Kypreos Leafs Re-sign William Nylander to 8-year/$92m Extension; $11.5m AAV

[Sharpshooter]

Very good player, but that's an insane cap hit to me.

[Dunny]

The salary cap is a joke. They're going to be punished for drafting incredibly well in spots where the Rangers whiffed again, and again, and again. 

 

It would be fantastic if they could move to a luxury tax model, or a model where players you draft count for some pct less than going to market.

[Keirik]

3 hours ago, Dunny said:

The salary cap is a joke. They're going to be punished for drafting incredibly well in spots where the Rangers whiffed again, and again, and again. 

 

It would be fantastic if they could move to a luxury tax model, or a model where players you draft count for some pct less than going to market.

I've said that for a while as well. I'd really like a case where one player's cap doesn't count against the cap as long as said player meets a few conditions.

1. Must be drafted by the organization

 

2. Can only count for 1 contract of said player, and a cap on the about of years, like 4-5 years. 

 

3. Both player and organization have to agree to terms 100% and contract cannot be traded in any way. 

 

4. Contract cannot exceed the current average of top x amount of contracts in league (this is to hinder a team from throwing a 20 or 30m contract to a guy with the collusion of saying his next contract will be  pennies to even out things and circumventing the cap) 

 

Probably a few more ideas to throw in there 

 

[SaveByRichter35]

Luxury tax similar to what baseball has/used to have.  Haven't followed baseball in a long time.  If a team goes over the cap, they pay the tax to the pool that gets spread around to the rest of the league.  At least I think that's how it worked lol.  But you're free to spend over if you can afford the tax.  Granted, this will start allowing the big market franchises that have the money to spare to start pulling ahead of the pack, thus moving away from the parity that the league has worked to build.  Other teams would have to use that new incoming tax money wisely.  

[siddious]

Franchise tag on 1 player every decade and luxury tax that also has a time limit or something. I don’t know why they refuse to do it. 

[Pete]

4 hours ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Luxury tax similar to what baseball has/used to have.  Haven't followed baseball in a long time.  If a team goes over the cap, they pay the tax to the pool that gets spread around to the rest of the league.  At least I think that's how it worked lol.  But you're free to spend over if you can afford the tax.  Granted, this will start allowing the big market franchises that have the money to spare to start pulling ahead of the pack, thus moving away from the parity that the league has worked to build.  Other teams would have to use that new incoming tax money wisely.  

It's this. The NHL is a simple model revenue share. If teams want to go over, just put that money into the same bucket and spread it out amongst the teams.

 

You can limit the issue you're talking about by either saying a team can either be something like 10% over the cap maximum, or you can put a cap on the luxury tax they're allowed to spend, similar to how there is a cap on how many contracts you can retain salary on.

[Phil]

I can't speak to MLB and if this is how their system works or not, but capping the allowable overage is probably a good way to mitigate the dollars advantage a luxury tax would give the largest markets (New York, Toronto, Philly, etc). I don't know what that number is — maybe ten percent of the cap? It sure as hell can't be, or shouldn't be, unlimited. Not only because teams like the Rangers and Leafs will take full advantage, but because in doing so, they'll also potentially fuck up the trade market. If they start paying big-time free agents $1, $2, $3 million more than market, for example, it's going to make those deals completely untradeable to smaller markets.

[BrooksBurner]

22 hours ago, Phil said:

I can't speak to MLB and if this is how their system works or not, but capping the allowable overage is probably a good way to mitigate the dollars advantage a luxury tax would give the largest markets (New York, Toronto, Philly, etc). I don't know what that number is — maybe ten percent of the cap? It sure as hell can't be, or shouldn't be, unlimited. Not only because teams like the Rangers and Leafs will take full advantage, but because in doing so, they'll also potentially fuck up the trade market. If they start paying big-time free agents $1, $2, $3 million more than market, for example, it's going to make those deals completely untradeable to smaller markets.

MLB imposes increasing penalties based on how many consecutive years a team exceeds the cap, and how high over they go. Once a team gets back under the cap for a year, it resets everything back to square one. It can get pretty cost prohibitive.

 

The Mets just paid the largest luxury tax bill in history, $100 million. They had a $374M payroll and the cap was $233M. So they effectively paid $241M for $141M worth of overage.

[Br4d]

They should definitely add indexation to the cap for the tax structure of the city, state/province and country the contract is registered in.

 

It's total BS that the Florida teams have more effective cap space because of the local tax structures.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

They should definitely add indexation to the cap for the tax structure of the city, state/province and country the contract is registered in.

 

It's total BS that the Florida teams have more effective cap space because of the local tax structures.

No they don't. That's not the way the cap works. 

 

The team pays a player X amount of money regardless of where they live. How much of that money is taken by federal and local government has nothing to do with how hockey related revenue is split. 

[Br4d]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

No they don't. That's not the way the cap works. 

 

The team pays a player X amount of money regardless of where they live. How much of that money is taken by federal and local government has nothing to do with how hockey related revenue is split. 

 

Right and players get to keep more of their salary and bonuses in states and localities with no or low taxes.

 

That effectively gives a team in a low or no tax locality a competitive advantage against the cap because players are more likely to accept a similar, maybe even a lower offer.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Right and players get to keep more of their salary and bonuses in states and localities with no or low taxes.

 

That effectively gives a team in a low or no tax locality a competitive advantage against the cap because players are more likely to accept a similar, maybe even a lower offer.

It doesn't give them more cap space.

 

Cap space is the amount of money a team can issue to their roster. After they issued the check the money is spent and out of their hands, then it is subject to taxes when it's no longer their money, the money belongs to the player at that point. 

 

It gives those teams a competitive advantage of the same way New York and Toronto have competitive advantages via endorsements. 

Edited January 13 by Pete

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

It doesn't give them more cap space.

 

Cap space is the amount of money a team can issue to their roster. After they issued the check the money is spent and out of their hands, then it is subject to taxes when it's no longer their money, the money belongs to the player at that point. 

 

Right *but* to the player cap space is not allocated equally.  $8M in NY is worth a lot less than $8M in Tampa because NY State and NYC both have much higher tax tax rates than Florida and Tampa.  In NYC in NY State $8M is taxed at about 12% overall.  In Tampa in Florida the same $8M is taxed at about ZERO percent.

 

Both scenarios have an 8.5-8.8 sales tax in addition to the state and municipal tax rates.

 

You can deduct state and local taxes from your federal taxes however the maximum deduction is $10,000.

 

All of this means that $8M in Tampa in Florida is worth $8M - federal taxes paid.  $8M in NYC in NY State is worth $7.05M - federal taxes paid.

 

Effectively an offer by Tampa of $7.1M is worth more than an offer by NYR of $8M.  It gets even more inequitable when a lot of money is paid upfront on the deal since a player can lock in a large part of a multi-year deal at a much lower tax rate.  A $40M bonus in Tampa is worth more than a $45M bonus in NY.

 

The cap for the Lightning should be indexed at .88 of the cap of the Rangers to account for the fact that the Lightning's money is 12% more effective for the players that take it.  This increasing their effective cap by the same 12%.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Right *but* to the player cap space is not allocated equally.  $8M in NY is worth a lot less than $8M in Tampa because NY State and NYC both have much higher tax tax rates than Florida and Tampa.  In NYC in NY State $8M is taxed at about 12% overall.  In Tampa in Florida the same $8M is taxed at about ZERO percent.

 

Both scenarios have an 8.5-8.8 sales tax in addition to the state and municipal tax rates.

 

You can deduct state and local taxes from your federal taxes however the maximum deduction is $10,000.

 

All of this means that $8M in Tampa in Florida is worth $8M - federal taxes paid.  $8M in NYC in NY State is worth $7.05M - federal taxes paid.

 

Effectively an offer by Tampa of $7.1M is worth more than an offer by NYR of $8M.  It gets even more inequitable when a lot of money is paid upfront on the deal since a player can lock in a large part of a multi-year deal at a much lower tax rate.  A $40M bonus in Tampa is worth more than a $45M bonus in NY.

 

The cap for the Lightning should be indexed at .88 of the cap of the Rangers to account for the fact that the Lightning's money is 12% more effective for the players that take it.  This increasing their effective cap by the same 12%.

You don't need to explain it to me I understand how it all works.

 

Every team should be allowed to spend the same amount of money. You can't penalize the Panthers because they're in Florida.

 

A tax codes change all the time. You think that NHL is going to recalculate this shit every season wind up having a team over the cap because the tax code changed?

 

And frankly it's a non-issue. Panarin chose New York. Nylander chose Toronto. Big stars are still choosing big markets. 

 

 

Edited January 14 by Pete

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

You don't need to explain it to me I understand how it all works.

 

Every team should be allowed to spend the same amount of money. You can't penalize the Panthers because they're in Florida.

 

A tax codes change all the time. You think that NHL is going to recalculate this shit every season?

 

 

 

It's not a question of penalizing the Panthers.  It's a question of what the purpose of the salary cap is.  If the purpose of the salary cap is to ensure that each team has equal resources to compete with then the cap needs to be indexed to the value that the teams are able get dollar for dollar that they spend.

 

This includes the value of a dollar in a given location vs the value of the dollar in all other locations in the NHL.  A NYC dollar is weaker than a Tampa dollar because it produces less for the players in question.  This makes a non-indexed cap an advantage for teams that play in areas where taxes and the cost-of-living are lower.

 

 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

It's not a question of penalizing the Panthers.  It's a question of what the purpose of the salary cap is.  If the purpose of the salary cap is to ensure that each team has equal resources to compete with then the cap needs to be indexed to the value that the teams are able get dollar for dollar that they spend.

 

This includes the value of a dollar in a given location vs the value of the dollar in all other locations in the NHL.  A NYC dollar is weaker than a Tampa dollar because it produces less for the players in question.  This makes a non-indexed cap an advantage for teams that play in areas where taxes and the cost-of-living are lower.

 

 

And this is exactly why the salary cap is the way it is. You're talking about microeconomics that change all the time. That's ridiculous.

 

You also cannot penalize the Panthers and tell them that they have to spend less because their players take home more. That also is ridiculous. 

[Br4d]

9 hours ago, Pete said:

And this is exactly why the salary cap is the way it is. You're talking about microeconomics that change all the time. That's ridiculous.

 

You also cannot penalize the Panthers and tell them that they have to spend less because their players take home more. That also is ridiculous. 

 

The purpose of a salary cap is to prevent some teams from getting an advantage over their peers by spending more.  When your dollars are more valuable you are effectively spending more.

 

I don't understand why you cannot see this.  It's not microeconomics it's macroeconomics.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

The purpose of a salary cap is to prevent some teams from getting an advantage over their peers by spending more.  When your dollars are more valuable you are effectively spending more.

 

I don't understand why you cannot see this.  It's not microeconomics it's macroeconomics.

The purpose of the salary cap is so that owners don't have to spend more than 50% of a hockey related revenue on salaries. 

 

Parity was just an excuse for the owners to implement it.

 

It's what the entire lost season was about. Owners thought they were spending too much money on players and they were "drowning."

 

I don't understand why you can't see that that salary cap is a limit on how much teams can spend. What you're talking about is how much players take home. While they are related, the cap has nothing to do with taxes. If it gives certain teams a competitive advantage, that's fine. It doesn't stop New York and Toronto from having a competitive advantage in other areas.

 

If you're just going to repeat yourself, don't bother. You put out the same post three times already. We can agree to disagree. 

Edited January 14 by Pete

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

 

If you're just going to repeat yourself, don't bother. You put out the same post three times already. We can agree to disagree. 

 

I would take your own advice here. 

[Pete]

49 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I would take your own advice here. 

I know man, that's what I'm saying. We're talking past each other

[BrooksBurner]

The why doesn't matter. Tampa dollars go further than New York dollars. Endorsements don't affect the overwhelming majority of players. That's just a marketable star player difference.

 

It's impossible to establish rules around changing tax codes though, and that's why a soft cap makes sense. A luxury tax model or a homegrown player advantage like the NBA has, or some combination of both.

[Phil]

 

[Dunny]

Such a fucked up atmosphere around this team. 4 days ago, they all had Keefe's obituary wrote. The media. The blogs, the influencers.. Now, he's a genius again.

 

2 days ago  Samsonov was only there out of necessity. To be waived the instant Woll came back.. Now, he's a vezina candidate

 

It must be so exhausting. 

 

Their blue line personnel are really something else. Morgan Reilly, 3 guys years past their expiration date, and 2 guys that just dropped in from, what I presume, was the Savannah Ghost Pirates. 

 

They have Papi, though, so they keep winning.