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

[chaser17]

Lots of these no tax teams are getting up against the cap with aging cores so I feel like it won't be as much of a problem for a short while. Dallas is in cap hell, Nashville signed a bunch of retirement contracts and Vegas is gonna blow their wad on Mitch the Bitch moving out all their depth to make it work. Florida and Tampa are all around that 30 year old mark now so prob 2-3 years of contention left.

 

[Legion34]

They chose cost certainty, as has been repeated ad nauseum by Bettman and Daly.

No. They chose parity. Cost certainty is 50%hrr being divide among 32 teams.

That does NOT mean all 32 teams have to have the same cap, any more than all 23 players have to have the same AAV.

You tell me.

If we have a pizza. And it has 10 slices.

Whether we get 5 each or you get 6 and I get 4. Would you be any less certain about how many slices there are? The pie is the pie.

Would you be ok with the top 6 Highest tax bracket teams getting 10 million higher cap and the 6 low state tax teams getting lower?

Thats equally certain

 

[Beerz]

Ok... which one of you are Kevyn Adams?

 

[wmupreds]

I still don’t understand why people think this is something the league would address, when there’s absolutely zero precedent for doing something like this. The desire of the NHL (and any other sports league) to have a salary cap does not mean they want to get into the business of correcting for external economic and/or policy factors beyond their control. Let’s put taxes aside and pretend they were zero everywhere. Housing, insurance, food/groceries etc all cost less in St Louis than they do in New York.A player could take less money to play for the Blues and still have a higher standard of living than they could with the Rangers. How come the NHL has never addressed that apparent advantage? Why does the NFL have the same cap for the Packers as they do for the NY Giants when the same $500k house in Green Bay costs multiple millions in New York? This is something no sports league has ever been in the business of doing, so why start now?

Because it (supposedly) hurts their teams. That’s it. On that note I think it’s time for the league to step in and remove Barry Trotz from his position as his poor performance is hurting my team’s, and therefore the league’s, competitive balance.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Because it’s not about making things fair.
The NHL doesn’t have to limit anything. They chose to limit salaries. They chose to enforce parity. They didn’t have to. They chose to.

They don’t have to limit nationalities or weather or endorsements. If you chose to make parity so all teams have to adhere to the same cap. And you punish circumvention. You have to make that specific issue fair.

The NHl doesn’t have to limit player rosters or buyouts or call ups. The chose to. They can’t allow other teams to have 5 compliance buyouts/salary retention spots and others 3. Do you get it now?

2.) i have no idea what you mean? Chicago was the only team that used back diving contracts to gain an advantage?
Are you kidding?

You’re still ignoring it my guy…. Why couldn’t these no tax states also use back diving contracts for more of an advantage? Please address.

Chicago was the only team to do so that won a Cup yes. And had to beat other state taxed teams to get there.

Your continuous dodging of the questions shows you have run out of straws to grasp.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No. They chose parity. Cost certainty is 50%hrr being divide among 32 teams.

No the cap was for cost certainty, parity is a by product. As has been pointed out by the league.

That does NOT mean all 32 teams have to have the same cap, any more than all 23 players have to have the same AAV.

You tell me.

If we have a pizza. And it has 10 slices.

Whether we get 5 each or you get 6 and I get 4. Would you be any less certain about how many slices there are? The pie is the pie.

Lmao pizza

Would you be ok with the top 6 Highest tax bracket teams getting 10 million higher cap and the 6 low state tax teams getting lower?

Thats equally certain

won’t someone please think of the poor leafs .

 

[nbwingsfan]

I still don’t understand why people think this is something the league would address, when there’s absolutely zero precedent for doing something like this. The desire of the NHL (and any other sports league) to have a salary cap does not mean they want to get into the business of correcting for external economic and/or policy factors beyond their control. Let’s put taxes aside and pretend they were zero everywhere. Housing, insurance, food/groceries etc all cost less in St Louis than they do in New York.A player could take less money to play for the Blues and still have a higher standard of living than they could with the Rangers. How come the NHL has never addressed that apparent advantage? Why does the NFL have the same cap for the Packers as they do for the NY Giants when the same $500k house in Green Bay costs multiple millions in New York? This is something no sports league has ever been in the business of doing, so why start now?

Because fans would rather blame the salary cap then blame their poor ass management or players.

It’s that simple.

 

[TheDoldrums]

I still don’t understand why people think this is something the league would address, when there’s absolutely zero precedent for doing something like this. The desire of the NHL (and any other sports league) to have a salary cap does not mean they want to get into the business of correcting for external economic and/or policy factors beyond their control. Let’s put taxes aside and pretend they were zero everywhere. Housing, insurance, food/groceries etc all cost less in St Louis than they do in New York.A player could take less money to play for the Blues and still have a higher standard of living than they could with the Rangers. How come the NHL has never addressed that apparent advantage? Why does the NFL have the same cap for the Packers as they do for the NY Giants when the same $500k house in Green Bay costs multiple millions in New York? This is something no sports league has ever been in the business of doing, so why start now?

There's also zero precedent in NA Sports to have such a rigid inflexible cap structure. This isn't brought up as much in other sports because there are ways around that. In the NFL teams are constantly reworking current deals to create more current cap room, something you can't do in the NHL. The NBA has a soft cap with a luxury tax. The MLB has no cap. So no one cares in other leagues, ownership can always get creative and find ways to spend more if they have the desire. The NHL is the only league where teams are so restricted in how much they spend while other imbalances are in play.

Also lmao at bringing up groceries as a response to someone taking home 25% more on a $80 million contract.

 

[Golden_Jet]

There's also zero precedent in NA Sports to have such a rigid inflexible cap structure. This isn't brought up as much in other sports because there are ways around that. In the NFL teams are constantly reworking current deals to create more current cap room, something you can't do in the NHL. The NBA has a soft cap with a luxury tax. The MLB has no cap. So no one cares in other leagues, ownership can always get creative and find ways to spend more if they have the desire. The NHL is the only league where teams are so restricted in how much they spend while other imbalances are in play.

Also lmao at bringing up groceries as a response to someone taking home 25% more on a $80 million contract.

MLB also has a luxury tax, that kicks in, when the yearly soft cap number is exceeded.

 

[Lieutenant Bookman]

There's also zero precedent in NA Sports to have such a rigid inflexible cap structure. This isn't brought up as much in other sports because there are ways around that. In the NFL teams are constantly reworking current deals to create more current cap room, something you can't do in the NHL. The NBA has a soft cap with a luxury tax. The MLB has no cap. So no one cares in other leagues, ownership can always get creative and find ways to spend more if they have the desire. The NHL is the only league where teams are so restricted in how much they spend while other imbalances are in play.

Also lmao at bringing up groceries as a response to someone taking home 25% more on a $80 million contract.

Talk about missing the point

 

[LPHabsFan]

I mean if we're also doing this, would be nice to also do the whole revenues in CAD but player salaries in USD.

 

[ClydeLee]

People need to read the thread. It has been explained ad nauseam by nhls agents. GMs. Players and accountant.

1.) the nhl does NOT have to incorporate anything into a free market system. They CHOSE to implement a salary cap. They do not have to make all markets the same. They do not have to control the weather. The media. The fans. They chose to limit salaries to make it fair. Then make it fair. If the ufc has weight classes. That’s what they chose to limit. They chose not to limit height/reach/age. If a fighter gets to miss weight by 10 lbs, he doesn’t get to turn around and say “ya well he’s taller so…..”

2.) every single team has equal right to pay signing bonuses. Some may choose not to. Or they may not think it’s financially smart. Ok that’s a choice. Lack of success and personal choice are different then systemic advantages.

3.) the reason an issue becomes public in your opinion has no bearing on the issue itself. People wouldn’t have known about watergate if it wasn’t for those pesky rreporters. That doesn’t change any issue.

4.) again. The contract structure changed to stop back diving contracts. Since that time there has only been one advantage. No state taxes. That happened in 2013. Once those contracts (hossa at 5 million etc) aged out. No state tax teams took over

5.) this is also a misattribution of stats. There are only 6 no state tax teams now. Only 4 from 2004-2017. By definition. There would have had to have been at least one high state tax team in every final 4 as 2 of the 4 would have played each other. Florida and Tampa cannot make the final 4 together. Either can Dallas and Nashville

Look at the cup finalists/presidents trophy and winners in the past 10 years.

5.) it may Not be over for them. Because they don’t have to sign there stars for 14%.

Tampa got to extend it’s window by signing stamkos/kuch/vasy/point/herman for 7-9.5
In stead of 11. At least one had to go.

eventually they all age out sure. But they got to keep cores longer than everyone else.

The idea that all the no state tax teams all just magically had their times all
At the same time. And their players all just magically are selfless and took less is hilarious on its face. Never mind players ADMITTING it.

Pittsburgh won back to back cups after these rule changes, what is your supposed era of "tax teams took over"

They didnt magically have their sun in the same time. Its a maybe of being elite 7-12 years after rebuilding hard for multiple top 3 picks. Tampa 08-09 then 2013 had top 3 picks. Florida top 3 picks after that 10-14 sans 2020. And Edmonton is in that same boat.

You keep bringing up this 14% cap hit rate. That player in a no tax state deserved that rate you keep listing? Thats a rare measure ANY player gets. How many players even exist thay have that, i feel you listed 6-7? Several who won 2 cups or 2 Norris trophies. A reason they earned as much, 2 others i recall as UFAs. Ufas sign for more always... but it seemed like clear dumb management from those teams to sign them. Oh you complain they would of been fine or better if they didnt have taxes boosting how much those players want... or they would have been better off just not signing big UFAs when that's rarely a path to success.

 

[Legion34]

I still don’t understand why people think this is something the league would address, when there’s absolutely zero precedent for doing something like this. The desire of the NHL (and any other sports league) to have a salary cap does not mean they want to get into the business of correcting for external economic and/or policy factors beyond their control. Let’s put taxes aside and pretend they were zero everywhere. Housing, insurance, food/groceries etc all cost less in St Louis than they do in New York.A player could take less money to play for the Blues and still have a higher standard of living than they could with the Rangers. How come the NHL has never addressed that apparent advantage? Why does the NFL have the same cap for the Packers as they do for the NY Giants when the same $500k house in Green Bay costs multiple millions in New York? This is something no sports league has ever been in the business of doing, so why start now?

Players

Pittsburgh won back to back cups after these rule changes, what is your supposed era of "tax teams took over"

They didnt magically have their sun in the same time. Its a maybe of being elite 7-12 years after rebuilding hard for multiple top 3 picks. Tampa 08-09 then 2013 had top 3 picks. Florida top 3 picks after that 10-14 sans 2020. And Edmonton is in that same boat.

You keep bringing up this 14% cap hit rate. That player in a no tax state deserved that rate you keep listing? Thats a rare measure ANY player gets. How many players even exist thay have that, i feel you listed 6-7? Several who won 2 cups or 2 Norris trophies. A reason they earned as much, 2 others i recall as UFAs. Ufas sign for more always... but it seemed like clear dumb management from those teams to sign them. Oh you complain they would of been fine or better if they didnt have taxes boosting how much those players want... or they would have been better off just not signing big UFAs when that's rarely a path to success.

1.) the new changes marked the new normal for contracts. It took a while to gain effect. Many players were still on contracts. The NHL didn’t just void all the contracts and let people start again. That’s when the tangible difference happened. That’s like saying take teams didn’t “build through the draft”
If it took them 5 years to win the cup.

2.) Yes the 14% cap rate is importantly because in history that has been the standard for star (not generational) players.

Stars get you through the series. We have seen that. Getting to sign your star players for under 10 million vs 11 million is a massive advantage.

3.) do you think if the tax advantage was leveled out, do you see the no state tax teams signing for the same?

 

[JianYang]

There's also zero precedent in NA Sports to have such a rigid inflexible cap structure. This isn't brought up as much in other sports because there are ways around that. In the NFL teams are constantly reworking current deals to create more current cap room, something you can't do in the NHL. The NBA has a soft cap with a luxury tax. The MLB has no cap. So no one cares in other leagues, ownership can always get creative and find ways to spend more if they have the desire. The NHL is the only league where teams are so restricted in how much they spend while other imbalances are in play.

Also lmao at bringing up groceries as a response to someone taking home 25% more on a $80 million contract.

I think part of it might have to do with the greater dependence that the nhl has over gate revenue compared to the other leagues.

I'm not too familiar with the other league cap structures but when a league like the nhl earns significantly less from the stable sources like TV deals, it makes sense to me that they would be more sensitive to cost certainty, as gate revenue will theoretically fluctuate with the economic situation in a given time.

 

[PistolPete]

First. You are misunderstanding the issue.

It’s not that players will only sign in a place for taxes. It’s that players will sign X money. And they take less gross pay because their bottom line is the same.

Star Players will sign in LA/toronto/nyr etc.

They just take 14% aav instead of 11.

as far as your question. Off the top of my head.

Dadanov blocked a trade to California. Radilov Said he took the Dallas offer due to the taxes.

Alex tuch talked about his taxes when he signed in Vegas on spittin chiclets.

Guentzel eluded to taxes. He also mentioned other factors but GM Brisebois specifically cited tax advantages.

Poile openly talked about “Nashville dollars” and how he translated salaries into no state tax dollars when negotiating.

Lewis gross said he makes a spreadsheet of how much money his players would take home in each market.

There have always been players who refused to play in certain places for tax reasons; it's nothing new.

And assuming your mentioned list it really was strictly about taxes, that's a small group to extrapolate a whole major assumption on.

And there are many factors that players no doubt consider when they sign- media pressure, team culture, who the coach is,and his reputation, team's desire to win, weather, and yes- taxes.

As has been mentioned as nauseam ans which none of th le conspiracy theorists can counter- if taxes are that important why have all these teams sucked badly at various times? And why is this not a concern being addressed in the NFL, NBA, or MLB?

 

[ClydeLee]

Players


1.) the new changes marked the new normal for contracts. It took a while to gain effect. Many players were still on contracts. The NHL didn’t just void all the contracts and let people start again. That’s when the tangible difference happened. That’s like saying take teams didn’t “build through the draft”
If it took them 5 years to win the cup.

2.) Yes the 14% cap rate is importantly because in history that has been the standard for star (not generational) players.

Stars get you through the series. We have seen that. Getting to sign your star players for under 10 million vs 11 million is a massive advantage.

3.) do you think if the tax advantage was leveled out, do you see the no state tax teams signing for the same?

If new changes took time what is your cutoff and who counts? Are Edmonton that different? How don't they quality yet? They were in the CF 3/4 years, back to back cups final. If they won does that make your whole point shattered? Is the point only no tax teams can dominate as contenders now? Or what is it that Edmonton isn't doing

And Vancouver with Petersson is the only team to sign a guy over 11 mil or if that's 14% that ain't have no answers for. But the others were UFAs or Winners.

I think if the no sales tax situation was different, yes based on WHEN most of the guys you complain about signed they would of signed under 10mil or under 14%. Kurcherov signed in the summer of 18... what argument did he have to make more than 10Mil or make 14%? What could his agent and he say? He's a budding all-star yes... he was on the 15 cup run, but not as the guy... he did not win an art Ross yet, he did the year after signing, he didnt win 2 cups with 30pts yet. If he signed 2 years ago, still in 20s by a hair with that resume. Yes i think for sure in Tampa he would of earned 14% or over 10 mil. Like Barkov now, that hes won a cup could command more now than last year. When a player signs their deal in a career matters.

What do you mean stars get you through a series. Stars get you there, depth gets you through a series. Edmonton feels legitimate for once because their depth is actually supporting them. I don't know who you are a fan of, the 34 feels Matthewsy, but depth matters. The Leafs weren't screwed by taxes, they were screwd by choosing to sign Tavares then not trading one of those forwards instead of saying we will do everything to extend them and gave them contract bargaining chips.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Talk about missing the point

I got the point, it was just very bad. People can adjust their cost of living, you have a choice of what house to buy or if you want guacamole on your toast. State/provincial taxes on your income are set in stone and represent a significantly bigger difference in take home money for a pro athlete.

 

[Legion34]

If new changes took time what is your cutoff and who counts? Are Edmonton that different? How don't they quality yet? They were in the CF 3/4 years, back to back cups final. If they won does that make your whole point shattered? Is the point only no tax teams can dominate as contenders now? Or what is it that Edmonton isn't doing

And Vancouver with Petersson is the only team to sign a guy over 11 mil or if that's 14% that ain't have no answers for. But the others were UFAs or Winners.

I think if the no sales tax situation was different, yes based on WHEN most of the guys you complain about signed they would of signed under 10mil or under 14%. Kurcherov signed in the summer of 18... what argument did he have to make more than 10Mil or make 14%? What could his agent and he say? He's a budding all-star yes... he was on the 15 cup run, but not as the guy... he did not win an art Ross yet, he did the year after signing, he didnt win 2 cups with 30pts yet. If he signed 2 years ago, still in 20s by a hair with that resume. Yes i think for sure in Tampa he would of earned 14% or over 10 mil. Like Barkov now, that hes won a cup could command more now than last year. When a player signs their deal in a career matters.

What do you mean stars get you through a series. Stars get you there, depth gets you through a series. Edmonton feels legitimate for once because their depth is actually supporting them. I don't know who you are a fan of, the 34 feels Matthewsy, but depth matters. The Leafs weren't screwed by taxes, they were screwd by choosing to sign Tavares then not trading one of those forwards instead of saying we will do everything to extend them and gave them contract bargaining chips.

1.) teams can overcome advantages. Tampa won a cup pre cap. Toronto and New York won 1 between them in 50 years. Does that mean being able to spend 60 million more wasn’t an advantage?

Teams score short handed goals. Is a power play and not an advantage?

2.) when 4/32 teams had no state tax advantages. You have to get some high tax teams winning.

The fact that despite only being 21% of the league

the finalists have been
Tampa 3
Florida 3
Vegas 2
Nashville 1

Is insane. Especially considering
Florida/tampa
Nash/dallas

Are in the same division.

one single example doesn’t blow up any Clear and distinct correlation.

My grandfather smoked two packs a day until he was 93 and his lungs were perfect. Doesn’t that blow up the narrative that smoking causes cancer

 

[King'sPawn]

The solution is clearly to design a system that benefits my favorite team the most.

You know... to be fair.

 

[Lieutenant Bookman]

I got the point, it was just very bad. People can adjust their cost of living, you have a choice of what house to buy or if you want guacamole on your toast. State/provincial taxes on your income are set in stone and represent a significantly bigger difference in take home money for a pro athlete.

Players make their decision on where to play based on the lifestyle they want, not the other way around

 

[wmupreds]

My grandfather smoked two packs a day until he was 93 and his lungs were perfect. Doesn’t that blow up the narrative that smoking causes cancer

What the hell man. Your whole argument is based on that exact type of example

 

[Golden_Jet]

State/provincial taxes on your income are set in stone and represent a significantly bigger difference in take home money for a pro athlete.

Yes for home games.

Haven’t heard a big outcry from the other 3 sports in the US, like NY or California based teams.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What the hell man. Your whole argument is based on that exact type of example

Yep, including pizza slices.

 

[Space umpire]

People need to read the thread. It has been explained ad nauseam by nhls agents. GMs. Players and accountant.

1.) the nhl does NOT have to incorporate anything into a free market system. They CHOSE to implement a salary cap. They do not have to make all markets the same. They do not have to control the weather. The media. The fans. They chose to limit salaries to make it fair. Then make it fair. If the ufc has weight classes. That’s what they chose to limit. They chose not to limit height/reach/age. If a fighter gets to miss weight by 10 lbs, he doesn’t get to turn around and say “ya well he’s taller so…..”

2.) every single team has equal right to pay signing bonuses. Some may choose not to. Or they may not think it’s financially smart. Ok that’s a choice. Lack of success and personal choice are different then systemic advantages.

3.) the reason an issue becomes public in your opinion has no bearing on the issue itself. People wouldn’t have known about watergate if it wasn’t for those pesky rreporters. That doesn’t change any issue.

4.) again. The contract structure changed to stop back diving contracts. Since that time there has only been one advantage. No state taxes. That happened in 2013. Once those contracts (hossa at 5 million etc) aged out. No state tax teams took over

5.) this is also a misattribution of stats. There are only 6 no state tax teams now. Only 4 from 2004-2017. By definition. There would have had to have been at least one high state tax team in every final 4 as 2 of the 4 would have played each other. Florida and Tampa cannot make the final 4 together. Either can Dallas and Nashville

Look at the cup finalists/presidents trophy and winners in the past 10 years.

5.) it may Not be over for them. Because they don’t have to sign there stars for 14%.

Tampa got to extend it’s window by signing stamkos/kuch/vasy/point/herman for 7-9.5
In stead of 11. At least one had to go.

eventually they all age out sure. But they got to keep cores longer than everyone else.

The idea that all the no state tax teams all just magically had their times all
At the same time. And their players all just magically are selfless and took less is hilarious on its face. Never mind players ADMITTING it.

I read #1 and had to stop. If you really believe they chose to limit salaries “”to make it fair”” then there is nothing to say. They created the cap to have player cost certainty.
How it gets taxed, how or where the players spend their money isn’t a concern of the owners. All they want is the percentage going to the players be locked in.
Also, you are the one who brought up the Nurse - Makar salaries. Evidently ignoring how RFA and UFA status has an effect on contracts. Then I realized your team simply overpaid all their RFA’s so maybe you don’t know the difference.

 

[Panteras]

The solution is be a better organization so that you can use the other advantages you have to your benefit.

Nobody wanted to come to Florida until we had a serious GM and coach and started winning.