THOUGHTS? Balanced Salary Cap.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

This is a downright silly idea. Where do you even draw the line because there is a lot more that taxes which affect the desirability of places to live.

In the end all these workarounds do is make it easier for regions to avoid fixing the fundamental problems which makes them more or less desirable. It is self defeating. The pressure should be on the region to fix whatever issues they need to (taxes/culture/traffic/discrimination/...whatever) in order to make the region more desirable to live in.

You would draw the line at something that's relevant and material to the salary cap. Like taxes.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by ToraToraTora

You would draw the line at something that's relevant and material to the salary cap. Like taxes.

All taxes like property taxes, sales (or no sales) tax. What about health care costs? Those are very significant in the US. So maybe tie it to cost of living as well?

Interesting idea, but impossible to implement I think.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Players honestly don't really care at the end of the day. If they're in a city they want to be in and on a team that can win, they'll play there.

If players cared that much about the tax rate they'd just suck on purpose and be sent to the minors where they don't have to pay escrow. That's a way bigger discount than any tax rate between states or countries.

[GreenLantern2814]

Taxes taxes taxes. Yeesh.

I'm all for playing with the salary cap to encourage transactions. IE if a player was drafted by your organization, they don't count against the cap until they're into UFA years. Or perhaps they count a percentage of the deal, but not all of it. Or maybe you have to have a team that, at the beginning of the year, hits certain salary thresholds. But once the season starts, the more homegrown players you have in the lineup, the more cap savings you can begin to accrue.

Player movement really helps to drive interest in the league, and the cap has kinda killed that. I want to see trades on more days than the deadline and the draft.

[Chingas]

I don't think that is a crazy idea and the simple solution might be to apply post tax earnings to a salary cap.

Sorry to piggy back on your thread but I always wondered why players aren't signed to a percentage of the cap contract as opposed to dollar value. For example Johnny might be signed for 9% of the cap, and each player on the team represents a percentage. This would alleviate any concerns over the cap increasing or decreasing. The only issue that I can see is the players being nervous of the obvious potential of the cap number being tampered with but they are already fighting that battle anyway.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Chingas

I don't think that is a crazy idea and the simple solution might be to apply post tax earnings to a salary cap.

You got it right. Only a player's net income would count towards the cap, and we would represent and talk about salaries in this way.

Johnny Rocket signs a contract for net $2 million US per season. If he signed the contract in Florida maybe they pay him $3.5 million gross in order to get to $2 million net. If he signs in Calgary, then maybe they have to pay him $4 million gross.

Only that $2 million net salary would apply to any team's salary cap.

That takes care of changing tax rates, and doesn't affect players or team cap situations when players get traded. The difference would be absorbed by the team.

I'm not quite sure if the owners would be interested, and how it would affect their bottom line, but it would certainly level the playing field when it comes to taxes which are probably the biggest difference maker to players on the money side of things.

I feel like any difference in property values are something you will get back anyway when you sell your home, and things like living expenses/health care, etc are such a small percentage of the salary of someone making millions per year that they don't really matter.

A ten percent difference in taxes on millions is another matter.

[calf]

I like the theory of the idea but it makes making trades even more complex. The implementation will be so complex.

[You Need a Thneed]

With various deductions, exact tax rates are never completely defined. So how does this even work? Do you use every players tax returns to figure out an exact amount? I don't think so.

[JohnnyTitan]

Obviously this is one of those "Off-Season" discussions that are fun to throw around. The idea might have some merit...but here's what the thought process @ the NHL and NHLPA would be:

"Does the NFL cater to tax rates? Does the NBA? Nope. OK. We're done here"

[TheAlpineOracle]

New York and California are two of the highest taxed States in the US (think basically the same as living in Ontario), and players line up to sign in both markets. I think on ice results and quality of life (weather, restaurants, things do do, etc.) play into this a hell a lot more than taxes do.

Ben Bishop signed in Dallas because he wanted to live there. No winter, and can live like a baller while still enjoying basically complete anonymity. No one knows, or cares who he is down there. If i was a hockey player, i'd be hoping like hell I would get drafted by a US team, and if I didn't, there's zero chance I would stay in a Canadian market a minute longer than I had to, and I am a Canadian so I can only imagine how most US players must feel.

Calgary is a great place to live for normal people, these aren't normal people. They can live like royalty wherever they so choose, and an extra 1M a year probably isn't going to make people want to live in a fishbowl for NHL players. If you like the spotlight, you'd love the Canadian markets. If you don't, well, you sign in places like Dallas.

[MarkGio]

The league wouldn't like it. The league supports less cap space because it decreases their costs. I don't think they care all that much about parity. Not when you can always find stupid municipalities like Glendale to screw over their citizens over a sport that nobody watches.

[skeena1]

What team in a city with an attractive tax rate would ever vote for that?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by skeena1

What team in a city with an attractive tax rate would ever vote for that?

A team in that position might save $10 million a year in actual cash on a cap-maxed roster. I could see how it might appeal to them.

[Passe La Puck]

Why? You want California and New York to have extra money to spend on players?

[Pointman]

I would support it. It will increase parity and increasing parity did wonders to the NHL in the last decade.

[six pack]

I know for a fact that taxes are much higher than Alberta in many US states - pretty much the entire North East, Minnesota, and Cali. Basically Florida, and now Vegas will be in the primo savings corner.

We also tend to forget that from a tax standpoint that most times a player plays in say NY - they actually pay NY taxes. So its really only a home game issue. So if is a tax issue then its basically a lie. TExas is very close to Alberta in terms of tax rates.

[MarkGio]

Completely unrelated, but I think the league should bring back the 2 free compliance buy-outs. Or at least have one every two years for each team.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Completely unrelated, but I think the league should bring back the 2 free compliance buy-outs. Or at least have one every two years for each team.

Why? It's fun watching GMs having to squirm. It also allows the cyclical nature of team success in the league. If teams like the hawks, kings, bruins, etc, were allowed to repeatedly walk away from contracts, they would easily remain powerhouses for another 3-4 years. The hawks are having to annually play cap gymnastics and have been smart/lucky in maintaining their status year over year. a team like the kings could really accelerate their re-tool by walking away on terrible deals like dustin brown.