What is the solution to balancing the salary cap with no tax states?

[PistolPete]

33% of the no state tax teams didn’t play at least 3 seasons.

Of the only non expansion. Teams.
Nashville, Tampa, Florida have all won the presidents trophy.

If you want to count regular seasons success. Winning the presidents trophy is the cup.

I said the rule changes after the lockout. There were still plenty of cheater contracts that lasted and were aging out. The teams took advantage of the equal term limits and since that time there have been 18 finalists

Tampa x3
Florida x2
Vegas x 2
Dallas x 1
Nashville x 1.

50% of the finalists have come from no state tax teams.

The facts are indisputable

1.) since the elimination of the back diving contracts. No state tax teams have been consistently getting players to sign for cheaper. This is indisputable

2.) they have also been much higher in success in the regular season and finals in terms of championship then the 22% of the league they are. This is indisputable

3.) the only thing that would be in dispute is why the players sign for less. People here talk about weather/lack of media/chance ro win. But this doesn’t hold water when you see that high state tax markes
That have similar weather/pressure/championships/prestige all
Have to sign more.


Most importantly. The players. Agents. GMs. Accountants. ALLL say it is an advantage.

They openly admit it.

Were all these teams built wholly with UFAs?

TB's core was built through the draft.

 

[Ezekial]

My solution is to never think about it.

 

[PistolPete]

My solution is to never think about it.

Aka

Ignorance is bliss

You are truly a wise man for those who are happiest are willfully ignorant

 

[Mrfenn92]

Hire better GM’s for your team

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Correlation does not imply causation. What changed post pandemic to have these players begin their migration? It wasn't the taxes so why weren't they signing there before?

To deduce this to the tax advantage alone is guess at best, at worst it's ignorant. For the most part these are desirable locations where players can live in relative obscurity and enjoy good weather, some glitz and glamour and play for franchises that currently are the class of the league (TB, FLA, VEG, DAL). I never said it wasn't a factor, I said it's overblown.

Let me know when Seattle starts attracting star players for less

It's possible that taxes impact the salary that UFA's request, but nobody has proven it empirically.

In order to do this, someone would have to build a model that predicts a player's salary based on their output. (That's not too difficult for forwards, but it's very tricky for defensemen and goalies). That would give you a player's theoretical market value. From there, you would consider different variables (ie top marginal tax rate in that jurisdiction, the ability for a team to front-load salary in the form of a large signing bonus, no move clause, and perhaps other factors - whether the team is good, the city;s cost of living, weather, etc). Only some of these would be statistically significant.

Only after doing this analysis would someone be able to state that taxes materially impact a player's salary demands. Nobody has actually done the work to prove that this is true. The only "evidence" I've seen has been vague comments like "the data's there, research it yourself" and "trust me bro".

 

[WarriorofTime]

33% of the no state tax teams didn’t play at least 3 seasons.

Of the only non expansion. Teams.
Nashville, Tampa, Florida have all won the presidents trophy.

If you want to count regular seasons success. Winning the presidents trophy is the cup.

I said the rule changes after the lockout. There were still plenty of cheater contracts that lasted and were aging out. The teams took advantage of the equal term limits and since that time there have been 18 finalists

Tampa x3
Florida x2
Vegas x 2
Dallas x 1
Nashville x 1.

50% of the finalists have come from no state tax teams.

The facts are indisputable

1.) since the elimination of the back diving contracts. No state tax teams have been consistently getting players to sign for cheaper. This is indisputable

2.) they have also been much higher in success in the regular season and finals in terms of championship then the 22% of the league they are. This is indisputable

3.) the only thing that would be in dispute is why the players sign for less. People here talk about weather/lack of media/chance ro win. But this doesn’t hold water when you see that high state tax markes
That have similar weather/pressure/championships/prestige all
Have to sign more.


Most importantly. The players. Agents. GMs. Accountants. ALLL say it is an advantage.

They openly admit it.

The 10 best cumulative teams by regular season point % in the 2020s (2019-20 through 2024-25) in order are Colorado, Carolina, Boston, Toronto, Florida, Vegas, Tampa Bay, Edmonton, Dallas, New York. It's a healthy mix of various tax jurisdictions.

 

[FissionFire]

Which part?

I mean I dont see Mattias Janmark or Calvin De Haan in too many commercials.

Not a lot of info out there on endorsements but I tend to see Crosby being at the top with maybe $5 million per year in endorsements. Being in a small market never hurt him.

Seems unlikely that 3rd line guys are making 7 figures per year on endorsements in any market.

Seems like taxes would be a bigger deal for almost every

Which part?

I mean I dont see Mattias Janmark or Calvin De Haan in too many commercials.

Not a lot of info out there on endorsements but I tend to see Crosby being at the top with maybe $5 million per year in endorsements. Being in a small market never hurt him.

Seems unlikely that 3rd line guys are making 7 figures per year on endorsements in any market.

Seems like taxes would be a bigger deal for almost every player than endorsements.

So tl;dr is no you have zero evidence of this and it’s all just your personal impression and opinion, got it.

 

[avocadosmoothie]

It's not, it's a fact of life and the Panthers are coming off back to back Cup appearances with a win.

If Toronto had done that he may have gone there.

As has been mentioned ad nauseam, Florida isn't the only state, and the only "advantage" is in regard to state income tax. At most in the US, this is 13 percent. That's hardly going to move the needle for a player who wants a Cup. Not sure what the equivalent is in Canada to state in come tax, but if it's a 2 million a year difference, that's really not enough to dissuade most players from chasing a Cup.

Have a winning team with a good culture, and you'll sign players. This tax excuse is really pathetic. It's people in your position that are searching for excuses and explanations.

I guess if I was a fan of certain teams, I'd look for wild reasons my team can't win or compete, to go far as to analyze state income tax. It's just an outlandish excuse and to think the league needs to do something is even more ludicrous.

This entire thread and argument hurts my head.

lets say that roster strength is quantified from 0-10

the first team has none of the advantages and are able to build a 9.5 on their own merit.

the second team has all the advantages and are able to build a 9.3 on their own merit, but due to their advantages, the strength of their roster is pushed to a 9.7.

it's not as if having those advantages gifts you a 9.7. it's simply an advantage that other markets don't have which pushes you over the top.

also, saying whether or not something moves the needle or not is your opinion, and it is incorrect. NHL players have already been on record in the media stating that no tax is a significant advantage and that the NHL should address it

 

[Legion34]

Over an 11 year sample, 2 teams are in the top 10 in wins who are no state tax teams. FACT.

Cool they did good a couple seasons, they also sucked horribly other seasons as well. How can that be with their unjust advantages???

You realize the back contracts could have also been signed by these teams with the exact same benefits… right?

This is sad dude

No state teams players consistently sign for less. Fact

The players. Agents gms and accountants all openly state that’s why they sign for less. Fact.

The 2 biggest markets in the pre cap era had 1 cup in 50 years.

Are you suggesting that the salary cap was not an advantage? You are using a silly proxy instead of the actual facts.

 

[LaCarriere]

Another one of these, It's such a fan made problem, it's ridiculous.

A huge chunk of players who reach free agency likely only get a handful of offers, it's not like 32 GMs are calling every agent of every player that reaches free agency. The league isn't played like a fantasy season of NHL25. Teams have to consider cap space, current and future team needs, prospects coming down the pipeline, etc.

If a player who hasn't had a crack at a cup has the choice between 2 teams - a competitive team in a high tax state, or a crap team in a low tax state, where do you think they are going? I get those two aren't mutually exclusive, but there's only a handful of players who could truly pick any team to go to, and even then the team could be handcuffed by salary.

Lots of players with families and kids want stability, some teams may offer a full NTC, some may not. There's a million factors that go into where a player ends up, and I can guarantee you the tax is a relatively minor one, especially considering how taxes are paid in the country/province/state where the game is played.

 

[bert]

Counter, no ELC/RFA status, eliminate the draft. UFA status on 18th b-day. Your ideas don't fix anything and objectively makes everything significantly worse.

To be fair he is consistent.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Add taxes to their salaries if they're in a high taxed territory. Remove the money used for taxes from their contracts if traded to a low-tax state. Or reduce and increase the cap for teams based on the location.

 

[nbwingsfan]

No state teams players consistently sign for less. Fact

The players. Agents gms and accountants all openly state that’s why they sign for less. Fact.

The 2 biggest markets in the pre cap era had 1 cup in 50 years.

Are you suggesting that the salary cap was not an advantage? You are using a silly proxy instead of the actual facts.

Bob didn’t sign for less
Barkov didn’t sign for less
Josi didn’t sign for less
Stamkos didn’t sign for less with Nashville
Etc.

Also please direct me to all of the agents stating their players chose their location solely because of the tax? I’ll wait?

What the hell are you talking about the two biggest markets had 1 cup in 50 years pre cap?

Sure it’s a small advantage. You know what else is?

California weather
Toronto and revenue opportunities
Being a well run franchise (you realize players only signed retirement contracts in FL until they became good, right?)
NY being NY
Boston being Boston
Etc etc

 

[freakydallas13]

It’s becoming a big problem that the NHL has to be worried about. The NHL’s smallest TV markets are able to spend in some cases 15%+ more than large market teams.

Take Panthers vs Rangers for example.

Between NY state tax and NY city tax, the rangers roster for the same exact salary takes home about 15% less than floridas roster.

1) will the nhl allow a “tax allowance” to make everyone have the same net effective ceiling?

2) is it politically palatable for states and cities like ny/nyc to exempt athletes from state and city income tax? IMO it’d be deeply popular from constituents to do so.

They aren't going to do anything. Just like they aren't going to do anything about players choosing to play in New York and nowhere else.

 

[Bank Shot]

So tl;dr is no you have zero evidence of this and it’s all just your personal impression and opinion, got it.

Sources on the internet are conflicting. Maybe put some work in and get back to me.

I'm pretty confident that most players make almost nothing given that the top ten guys usually get estimated in low 7 figures per year.

 

[ClydeLee]

Nobody ever talks about how San Jose was considered great at getting contracts under market value when they were contenders. All the taxes but still was cheap compared to the mid 2010s deals people have brought up here of LA or Chi...

We used to point out there was a bonus agents and players would push for when you won something. Sj players didn't get that. Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Norris winners like Karlsson, etc. Could push for, I am winning things. Toronto messing up with cap arguments with their players was what some thought was going to be a new norm. No, it's just applied to their terrible management.

There's more to some deals signed than JUST the tax factor and that's what make those who just complain about it seems off-base. If you guys really think on 5 years when Vasi, Kuch, Point, etc. Are gone or worn down, that Tampa is still going to be a premiere spot to sign, you're thinking too narrow minded. They are that for winning. They also are smart management and willing to walk instead of making Stamkos overpriced... yet are we forgetting they paid multiple guys 8 mil people thought wouldn't get that? Many thought Sergachev/Cicerlli/another i forget... got way too much more than they deserve. I would say they got that for the cup wins boost. But why did they get those deals above market if they had the tax advantage? There are simply more factors at play.

 

[wmupreds]

Every market has advantages and disadvantages, salary cap or no. In no league in any sport on the planet is this not the case. Only in the NHL do certain folks fixate on this one minor advantage. I swear y’all complain more than small market baseball fans whose teams truly are at massive, obvious, measurable disadvantages.

 

[Djp]

It’s becoming a big problem that the NHL has to be worried about. The NHL’s smallest TV markets are able to spend in some cases 15%+ more than large market teams.

Take Panthers vs Rangers for example.

Between NY state tax and NY city tax, the rangers roster for the same exact salary takes home about 15% less than floridas roster.

1) will the nhl allow a “tax allowance” to make everyone have the same net effective ceiling?

2) is it politically palatable for states and cities like ny/nyc to exempt athletes from state and city income tax? IMO it’d be deeply popular from constituents to do so.

I said this in other thread.

You take out about X% or so from nhlpa portion and it goes to state/ province/country taxes. Then taxes don't matter in negotisting.

 

[FissionFire]

Sources on the internet are conflicting. Maybe put some work in and get back to me.

I'm pretty confident that most players make almost nothing given that the top ten guys usually get estimated in low 7 figures per year.

The burden of proof is on you. I’m not about to waste my time trying to prove your claims. If you can’t prove them chances are they aren’t true or aren’t as true as you’d like to believe. Personally I prefer to stick to the realm of provable facts before I go out and pretend my unprovable opinion is the truth.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but do t expect me to do the work for you.

 

[danktopshelf]

Actually the signing bonus is paid in July each year and is taxed at the rate of the players legal residence.
For instance Matthews LEGALLY resides in the state of Arizona. His annual signing bonus is not assessed state or local taxes.

Incorrect. Arizona has state income tax. You must not be from here.

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

lets say that roster strength is quantified from 0-10

the first team has none of the advantages and are able to build a 9.5 on their own merit.

the second team has all the advantages and are able to build a 9.3 on their own merit, but due to their advantages, the strength of their roster is pushed to a 9.7.

it's not as if having those advantages gifts you a 9.7. it's simply an advantage that other markets don't have which pushes you over the top.

also, saying whether or not something moves the needle or not is your opinion, and it is incorrect. NHL players have already been on record in the media stating that no tax is a significant advantage and that the NHL should address it

It's not an advantage. It's simply how the states operate and is completely unrelated to hockey until some angry people not living in those states started crying.

An advantage implies these teams are allowed something that makes them different as set up by the league. That's just not the case.

And it's not incorrect. I don't give a damn that there are some salty players saying that, and I"d venture to guess they are all from Canada. Don't whine about places where taxes are better, focus on changing where you live if it's such a problem.

 

[Bank Shot]

The burden of proof is on you. I’m not about to waste my time trying to prove your claims. If you can’t prove them chances are they aren’t true or aren’t as true as you’d like to believe. Personally I prefer to stick to the realm of provable facts before I go out and pretend my unprovable opinion is the truth.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but do t expect me to do the work for you.

You're not worth the effort to spoonfeed every bit of info.

If you can't be bothered to do a single Google search you wouldn't be bothered to read any links I would provide. Cheers!

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

lol- I'm not a fan of any team nor am I searching for excuses. And who said we are just talking about Florida? Add Dallas, Nashville, Seattle, and Vegas to the mix. Sorry your head hurts. Wonder how bad it would hurt if you actually used it.

You're obviously looking for excuses, and clearly I'm able to use my head because I'm not complaining about something so absurd.

Your insult is noted, though quite baseless. Your lack of critical thinking skills is hardly my problem and your need to utilize insults just reinforces you lack said skills.

 

[avocadosmoothie]

It's not an advantage. It's simply how the states operate and is completely unrelated to hockey until some angry people not living in those states started crying.

An advantage implies these teams are allowed something that makes them different as set up by the league. That's just not the case.

And it's not incorrect. I don't give a damn that there are some salty players saying that, and I"d venture to guess they are all from Canada. Don't whine about places where taxes are better, focus on changing where you live if it's such a problem.

that means it isn't an advantage? LOLOLOL. do no tax teams get to pay players less or not? yes, they do. is that an advantage in a salary cap league? yes, it is. it's that simple, and it's not up for a coherent debate. i can't believe the lengths to which you're bending over backwards to justify why the math doesn't math

LOLOLOL yeah i'm sure you don't give a damn! sorry that both the math and the players say that you're wrong.

 

[Legion34]

Bob didn’t sign for less
Barkov didn’t sign for less
Josi didn’t sign for less
Stamkos didn’t sign for less with Nashville
Etc.

Also please direct me to all of the agents stating their players chose their location solely because of the tax? I’ll wait?

What the hell are you talking about the two biggest markets had 1 cup in 50 years pre cap?

Sure it’s a small advantage. You know what else is?

California weather
Toronto and revenue opportunities
Being a well run franchise (you realize players only signed retirement contracts in FL until they became good, right?)
NY being NY
Boston being Boston
Etc etc

Umm yes they did.
They signed for 11-12%

High tax markets sign for 14 on average.

Seriously. Take 10 minutes. To through the cap wages page or whatever people use now.

You are wrong.

No state tax market stars sign for generally. About 10.5-12.25%

High state tax ufas sign for 13.5-14.5.

It’s clear. Just go look. All the contracts are there.

Barkov signed for 10 after Panarin signed for 11.6. Tavares signed for 11. Kane and Toews got 10.5.

Josi signed for 9. He got paid less than karlson and doughty who got 11.

Frig he is paid less than Darnell nurse.

You are wrong. The math doesn’t lie