could also just make high tax teams have higher caps than low tax teams.

As long as the 750 ish players get 50% of the HRR it’s legal

So let's play it out. Toronto owner pays out 75M, Florida owner pays out 75M. Toronto team has a cap of 80M, Florida team has a cap of 70M. The owners still pay the same amount and the players still receive the same amount. How does this change anything?

 

[Legion34]

He earned 14% less AAV: 8.2/9.5=0.86. I think what you mean is 1 less percentage of the cap - which I am not sure how each player is valued based on % of the cap. That's like saying Holmberg earns 14% less than Matthews when in reality he earns 94% less.

Sorry - we need to recalibrate this conversation. I am not arguing that players don't factor in taxes. I am arguing that the mismanagement of the Leafs shouldn't be blamed on taxes. 4 out of the last 5 cup winners are from no-tax states and 8 of the last 10 cup finalists.

The post that you quoted to start all of this was me stating that there should be no expectation for the Leafs to win if they are expected to pay 20-30% more on all of their contracts vs. no-tax states. You have just gone on for 3 pages trying to prove my point.

I can't explain why the NFL doesn't have the same issue despite also having a hard cap. There has been 1 team in the super bowl over the last 5 years from a no-tax state.


Sorry that was a typo. I meant Matthew (Tkachuk) not (Auston) Matthews.

I think we may agree. The NHL system has completely stacked the deck (intentionally or not) in favour of the no state tax teams.

That does NOT mean that the leafs haven’t mismanaged things. Letting Hyman go (which I was in favour of a the time-I was wrong), bad bets on goalies, the love of kerfoot and continually spending assets on rentals instead of just paying up and solving the problem.
That’s not a cap issue. That’s a competence issue.


But the leafs “overpay on salaries” because they are weak or the players are greedy just isnt accurate. The reality is that no state tax teams have a crazy advantage.

I can’t speak to the NFL. But they don’t have a border, only play 16 games and can cut and renegotiate at will. The systems aren’t compareable.

 

[Legion34]

So let's play it out. Toronto owner pays out 75M, Florida owner pays out 75M. Toronto team has a cap of 80M, Florida team has a cap of 70M. The owners still pay the same amount and the players still receive the same amount. How does this change anything?

Because then the small market teams don’t get to just keep signing people for less and stack the deck. They still spend to the cap now, but get to fit in extra star players because there players can take less gross pay and end up with the same amount.

If the system were like 100/90

Tampa can still sign Kuch/point for 9.5 then they don’t have the extra money for Hedman etc.

The leafs can still spend 11 million to make the players take home, but can afford the extra player.

 

[Americanadian]

Because then the small market teams don’t get to just keep signing people for less and stack the deck. They still spend to the cap now, but get to fit in extra star players because there players can take less gross pay and end up with the same amount.

If the system were like 100/90

Tampa can still sign Kuch/point for 9.5 then they don’t have the extra money for Hedman etc.

The leafs can still spend 11 million to make the players take home, but can afford the extra player.

So if Tampa has a cap of 90M and Toronto has a cap of 100M you are just allowing Toronto to spend more money on players than Florida. If you are acknowledging that this would equal out post-tax salaries then you will get push back from teams like Ottawa, Carolina, Anaheim, etc. that they now need to spend X more dollars to ice an equivalent product to Tampa. They would never agree to this.

 

[Americanadian]

But the leafs “overpay on salaries” because they are weak or the players are greedy just isnt accurate. The reality is that no state tax teams have a crazy advantage.

They do overpay relative to the rest of the league though. The Nylander 3rd contract and Marner 2nd contract were unprecedented for their production.

I can’t speak to the NFL. But they don’t have a border, only play 16 games and can cut and renegotiate at will. The systems aren’t compareable.

It still doesn't explain why no-tax states haven't risen to the top like we see in the NHL.

 

[Legion34]

So if Tampa has a cap of 90M and Toronto has a cap of 100M you are just allowing Toronto to spend more money on players than Florida. If you are acknowledging that this would equal out post-tax salaries then you will get push back from teams like Ottawa, Carolina, Anaheim, etc. that they now need to spend X more dollars to ice an equivalent product to Tampa. They would never agree to this.

???? No. Ultimately 32 teams combined
have to pay 50% of HRR. That can and will not change. You already have a system where teams are icing inferior rosters with the same cap because Tampa/florida/dallas/seattle/vegas/nashville are spending 11-12% of the cap on a star instead of 14-15.

look at the cup winners/finalists. We are already there.

This way You are allowing teams with higher taxes to pay more to get the same equalization of net pay. Instead of letting Tampa/florida collect players for cheap and always win. You limit that and have the chance to win.

 

[Menzinger]

Continuously paying players at the top, or above their comparables despite no playoff success. When was the last time anyone in the front office said “player X is not performing to the standard commensurate with their pay”?

Canadian teams are always going to have a handicap with contracts.

Now that doesn't mean they absolutely have to double down on this core yet again - that's another question all together.

But when it comes to premium talent the Leafs will always have to pay a premium price

We're just lucky that Toronto is at least theoretically desirable for most players unlike Winnipeg, Ottawa, Edmonton ect

 

[Legion34]

They do overpay relative to the rest of the league though. The Nylander 3rd contract and Marner 2nd contract were unprecedented for their production.

It still doesn't explain why no-tax states haven't risen to the top like we see in the NHL.

It could? I don’t know about the NFL. But keep in mind the no state tax teams didn’t take over until the over 35 contracts and term limits closed. They also smoothed out year to year.

Prior to that big market NHL teams could just pay players artificially and Lower the cap hit to compete. Now they can’t.
(Hossa/keith etc).

If the leafs could renegotiate players. It would be easy. Sign Marner for a 2 year deal, front load it then re negotiate when the salary drops.

It’s not comparable at all

 

[Americanadian]

???? No. Ultimately 32 teams combined
have to pay 50% of HRR. That can and will not change. You already have a system where teams are icing inferior rosters with the same cap because Tampa/florida/dallas/seattle/vegas/nashville are spending 11-12% of the cap on a star instead of 14-15.

look at the cup winners/finalists. We are already there.

This way You are allowing teams with higher taxes to pay more to get the same equalization of net pay. Instead of letting Tampa/florida collect players for cheap and always win. You limit that and have the chance to win.

No one is arguing the HRR split. We’re saying the same thing. Ultimately a team like Toronto would welcome this but more than half the league (poor teams) would veto it.

 

[Legion34]

No one is arguing the HRR split. We’re saying the same thing. Ultimately a team like Toronto would welcome this but more than half the league (poor teams) would veto it.

Sure. And the big market NHL teams should push it. They are the ones with the money. The idea that the teams that don’t make any money that get all the advantages can control the league is silly.

And the league with all of their talks of parity and fairness should recognize reality.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Sure. And the big market NHL teams should push it. They are the ones with the money. The idea that the teams that don’t make any money that get all the advantages can control the league is silly.

And the league with all of their talks of parity and fairness should recognize reality.

This assumes ownership cares about winning more than expansion fees. Frankly I’d be shocked if the bean counters at MLSE haven’t ran the numbers and realized that a Leafs cup win results in a major decrease in sales and viewership in the long run. All the boomers praying “just win one cup in my lifetime” will realize they no longer have to suffer and pay 2k for a pair of tickets and half a hotdog once the cup dream is realized.