Panthers Sign Sam Reinhart to an 8 Year Extension Worth $69 Million; $8.625m AAV

[RichieNextel305]

 

Edited July 1 by RichieNextel305

[BrooksBurner]

Must be nice having the tax free advantage

[Valriera]

Meh that is market value. If anything they’re going to regret it in a few, that said I wish they’d fix the tax issue on the salary cap bc it is a real thing 

Edited July 1 by Valriera

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, Valriera said:

Meh that is market value. If anything they’re going to regret it in a few, that said I wish they’d fix the tax issue on the salary cap bc it is a real thing 

I don't think there's anything to "fix". Every team pays out to a salary cap limit, what the player takes home isn't the business of the league, nor do I think they're interested in doing anything about it. 

[Valriera]

It’s a minimum 20% bonus on the cap, there is a problem there if we’re trying to have a cap (which is another discussion). I’d prefer they just move to the luxury tax model which solves this issue.

Edited July 1 by Valriera

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Valriera said:

It’s a minimum 20% bonus on the cap, there is a problem there if we’re trying to have a cap (which is another discussion). I’d prefer they just move to the luxury tax model which solves this issue.

The problem is there's no clean way to do it. The amount of money a team can spend is directly tied to hockey related revenue. Every team has the same amount of money to spend. If you are Tampa and you are paying a player a million dollars and you are Toronto and you are paying a player a million dollars, both clubs are spending the same amount of money but the players are taking home different amounts. 

 

If Tampa chooses to be a cap team They have to spend more than Toronto which is essentially what you're saying. That's never going to fly. 

 

Plus state tax codes change all the time so you're asking the NHL to constantly be aware of income tax thresholds. 

 

It would just never work that way. 

[Morphinity 2.0]

I think location/weather/vibe has a lot more to do with it too. Florida, in general, is a desirable place to be. Taxes help, but a lot of players and their families want to live in places like Florida and Vegas.

[Valriera]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

The problem is there's no clean way to do it. The amount of money a team can spend is directly tied to hockey related revenue. Every team has the same amount of money to spend. If you are Tampa and you are paying a player a million dollars and you are Toronto and you are paying a player a million dollars, both clubs are spending the same amount of money but the players are taking home different amounts. 

 

If Tampa chooses to be a cap team They have to spend more than Toronto which is essentially what you're saying. That's never going to fly. 

 

Plus state tax codes change all the time so you're asking the NHL to constantly be aware of income tax thresholds. 

 

It would just never work that way. 

Oh I don’t disagree that it’s super messy, I have no idea how to do it , I just think it’s a huge advantage. It’s not a coincidence we have 4/5 recent cups to teams in this situation. 

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Valriera said:

Oh I don’t disagree that it’s super messy, I have no idea how to do it , I just think it’s a huge advantage. It’s not a coincidence we have 4/5 recent cups to teams in this situation. 

It's an advantage, definitely more so for the teams than for the players. I don't think players make decisions based directly off of no tax states, but I do think a team with four or five guys willing to take less definitely gives an advantage. 

 

Also agree with you on the luxury tax model. It would be very easy to say The cap is 90 million and however much over that you spend you also have to kick into a revenue sharing kitty. If you are over the cap, you don't get revenue sharing. 

 

It's allowing teams that want to spend to spend, however there's a price to pay for it. 

Edited July 1 by Pete