Most Frequent Named Teams on Players No-Go Lists

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No.

Look: If a player makes $1,000,000 a year in Canada (all salaries paid in USD), that becomes about $1,350,000 in CAD. If the same player makes the same $1,000,000 in the U.S., that also becomes $1,350,000 in CAD. Only an idiot would assume that because the number in his income was larger, that meant he had more purchasing power.

It's exactly as if a man were exactly 72 inches tall, then measured himself at 182.88 centimetres, and because 182.88 > 72, concluded that he had grown taller. Measuring a thing in different units does not cause you to have more of it.

i think you missed the point. If you make US$1m in 2014 vs. 2017 and live in LA or Nashville, little has changed. If you live in Calgary, that US$1m is now worth C$1.35m instead of C$1.1m. And C$1.35m goes a lot further than C$1.1m

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

i think you missed the point. If you make US$1m in 2014 vs. 2017 and live in LA or Nashville, little has changed. If you live in Calgary, that US$1m is now worth C$1.35m instead of C$1.1m. And C$1.35m goes a lot further than C$1.1m

That's what I got out of it. The dollar was closer to parity when the survey was last taken versus now.

But again, it sounds like the tax and exchange rate situation factors into their decisions very little. A competitive team and a strong organization that does right by its players is probably a much bigger draw. I mean, think about yourself -- would you go uproot your life to work for some company in one city versus another just because the taxes are lower?

[FlamesAddiction]

If I negotiated a contract to play in a state or province where taxes are lower and it was a consideration during negotiations for the contract, then I would probably want a clause preventing me from being moved to a place where taxes were significantly higher.

When it comes to negotiating contracts, I think players will often adjust their demand to match a desired take-home amount.

I guess what I am getting at is that a "no-trade" list is probably different than a list of places that a player would not want to go as a free agent. For example, if I negotiated a contract to play in Montreal and asked for more money to cover the higher taxes, I would have no issue being traded to Calgary where the taxes are quite a bit lower. But if I signed in Chicago and took a discount due to their low tax rate, I might include Calgary on my list due to taxes there being relatively higher.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

so basically teams that are not very good, to outright sucking for years.

shows it's not climate or taxes as much as wanting a chance to compete for the cup on a regular basis.

Winnipeg, Edmonton, Buffalo: Dreadful
Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Brooklyn, Denver: Cold as balls
Columbus: Average
Florida: Hot
Arizona: Too effing hot

I would pin the suck factor on 2, maybe 3 of those teams

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

i think you missed the point. If you make US$1m in 2014 vs. 2017 and live in LA or Nashville, little has changed. If you live in Calgary, that US$1m is now worth C$1.35m instead of C$1.1m. And C$1.35m goes a lot further than C$1.1m

But when deciding where to go in 2014 you couldn't have been certain that would have happened, so you're essentially betting -- choosing to hold CAD over USD, over YEN; which is just speculation on an investment just like any other, and not really how you'd base your decision to sign.

In the short term you might make money, but in the long term it doesn't matter. Cost over living is more relevant than exchange rates, and most young players are not thinking about cost of living.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by sempuki

But when deciding where to go in 2014 you couldn't have been certain that would have happened, so you're essentially betting -- choosing to hold CAD over USD, over YEN; which is just speculation on an investment just like any other, and not really how you'd base your decision to sign.

In the short term you might make money, but in the long term it doesn't matter. Cost over living is more relevant than exchange rates, and most young players are not thinking about cost of living.

young players dont have no move clauses

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

young players dont have no move clauses

Older players aren't thinking much about cost of living either. A man and his family can live very well indeed without using up even the after-tax portion of the NHL minimum salary. What matters far more to most NHL players is the value of their investments, which will provide them with income when their short hockey careers are over; and that is exactly the same no matter what currency you use to measure it.

[Calgary4LIfe]

You can tell exactly what players are looking for when you see the New York Rangers never having a problem attracting free agents - and I imagine few if any players have them on their no-trade list - and compare that to the Islanders.

Chance to win has always been the biggest consideration. Next on the list is probably what the GM promises or shows where they have an opportunity in the lineup. Then it is everything else - climate, location, taxes, who the coach is (yep, there are players who will refuse to play for a certain coach regardless of all the above).

I am sure that Edmonton will experience a much easier time attracting free agents. I imagine Calgary also having less NTCs enacted against them. Vancouver - as nice of a city as it is - probably is experiencing the opposite, and have to overpay for free agents.

That is the one nice thing about being in a place that gives a player the opportunity to win - you don't have to overpay AS MUCH in the UFA market. It is usually an over-payment, but probably less of one.

[TheScorpion]

Well, for years the Isles played in Uniondale, which doesn't help, especially when compared to the city.

[CliffFletcher]

Don't underestimate the proximity of family. If a player is married - especially if they have (or are expecting to have) kids - you can bet she will have a big say in where they live. And that usually means close to her parents. There's a reason big-ticket American UFAs never sign in Canada, and it isn't the weather.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

My belief having talked to players and an agent are that Taxes are basically inconsequential to most players.

Because they are mostly dimwits?

[Young_Guns]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yes everyone is paid in USD.

They are paid in whichever of the 2 currencies is stronger at the time if I am not mistaken. I think I heard Bettman state this. Obviously they are currently paid in USD but I am not so sure it was that way a few years ago.

[Jay Random]

CBA section 11.17:

11.17 Currency. All SPCs must provide for compensation in U.S. Currency for Paragraph 1 Salary and Bonuses.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Don't underestimate the proximity of family. If a player is married - especially if they have (or are expecting to have) kids - you can bet she will have a big say in where they live. And that usually means close to her parents. There's a reason big-ticket American UFAs never sign in Canada, and it isn't the weather.

I agree but the weather doesn't hurt. Pronger's wife couldn't handle the Edmonton winter and left town half way into the season. Wife's have a say in where their husbands play and you can understand why southern American females may not be overly excited about coming up north to Canada.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I agree but the weather doesn't hurt. Pronger's wife couldn't handle the Edmonton winter and left town half way into the season. Wife's have a say in where their husbands play and you can understand why southern American females may not be overly excited about coming up north to Canada.

Pronger's wife is kind of an exception I think.

She has more money than him. I think most hockey wives would realize how lucky they are to be with an NHL player, and will suck it up if he feels like a cold weather city is the best option.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Pronger's wife is kind of an exception I think.

She has more money than him. I think most hockey wives would realize how lucky they are to be with an NHL player, and will suck it up if he feels like a cold weather city is the best option.

They should be grateful that their husbands chose them so they shouldn't say anything if they don't like the weather? That's pretty silly.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

They should be grateful that their husbands chose them so they shouldn't say anything if they don't like the weather? That's pretty silly.

Is it?

I think 10 years tops for most players is a career, and then you have unlimited freedom.

I don't think most spouses would mind making that kind of small sacrifice in exchange for the lifestyle it affords.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Is it?

I think 10 years tops for most players is a career, and then you have unlimited freedom.

I don't think most spouses would mind making that kind of small sacrifice in exchange for the lifestyle it affords.

10 years is a lot of years to spend in -40 weather for months at a time when you're unaccustomed to it. You can suck it up or your husband can get traded to somewhere warm where he can still make millions.

[EldrickOnIce]

Yeah.
Obviously the handmaid should merely thank the Lord and her wealthy benefactor for everything she has been given.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Pronger's wife is kind of an exception I think.

She has more money than him. I think most hockey wives would realize how lucky they are to be with an NHL player, and will suck it up if he feels like a cold weather city is the best option.

a marriage is a partnership. if a player has a choice of where he wants to play, darn rights the spouse should have input.

she's the one who has to be there 100% of the time.
she's the one staying home, taking care of the family, stuck dealing full time with the weather and holding things together while her husband for much for the year is a ghost.

you sure have a dim view of hockey wives as people.