Does the NHL have a Canadian success problem?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Owners in Canada tend to be pretty Conservative with who they hire to run their teams. They're afraid to try some new ideas with their teams and tend to be a bit safe or cheap with their hires. So you have a system where you are overpaying for equal talent after rookie contracts. You only have players for 7 years. Plus the added pressure and scrutiny of the fan base. Maybe some unconventional ideas are warranted.

I look at Ottawa and they put together a decent foundation. But than they trade good picks in back to back years to add Debrincant and Chychryn, plus paid Giroux a good wage to come home. They also traded Gustavsson for the more proven but mediocre Talbot. The types of moves which can generate excitement and make the team better. But I'd argue having the picks plus cap space and Gustavsson probably have them in a better position to become an elite team. They fell into the same trap Calgary and Vancouver did in making these types of moves before their core was ready to win.

Also doesn't help that all "Luck" for the Canadian teams fell in the Oilers lap and they couldn't do much with it.

Yeah I thought Ottawa was really on track until they tried to aggressively accelerate the process last season. I like the route Buffalo is taking better as they didn't make any big splashes last offseason and still managed to have a better regular season than the Senators. They also have five picks in the first three rounds of what appears to be a pretty deep draft while the Senators don't pick until the 4th round. To me this is a prime example of the difference between how US and Canadian teams operate when rebuilding. Both teams smaller markets. Both teams have struggled over the last decade and both are getting close but one of the two teams has considerably more flexibility going forward by staying the course.

[Geeoff]

Nah. #### them other teams... respectfully. Canadian teams playing by the same rules at everyone else

[Flamescuprun2018]

Drop the CBA loophole for drafted 4 year NCAA players to become UFAs. It is unnecessary and favors a handful of US team.

If so, better advertise the increased endorsement revenues players receive on average when playing in Canada versus USA that would offset tax savings by playing in some US states. Perhaps that amount could be reported annually.

For example does Mitch Marner's Skip the Dishes ads address his Ontario income tax differential? Likely not but have no idea?

Otherwise fully agree. Impatience of Canadian teams is the heart of the problem. I blame the fluke and false hope of the 2014-15 season (many empty net and OT winners) on the errors that followed in hindsight for the Gaudreau/Mony Flames era.

Perhaps Flames org will finally get it next time...

[nfotiu]

Why does the NCAA handle hockey so much differently than football and baseball? Why not just have them declare for the draft when they are ready to play pro hockey?

[VilleN]

I don't see how it can possibly be mismanagement across the board for Canadian teams over the past 30 years. And if it is, it's likely due to the same market issue we have for players. Simply put, most Canadian markets are less desirable for players, coaches, and management positions. Canadian markets rarely get the big free agent signings, I've never heard of a player refusing to sign in a bigger American market so he can play in Canada... the reverse happens very frequently. There is a clear handicap for Canadian teams, and IMO it accounts for the lack of success. It is hard enough to build a winner, you need a lot to go right and often times Canadian teams (especially the smaller market ones) have the deck stacked against them.

Edit: Let's take Vegas - Mark Stone and Jack Eichel are there because they wanted to be there. Would they have made it to the WCF without those two players? Unlikely. Might Edmonton be there instead? - or maybe they don't make the playoffs at all and Calgary squeaks in.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't see how it can possibly be mismanagement across the board for Canadian teams over the past 30 years. And if it is, it's likely due to the same market issue we have for players. Simply put, most Canadian markets are less desirable for players, coaches, and management positions. Canadian markets rarely get the big free agent signings, I've never heard of a player refusing to sign in a bigger American market so he can play in Canada... the reverse happens very frequently. There is a clear handicap for Canadian teams, and IMO it accounts for the lack of success. It is hard enough to build a winner, you need a lot to go right and often times Canadian teams (especially the smaller market ones) have the deck stacked against them.

Edit: Let's take Vegas - Mark Stone and Jack Eichel are there because they wanted to be there. Would they have made it to the WCF without those two players? Unlikely. Might Edmonton be there instead? - or maybe they don't make the playoffs at all and Calgary squeaks in.

TB isn't a "bigger market" but Tavares definitely chose Canada. I've seen a fair number of lower level players say they really wanted to play in Canada because of fan appreciation. Then again, for them money is about equal no matter where they are. But not too many stars that I can recall.



Idea for different topic: CBA changes to level the playing field like the cap was supposed to do. Like maybe annual adjustments based on tax burdens. Maybe a limit on NMCs per team. Maybe better rules/testing on LTIR. Limits on multiple retentions per player contract.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm not sure, but I don't think that is exactly right. At least in the US, I think they would pay home state tax (if there is one) on their whole salary, but do get charged a "jock tax" of 3% of the portion considered earned in the visiting state.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...h=d71b72a411e8

A google search suggests that's not the case - they pay tax where the live and where they earn their money, which is where they actually play the games. However, it's complicated.

In any event, in my view the bottom line is this. It is a very small minority of circumstances where tax matters. For it to matter:

1) The player has to have a say in where they play (so UFAs, for the most part, or in listing destinations on NTCs or NMCs);

2) The jurisdiction they want to play in has to want the player;

3) The jurisdiction they want ot play in has to have cap space for the player, or be able to create it; and

4) The player chooses this jurisdiction over others solely for tax reasons, and not the multitude of other reasons they may want to play in a certain place (competitiveness, family proximity, other perks of the city/area like cost of living, night life, schools, proximity to mountains, etc.)

Tax is merely a perk and I think quite far down the list of the most important things for a player. I would bet it is the extreme minority of circumstances where it is more than just a tiebreaker.

NYC is the prime example. It's the highest-tax jurisdiction in the NHL, and the cost of living likely the highest anywhere in the NHL. Dollar-for-dollar you're likely poorer playing in NYC than anywhere else. Yet they are the poster child for players wanting to play there ... it's not money.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't see how it can possibly be mismanagement across the board for Canadian teams over the past 30 years. And if it is, it's likely due to the same market issue we have for players. Simply put, most Canadian markets are less desirable for players, coaches, and management positions. Canadian markets rarely get the big free agent signings, I've never heard of a player refusing to sign in a bigger American market so he can play in Canada... the reverse happens very frequently. There is a clear handicap for Canadian teams, and IMO it accounts for the lack of success. It is hard enough to build a winner, you need a lot to go right and often times Canadian teams (especially the smaller market ones) have the deck stacked against them.

Edit: Let's take Vegas - Mark Stone and Jack Eichel are there because they wanted to be there. Would they have made it to the WCF without those two players? Unlikely. Might Edmonton be there instead? - or maybe they don't make the playoffs at all and Calgary squeaks in.

I don’t know. I think it is bad management at the Canadian level. Similar to the Rangers, they try and stay competitive with UFAs. Calgary had the best set up to rebuild for any team in years and instead committed big contracts to three older players. Kadri had other offers than Calgary.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don’t know. I think it is bad management at the Canadian level. Similar to the Rangers, they try and stay competitive with UFAs. Calgary had the best set up to rebuild for any team in years and instead committed big contracts to three older players. Kadri had other offers than Calgary.

I think a big part of resisting rebuilds in Canadian markets is the fact that it is already harder to lure players here, let alone convince them to come to a rebuilding team on top of that.

Part of any rebuild is to build through the draft, then when the window starts to open, supplement the team through trades and free agency. Most teams in the U.S. have no problem with that second part. They don't need to think about it that much. With Canadian teams, it is a lot harder to count on that part because free agents are less likely to come, and like a quarter of the players, and most of the best players, have movement clauses. If you do rebuild, you risk getting stuck in the first part of the cycle, unless you totally luck out and get a McDavid.

As much as I would like the Flames to try a rebuild, I get the resistance to it and can't blame management.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Part of any rebuild is to build through the draft, then when the window starts to open, supplement the team through trades and free agency. Most teams in the U.S. have no problem with that second part. They don't need to think about it that much. With Canadian teams, it is a lot harder to count on that part because free agents are less likely to come, and like a quarter of the players, and most of the best players, have movement clauses. If you do rebuild, you risk getting stuck in the first part of the cycle, unless you totally luck out and get a McDavid.

Thing is the key is to draft well.

Players want to play with other good players. Good young teams will always attract free agents.

Some markets will always have an advantage (Vegas, New York, LA) but for the rest of the teams it is drafting good players and having good young teams that will attract free agents.

Flames had no issue attracting free agents during the Treliving era, because the core of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan seemed to be attractive to play with.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Thing is the key is to draft well.

Players want to play with other good players. Good young teams will always attract free agents.

Some markets will always have an advantage (Vegas, New York, LA) but for the rest of the teams it is drafting good players and having good young teams that will attract free agents.

Flames had no issue attracting free agents during the Treliving era, because the core of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan seemed to be attractive to play with.

well, that plus Treliving paid them well

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Eliminating the NTC and NMC will help player movement, and will give smaller market teams and teams in undesirable cities a fair chance of trading for star players.

Lotsa luck getting players to agree to that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Lotsa luck getting players to agree to that.

I think it's easier to get them to agree to a max per team, because the players will think they are the ones who will get it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

well, that plus Treliving paid them well

I also wouldn't say the Flames had no problem. I am sure we were turned down a lot and had to settle because of the Canadian factor. No teams build strictly through the draft. Trades and free agency are required to build a championship team, and players have a lot of control over that in the NHL.

[TheKiprusoffResurrection]

Originally Posted by Buff

I don't think there is much of a problem since the lockout of 2005. Before that there was uneven playing grounds where only one Canadian team had a chance of building a competitive team. Now they all can host a competitive team if they have competent management/ownership.

The odds are low due to amount of teams in the league. 32 teams in the league and only 7 of them are Canadian. Should the state of New York be worried about winning only one cup in 39 years? The Canadian teams have won 7 in that time! What's the issue?

Winning and "not winning" is not tied to where the team is located.

Hmmm, interesting framing.

Because you could also say, in the last 30 years the State of NY has 1 cup, 2 teams. In the same time frame Canada has 0, 7 teams. Looks a bit more lopsided when you put it that way.

Trying to include cups won by Canadian franchises in the late 80's/early 90's is pretty silly, imo. Totally different league back then, totally different realities.

The poster that made the point about NTC/NMC hit the nail on the head, IMO. As long as the league continues to allow those clauses in contracts, Canadian teams (with a POSSIBLE exception of TO) will continue to struggle. And to be fair, I don't blame the players for having Canadian teams on their list (for a variety of reasons), it just shouldn't be allowed if you actually want parity.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheKiprusoffResurrection

Hmmm, interesting framing.

Because you could also say, in the last 30 years the State of NY has 1 cup, 2 teams. In the same time frame Canada has 0, 7 teams. Looks a bit more lopsided when you put it that way.

TBF there have been 6 finals appearances by Canadian teams (and 4 went 7 games) so they had a chance to win it.

And it was in in 2004.

[TheKiprusoffResurrection]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

TBF there have been 6 finals appearances by Canadian teams (and 4 went 7 games) so they had a chance to win it.

And it was in in 2004.

To be even fairer, close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

But, you do have a point. It was in.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheKiprusoffResurrection

To be even fairer, close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

But, you do have a point. It was in.

The point is, if you have an opportunity to win in game 7 of the Finals it's hard to blame anything structural for the lack of cups.

[Macindoc]

I have to disagree with the posts that say that the lack of a Canadian Cup winner in the past 30 years is statistically normal. If you do a quick calculation based on a random distribution of winners and an average of 31 teams (and 7 Canadian teams) in the past 30 years, the probability of a Canadian team not winning at least once is 0.0004628992. There's definitely an element of geographical preference with free agents and NTCs, for reasons of climate in some cases, amenities in other cases, and tax burden in others. American teams have also benefited much more from LTIR and league-sanctioned voiding of select contracts (such as Kane's in San Jose).

You can argue that management is a reason, and there is merit to that argument. I would, however, counter that even a moderate difference in the effectiveness of different teams' managements (and let's be honest, there isn't likely a huge amount of difference at that level; every single NHL GM has had good things and bad things on their resume) could not overcome those overwhelming odds, so there is clearly something structural with the current CBA and/or the league that is preventing Canadian teams from having success.

[curves2000]

I also wonder sometimes if the differences between Canadian's comfort level with living in the US and am American's living in Canada may also play a small role.

I generally find that a lot of Canadians are more comfortable with American culture, values, politics, currency, rules/laws and customs etc. We know more about their news, tv shows, companies/ corporations. I don't find a lot of Canadian's think of living in the US as "foreign" as much. A lot of people have traveled there a lot, have vacation homes and are generally more comfortable.

I do find that American's look at Canada as a lot more of a foreign country. Not adapting as well, wondering why this and that is the way it is.

I have seen it first hands with friends who have brought wives and girlfriends here and some of the struggles. Year's later trying to figure out the metric system, how much the currency is worth, why Canadian Amazon isn't as good.

It's not everybody but it has to be enough people. I recall a podcast where former Flame Brandon Bollig talked about his time in Calgary. Had a very positive experience overall and attributed "living in foreign country" as checking off something of a bucket list.

I just don't ever recall any sort of Canadian player ever really describe the USA as really foreign.

Maybe I am overthinking this