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

[PistolPete]

Basketball is a different sport and can’t be used as a direct one to one comparison for a multitude of factors (team composition and size, star vs role player impact, luxury tax, etc). The advantage could be bigger in one sport when compared to another. Even then your list still has multiple finals appearances over the last few years.

What is there that supports this?

Look at the NHL recent cup finalists,
Florida-EDM or Dallas
Florida-EDM
Florida-Vegas
Tampa-Avs
Tampa-MTL
Tampa-Dallas
BOS-STL
WSH-Vegas
Pitt-NSH

Bolded are tax free teams, there’s only 6 of them and one of them is Seattle and is new. I don’t get how anyone can say that it is not a massive factor for these teams.

Tax free teams are 19% of the league but have been to 53% of the last 9 finals, and every single one of them made at least one finals except for Seattle who haven’t been around.

TB's core was through the draft.

Florida got a bunch of castaways and turned then into PO warriors or used drafted assets to acquire their current assets (Tkachuk) and their centrepiece is a draft pick.

Vegas has sold it's future for the current.

And Dallas' core- off the top of my head- is drafted by them.

You're taking a quick look, seeing a pattern and etching in stone, "Yup. It has to be the no state income tax!" as an explanation for this pattern and each team's success.

Did you know that there can he a correlation hetwenbX and Y and yet no real relationship? It's just a weird coincidence.

This is how your correlation (with no statistical evidence, but merely a hunch) reads

 

[Legion34]

Your opinion doesn’t make something clear and indisputable.

It’s not my opinion. It is the literal math and the words of agents. Players. GMs and accountants.

You are the one providing an opinion.

If there is no advantage. Why don’t people want to correct for it? It won’t matter right? Why does it matter to fans If accountants do more work.

Star Players will still sign in no state tax markets for 11% and I highly tax for 14 right?

 

[Fatass]

It’s not my opinion. It is the literal math and the words of agents. Players. GMs and accountants.

You are the one providing an opinion.

If there is no advantage. Why don’t people want to correct for it? It won’t matter right? Why does it matter to fans If accountants do more work.

Star Players will still sign in no state tax markets for 11% and I highly tax for 14 right?

How come these Florida teams were so bad they both had several years of high draft picks? Is this no tax only something new? Didn’t they have “no tax” when they were terrible?
Do Florida residents pay for other services to make up for the no tax?
Many factors go into the equation for winning. Smart management is at the top.

 

[Legion34]

How come these Florida teams were so bad they both had several years of high draft picks? Is this no tax only something new? Didn’t they have “no tax” when they were terrible?
Do Florida residents pay for other services to make up for the no tax?
Many factors go into the equation for winning. Smart management is at the top.

1.) yes. Many factors go into winning. That is true. Tax break are a clear advantage. That does NOT mean that it is impossible to win in a high tax market. That does not mean that salary advantages are the only factor.

Or else the leafs and rangers would have had way more success

2.) again. They always had low taxes. It was always an advantage. Other teams were able to outspend that advantage pre cap and then back diving deals. Now they can’t. And boom. Massive success

You are providing opinions. They are not factual. You are also lumping all other factors in to ifnkre this clear advantage. Drafting skill will exist even if they advantage was taken away.

Simple question. If the taxes were reversed equalized. Do you believe Florida players still sign for less?

 

[Fatass]

1.) yes. Many factors go into winning. That is true. Tax break are a clear advantage. That does NOT mean that it is impossible to win in a high tax market. That does not mean that salary advantages are the only factor.

Or else the leafs and rangers would have had way more success

2.) again. They always had low taxes. It was always an advantage. Other teams were able to outspend that advantage pre cap and then back diving deals. Now they can’t. And boom. Massive success

You are providing opinions. They are not factual. You are also lumping all other factors in to ifnkre this clear advantage. Drafting skill will exist even if they advantage was taken away.

Simple question. If the taxes were reversed equalized. Do you believe Florida players still sign for less?

Facts are the Florida clubs were terrible and high draft picks. More facts are they selected key players with those picks. Facts are smart management made good choices in trades and free agency. Those are the facts of how teams become winners. It wasn’t that long ago players retired to play for the Panthers. Now their club is good and well managed. Players go there to have a great chance to win.
More fact. Winning is cyclical. Tampa is on a downward trend and will soon be in a losing cycle. Floridas time is now but they too will enter a downward cycle.
These are the facts. You can deny them if you choose. That’s fine. Each of us can have their opinions, you included.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Contracts with a massive bonus as a major part of the contract gets taxed where the player lives.

That is a fact.

Tavares signed an extremely heavy front loaded bonus payment when he signed in Toronto...which is a place with high taxes and he's probably the biggest UFA signing to change teams since the salary cap. High taxes didn't prevent the Leafs from getting their guy...they were unsuccessful during said contract because they didn't have a well constructed team.

Yes the Florida teams have been to 6 Cup finals in a row, but low taxes is not how Tampa did it. It's not to blame for Kucherov and Point falling to the 2nd and 3rd rounds respectively.

 

[Legion34]

Facts are the Florida clubs were terrible and high draft picks. More facts are they selected key players with those picks. Facts are smart management made good choices in trades and free agency. Those are the facts of how teams become winners. It wasn’t that long ago players retired to play for the Panthers. Now their club is good and well managed. Players go there to have a great chance to win.
More fact. Winning is cyclical. Tampa is on a downward trend and will soon be in a losing cycle. Floridas time is now but they too will enter a downward cycle.
These are the facts. You can deny them if you choose. That’s fine. Each of us can have their opinions, you included.

Except

1.) I am not providing an opinion. I am providing the actual stats and statements.

2.) you aren’t addressing the clear advantage. You are arguing about other unrelated things. That have nothing to do with the tax advantage.

Everything you wrote is entirely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Fatass]

Except

1.) I am not providing an opinion. I am providing the actual stats and statements.

2.) you aren’t addressing the clear advantage. You are arguing about other unrelated things. That have nothing to do with the tax advantage.

Everything you wrote is entirely irrelevant to the topic.

In your opinion, which is fine.

 

[TrufleShufle]

Tavares signed an extremely heavy front loaded bonus payment when he signed in Toronto...which is a place with high taxes and he's probably the biggest UFA signing to change teams since the salary cap. High taxes didn't prevent the Leafs from getting their guy...they were unsuccessful during said contract because they didn't have a well constructed team.

Yes the Florida teams have been to 6 Cup finals in a row, but low taxes is not how Tampa did it. It's not to blame for Kucherov and Point falling to the 2nd and 3rd rounds respectively.

Something can be an advantage and not automatically make you win. Mcdavid is the best player in the league, he is an advantage to have on the team. They still have not won the cup.

It's not that hard to understand, I've said I don't think it's a massive problem, but I know it exists, I don't need to deny facts because I'm afraid it conflicts with my opinion of it not being a big issue.

So were you disagreeing with the fact that I said or arguing against a position you think I hold?

 

[Legion34]

In your opinion, which is fine.

None of that is an opinion. You haven’t addressed the clear tax advantages and decided to talk about other things.

 

[Summer Rose]

None of that is an opinion. You haven’t addressed the clear tax advantages and decided to talk about other things.

I think it's fair to point out that while the tax advantage certainly exists, it's just one of many variables in things like attracting players to sign with you and how it affects roster construction.

It is also fair to get into the details of debating just how much of a variable it is.

 

[tomd]

Take signing bonuses out of the next CBA and the problem is 95% solved.

 

[Legion34]

I think it's fair to point out that while the tax advantage certainly exists, it's just one of many variables in things like attracting players to sign with you and how it affects roster construction.

It is also fair to get into the details of debating just how much of a variable it is.

Except people aren’t acknowledging that it exists and how it is aiding teams.

Let’s establish that it clearly does exist.
And on average star players in no state tax markets sign for an average of 11.5% aav. So 2.5% less

Tampa did an amazing job drafting Hedman. Kucherov. Point. Stamkos. Vasy.

But if those 9 million dollar contacts were 11s they couldn’t keep them all.

Same with Florida. Brilliant front office. Incredible moves. But they get to keep their cores because people take 1-2 million less as stars.

 

[Mattilaus]

NBA has a cap. Grizzlies, Heat, Mavericks, Rockets, Magic aren't perennial finals participants.

The people who believe no state tax is a factor are grossly oversimplifying the explanation for Florida's success.

I don't know how I could have been more clear that that isn't my stance.

 

[PistolPete]

I don't know how I could have been more clear that that isn't my stance.

Note the start of the second paragraph....

I was just too lazy to type (not necessarily including you)

 

[LilLeeroy]

I know the analogue is not exactly the same but consider this:

What about the other big 5 sports? The NBA (soft cap+luxury tax), MLS, and NFL all have salary cap systems.

Out of the most recent 10 championships where a winner was based in a no income tax state:
NBA: 1 winner (Dallas), 2 finalists (Miami)
MLS: 0 winners or finalists
NFL: 1 (Tampa Bay), 0 finalists

Most of the winning teams were actually based in California (49ers, Lakers, Golden State Warriors, Galaxy) or somewhere based in the northeast US.

Someone more intelligent than me could tell me why else the majority of competitive teams are not from income tax-free states - to me this just reeks of NHL northern traditionalist market views and small sample sizes.

I still stick with "good players want to play on competitive teams" theory, and that this is just a small sample size of success and correlation in the NHL that we're not seeing anywhere else.

I will say I only did a quick Google search/Wikipedia lookup as I am not deeply interested in the league structuring of the other major sports but on the surface it hardly seems to be the same issue.

In the NBA they don't have no-trade clauses (with one exception) and are heavily incentivized to re-sign with the team if they have their rights.

For example Damian Lillard demanded a trade a couple years ago and said he would only accept being traded to the Miami Heat, Portland told him to kick rocks and traded him to Milwuakee.

It's a lot different than the NHL where any star calibre has some form of an NTC.

 

[JianYang]

That's what we have to remember about why the salary cap exists and why the owners wanted it: cost control.

The parity it produces is just a natural side effect. While nice in its own right, that was never the intention.

That's right. There are two words that are permanently cemented in my head coming out of that 04 lockout, and that is the term "cost certainty", which bettman used relentlessly during the bargaining wars.

 

[PlayMakers]

What is the solution for balancing big markets vs small markets?

What is the solution for balancing sold out buildings vs fair weather markets?

What is the solution for balancing players wanting to play for their home town teams vs markets that don't produce many NHL players?

Everyone has advantages and disadvantages. Play the hand your dealt. Most American teams can't compete with the endorsement money players can get in Toronto, New York, Montreal, LA...

 

[Space umpire]

1.) yes. Many factors go into winning. That is true. Tax break are a clear advantage. That does NOT mean that it is impossible to win in a high tax market. That does not mean that salary advantages are the only factor.

Or else the leafs and rangers would have had way more

2) Simple question. If the taxes were reversed equalized. Do you believe Florida players still sign for less?

1) The advantage runs both ways and smart players/agents/teams can minimize the tax impart to a few pennies on the dollar by use of signing bonuses.
Based on the last year (no cap) and 1st with (guessing inflation adjusted so actual may be +\-) the big market teams have 30 to 40 million to spend in other areas of hockey ops. The Leafs and Rangers should be pulling missed 1st rd talents in the 3rd round and stealing other teams passed over prospects due to being able to pay better stealing top scouts (pro and minor) from competitors. The best trainers, skating coaches, dietary staff.
Signing bonuses greatly equalize your perceived no state tax advantage.
What income equalization makes up for the scouting, coaching, more optimized facilities advantage the high income teams have. They should be winning and my money says they will since the rise and fall of teams appears (to me) to be cyclical.

2) Very likely, I’m from Chicago, live now in Cocoa Beach Florida. I much prefer taking the jet skis out in February to shoveling the driveway. Put on a pair of shorts and flip flops to get the mail. And actually (28 years ago) I took a decent pay cut to move here.
And for them taking a bit less so your wife can grocery shop in a sun dress not a parka, without hearing about your giveaway that they claim cost the game or your kids being harassed at school has value because daddy sucks (no matter how good he is). The non tax states are also what me would consider non traditional hockey markets

 

[Space umpire]

How come these Florida teams were so bad they both had several years of high draft picks? Is this no tax only something new? Didn’t they have “no tax” when they were terrible?
Do Florida residents pay for other services to make up for the no tax?
Many factors go into the equation for winning. Smart management is at the top.

Many things that state taxes pay for in other places are paid for in property taxes here.
“Back home” the majority of money for schools was from the state legislative budget. With some small local taxes (by public vote) added for a special local projects or what locals feel improves education (many suburbs pay more to build prolike stadiums, arenas and training facilities. Rivaling on a smaller scale what colleges have.) Naperville comes to mind.
“Down here” there is some school monies appropriated at the state level but the bulk of the funding is via property taxes. I also pay nearly $12000 a year to insure a $600,000 house with a $6000. Deductible.
And when we came down we sold a $350k home (Oswego) for a very similar $275k home yet the property tax was 75% higher down here.

 

[Beerz]

Abolish taxes.

Abolish Palm Trees

 

[thebeernerd]

One of the reasons I hate this debate is because it's more complex than "hurf durf no income tax = more money." There are many different factors into take home pay, including paying tax in away game states and "jock taxes" in said no income tax states.

Pardon me while I mail this bag of animal feces to the special interest groups responsible for keeping this insane talking point alive every goddamn offseason.

 

[Legion34]

1) The advantage runs both ways and smart players/agents/teams can minimize the tax impart to a few pennies on the dollar by use of signing bonuses.
Based on the last year (no cap) and 1st with (guessing inflation adjusted so actual may be +\-) the big market teams have 30 to 40 million to spend in other areas of hockey ops. The Leafs and Rangers should be pulling missed 1st rd talents in the 3rd round and stealing other teams passed over prospects due to being able to pay better stealing top scouts (pro and minor) from competitors. The best trainers, skating coaches, dietary staff.
Signing bonuses greatly equalize your perceived no state tax advantage.
What income equalization makes up for the scouting, coaching, more optimized facilities advantage the high income teams have. They should be winning and my money says they will since the rise and fall of teams appears (to me) to be cyclical.

2) Very likely, I’m from Chicago, live now in Cocoa Beach Florida. I much prefer taking the jet skis out in February to shoveling the driveway. Put on a pair of shorts and flip flops to get the mail. And actually (28 years ago) I took a decent pay cut to move here.
And for them taking a bit less so your wife can grocery shop in a sun dress not a parka, without hearing about your giveaway that they claim cost the game or your kids being harassed at school has value because daddy sucks (no matter how good he is). The non tax states are also what me would consider non traditional hockey markets

1.) the advantage does NOT run both ways. There is no evidence of this. You can find zero cases where a no state tax star signed for 14%. People always say a “smart accountant” can make up the difference but can never show a single example. What we do have is multiple statements that say you can’t, and the recent case where JT was sued for 15 million dollars for trying these methods.

Signing bonuses do not change it. In fact they make it worse. Signing bonuses get taxed in the local market.

2.) all of these things exist in California. They don’t get tax breaks.

 

[LilLeeroy]

Many things that state taxes pay for in other places are paid for in property taxes here.
“Back home” the majority of money for schools was from the state legislative budget. With some small local taxes (by public vote) added for a special local projects or what locals feel improves education (many suburbs pay more to build prolike stadiums, arenas and training facilities. Rivaling on a smaller scale what colleges have.) Naperville comes to mind.
“Down here” there is some school monies appropriated at the state level but the bulk of the funding is via property taxes. I also pay nearly $12000 a year to insure a $600,000 house with a $6000. Deductible.
And when we came down we sold a $350k home (Oswego) for a very similar $275k home yet the property tax was 75% higher down here.

Florida has a relatively low property tax too? They just are being subsidized by states with a higher tax burden.

 

[Legion34]

One of the reasons I hate this debate is because it's more complex than "hurf durf no income tax = more money." There are many different factors into take home pay, including paying tax in away game states and "jock taxes" in said no income tax states.

Pardon me while I mail this bag of animal feces to the special interest groups responsible for keeping this insane talking point alive every goddamn offseason.

complexity doesn’t change reality.

If it was so complex and all these other factors had such an effect. you wouldn’t see such clear correlations