[Trade] Stars trade for Bishop and sign him to 6 year deal ($4.916 mil AAV)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is not necessarily true. High salary players in California pay more tax than any canadian city, as much as 52.9% If you are an American playing in Canada, your bonus dollars are only taxed at 15%.

If you live in Manhattan, your state taxes will be 4% higher than non-manhattan residents. Philadelphia has a local education tax tied to income. I believe one of the incentives towards philadelphia flyers players living in southern new jersey is the ability to file a tax return for the state they live in but not work in, saving them 3-6% in tax per year.

Based on location and salary Anze Kopitar may have paid the most tax in the NHL last year, but it might have been Lundqvist.

Calgary and Edmonton are no longer the two lowest tax jurisdictions for NHLers but I believe they are still top 10. It's not like big name free agents were flocking to the Alberta capital or to the Flames for that matter, even with the low taxes.

wooooooooo, friday night tax discussion!

True, but instead of just dismissing the fact, I would look at it the other way and suggest that enticing free agents only becomes that much harder if you take that advantage away.

Tax rates matter. They aren't the only thing, for sure. And as you say, some US cities have high taxes as well. But the idiosyncrasies you mentioned don't change the fact that taxes are a big factor and Alberta has lost what was once a plus.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I couldn't care less, does he make this team better?
If so I want him.

There's no guarantee he would have made the team better. None. Ben Bishop went to the Kings and put up the worst numbers of a goaltender not named Zatkoff. He played sub .500 hockey and posted a worse save percentage to Brian Elliott in Calgary. There are no guarantees.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by New Era

There's no guarantee he would have made the team better. None. Ben Bishop went to the Kings and put up the worst numbers of a goaltender not named Zatkoff. He played sub .500 hockey and posted a worse save percentage to Brian Elliott in Calgary. There are no guarantees.

Of course there are no guarantees, but you still have to go with the guy who has the best chance to succeed based on past performance, if you can get him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by New Era

There's no guarantee he would have made the team better. None. Ben Bishop went to the Kings and put up the worst numbers of a goaltender not named Zatkoff. He played sub .500 hockey and posted a worse save percentage to Brian Elliott in Calgary. There are no guarantees.

Right there are no guarantees. So you look for goalie with highest likelihood of success. Not the cheapest, or "lowest risk" move IMO.

[cannon7]

Watch as Bishop continues the trend of being increasingly injury prone and the Stars basically have their Lehtonen situation all over again.

[pepper24]

Great signing by Dallas. I think this puts them in a playoff spot as goaltending was what held them back. Flames will need a good goalie now to make sure it's not their playoff spot being taking. Will be interesting what's the Flames Plan B is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheMagicMan]

Great article in case you have not read this yet...

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/...y-its.html?m=1

[Roof-Daddy]

I'll be pretty surprised if the Stars don't make huge strides next year.

Mobile, young puck moving D that just added one of the best puck handling goalies there is.

They added Hitch who will likely tighten that team up defensively, and then you combine that with adding a top 5 goalie in the league from 2012-2016. If last year was just an off year for Bishop and not the start of a decline, that's huge.

If they can regain their scoring touch from a couple seasons ago they should climb the standings next season.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by TheMagicMan

Great article in case you have not read this yet...

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/...y-its.html?m=1

This does make it sound like the Flames are really the only realistic place that Fleury could be traded to before the expansion draft. It's either trade Fleury to the Flames for whatever you can get or buy him out. I suppose Fleury could be an idiot and waive his NMC. Don't see why he would do that unless he would rather play in Vegas than Calgary, which is possible I suppose.

No reason for Treliving to give up a lot in a trade for Fleury. There is a good chance he becomes a UFA when he's bought out before the expansion draft.

[Canada 02]

is there a buyout window before the expansion draft?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Great signing by Dallas. I think this puts them in a playoff spot as goaltending was what held them back. Flames will need a good goalie now to make sure it's not their playoff spot being taking. Will be interesting what's the Flames Plan B is now.

If the Flames place within the division, then it doesn't matter how much the Stars have improved. I think it is a realistic expectation to see them move past SJ next year.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fire

...I suppose Fleury could be an idiot and waive his NMC. Don't see why he would do that unless he would rather play in Vegas than Calgary, which is possible I suppose...

I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe that is an option that saves Pittsburgh from having to protect Fleury, is it?

[stang]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe that is an option that saves Pittsburgh from having to protect Fleury, is it?

If Fleury will waive his NTC, then he can be left available for Vegas.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

is there a buyout window before the expansion draft?

Yes, the buyout period starts either on June 15 or 48 hours after the Final ends, whichever is later.

Game 7 of the Final will likely be scheduled for June 12 this year (give or take a day), which means the buyout window will open on June 15. Teams have to submit their protected lists on June 17, so there will be about a 48 hour window for teams to buy players out.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe that is an option that saves Pittsburgh from having to protect Fleury, is it?

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansi...es/c-281010592

All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

True, but instead of just dismissing the fact, I would look at it the other way and suggest that enticing free agents only becomes that much harder if you take that advantage away.

Tax rates matter. They aren't the only thing, for sure. And as you say, some US cities have high taxes as well. But the idiosyncrasies you mentioned don't change the fact that taxes are a big factor and Alberta has lost what was once a plus.

Taxes are 'a' factor. They are obviously not a massive factor because for the preceding 10 years when Calgary had the lowest tax burden of any team in the NHL they were pretty much only successful signing/retaining players from the general area.

If taxes were the biggest deal you'd think Every player in the league would avoid California and sign in Florida, and yet the California teams are at the top of every FA players list. If the Florida Panthers have such low taxes and it's such a nice climate, why do the Panthers routinely appear in the top 5 or 10 for being listed on a players no-trade list? Same with Phoenix.

The difference between the best tax jurisdiction and the 10th best is a few percentage points.

I mean, Brad Richards chose to take less money, and pay 12% more tax, to join the Rangers rather than play in Calgary.

The biggest factor when it comes to Canadian teams and taxation is the inability for players in Canada to claim their agent and lawyers fees like they can in the US, which is of course is not a tax jurisdiction issue but a revenue canada tax policy issue.

3 Years ago when the Oilers and Flames had the best tax jurisdictions in the NHL they were both top 5 least desirable locations to play in. Which is weird, because players playing for Canadian teams also receive an exchange boost being paid in US dollars and living in Canada. That's 20% more income just to live in Calgary and pay a couple of percent more tax than somewhere else.

An NHL player pays more tax to play for Minnesota than Calgary, and yet Minnesota doesn't appear to have much difficulty attracting free agents.

Player agents will tell you tax concerns for most players are an after thought. No one is deciding between playing for Carolina or Buffalo based on taxes.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Taxes are 'a' factor. They are obviously not a massive factor because for the preceding 10 years when Calgary had the lowest tax burden of any team in the NHL they were pretty much only successful signing/retaining players from the general area.

If taxes were the biggest deal you'd think Every player in the league would avoid California and sign in Florida, and yet the California teams are at the top of every FA players list. If the Florida Panthers have such low taxes and it's such a nice climate, why do the Panthers routinely appear in the top 5 or 10 for being listed on a players no-trade list? Same with Phoenix.

The difference between the best tax jurisdiction and the 10th best is a few percentage points.

I mean, Brad Richards chose to take less money, and pay 12% more tax, to join the Rangers rather than play in Calgary.

The biggest factor when it comes to Canadian teams and taxation is the inability for players in Canada to claim their agent and lawyers fees like they can in the US, which is of course is not a tax jurisdiction issue but a revenue canada tax policy issue.

3 Years ago when the Oilers and Flames had the best tax jurisdictions in the NHL they were both top 5 least desirable locations to play in. Which is weird, because players playing for Canadian teams also receive an exchange boost being paid in US dollars and living in Canada. That's 20% more income just to live in Calgary and pay a couple of percent more tax than somewhere else.

An NHL player pays more tax to play for Minnesota than Calgary, and yet Minnesota doesn't appear to have much difficulty attracting free agents.

Player agents will tell you tax concerns for most players are an after thought. No one is deciding between playing for Carolina or Buffalo based on taxes.

We already agree that it is 'a' factor not the factor.

My point was that the Canadian teams are swimming upstream already. At least they had a tax advantage for a while, but now, not even that.

As to the bold, between '06 and '15, the dollar spent most of that time at or near par - a huge disadvantage for Canada. Now the dollar is much better (from a player's salary perspective), but the tax advantage is gone.

We are saying similar things. I think taxes are a bigger factor than you do, but without question, they are not the only factor.

NY and LA are so popular, they can charge the highest tax rates and still be a desirable location. The Canadian cities do not have that luxury.

Edit: as to your last comment, everyone has different priorities. That is an empty statement. I know people that have moved because of taxes. I know businesses that have uprooted themselves and moved the entire company due to taxes.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

What are you talking about? Taxes haven't changed significantly over the last couple years.

This still makes me laugh. That's like saying the US president, Canadian prime minister, and Alberta premier haven't changed significantly over the last couple years.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Well according to this Gavin site the difference is under 2.5M over the length of the contract. That's less than 500k per year. So if he wanted 2M more per year to come to Calgary it's probably because of the great weather and not minor tax differences.

Only 2.5 million more? 500k a year? Chump change. I know that wouldn't have any baring on my decision at all. 2.5 million...

[Lanny_McDonald]

When are people going to come to a realization that Calgary isn't a good target for UFAs? Seriously, Calgary is only marginally better than Edmonton and Winnipeg. You're going to have to overpay a free agent of any consequence to land there. Bishop, as an example, may have possibly considered Calgary an option, but only at $6-7M a season, which is a 50% premium over what he got in Dallas. It's time to recognize that goaltending options for Calgary are limited, and the best option is to come up with a home grown solution.