2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by New Era

This narrative needs to stop. I've seen it repeated multiple times in the past few weeks and it is so inaccurate and not reflective of reality. Some states have no personal state tax on income (earnings). Arizona is NOT one of them. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming levy no state income tax. New Hampshire and Tennessee don't tax earned wages, meaning investment income is taxed. In all off these states you are still required to pay federal tax on all income, then be exposed to the regular taxes in each state. What matters is the tax burden you end up carrying.

In Florida sales and property taxes are quite high and complex, raising the tax burden to about 6.82%. Coupled with a high cost of living comparative to other states and low quality of services (education and healthcare are all ranked near the bottom of the country) and Florida is no bargain to live in. Nevada has a high sales tax and it is imposed on everything. Sin taxes like those in Canada are imposed on goods like alcohol and cigarettes. The real tax burden in the silver state is 8.39%. Like Florida, service quality from the State is low with their education system taking a hit. Texas is like Florida and raises funds on sales and property taxes leading to a tax burden of 8.2% with a similar hit in public services (poor infrastructure that gets frozen out and shuts down the state for example). Washington relies on high sales and excise taxes and achieves a tax burden of 8.32%. Worse, Washington's cost of living is one of the highest in the nation making it one of the worst for affordability. Tennessee is actually one of the lowest taxed states, with a tax burden of only 6.18%, but the potential for marrying your sister increases greatly the longer you live in the State. Like other states with low taxes, services are also of low quality.

So how does this really compare in the overall picture for states with NHL teams? New York (Rangers, Islanders, Sabres) face a 12.28% tax burden (4.4% personal tax). Minnesota (Wild) face a 10.19% tax burden (3.61% personal tax). New Jersey (Devils) face a 9.88% tax burden (2.4% personal tax). Illinois (Blackhawks) faces a 9.62% tax burden (1.91% personal tax). Ohio (Jackets) faces a 9.34% tax burden (2.58% personal tax). California (Ducks, Kings, Sharks) face a 9.27% tax burden (3.56% personal tax). Massachusetts (Bruins) face a 8.76% tax burden (3.17% personal tax). Pennsylvania (Flyers, Penguins) face a 8.53% tax burden (2.51% personal tax). Colorado (Avs) face a 8.5% tax burden (2.22% personal tax). Washington (Kraken) face a 8.32% tax burden (0% personal tax). Michigan (Wings) face a 8.27% tax burden (2.18% personal tax). Arizona (Houston Red Necks) face a 8.25% tax burden (1.39% personal tax). Texas (Stars) face a 8.5% tax burden (2.22% personal tax). Missouri (Blues) face a 7.9% tax burden (2.38% personal tax). Florida (Lightning, Panthers) face a 6.82% tax burden (0% personal tax). Tennessee (Preds) face a 6.18% tax burden (0.08% personal tax).

So no, certain states do not have taxes, and no player is saving "millions of dollars" in taxes. They still catch you where they can. Those states are also some of the worst to live in if you have a family and have to rely on essential services like education, health services, and good infrastructure. Of course, when you're a millionaire most of these things don't matter to you. Which is why players are still flocking to New York and California based teams to play. The tax dodge is really a myth.

lol you know you’re really reaching when you’re tossing in subjective standards like “quality of life” and “access to services” to try and somehow argue that there isn’t a massive tax difference between different jurisdictions. The fact is you keep a lot more of your money in Arizona over Toronto. The fact is you’re paying 53% of your income to taxes in Toronto, and 41% in Arizona. If you’re Matthews making 10 mil a year that’s a difference of 1.2 million per year in taxes. So no, you’re wrong, it’s millions of dollars over a contract term difference. But I’m sure people are desperate to pay more to live in buffalo or Chicago because of infrastructure differences...

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Knut

Rumour that Eichel is out for awhile with an injury..

https://twitter.com/user/status/1369317522009452549

There's no quick cure for a broken heart. No timelines associated with being made whole again.

[Roof-Daddy]

As much agony as the Flames bring their fan base, it must pale in comparison to being a Sabres fan.

Two 1st overalls and a bunch more top 5 and top 10 picks in the last decade and they might be worse now than they were 10 years ago.

Literally nothing they do works. It's incredible.

It's like Darcy Regier put a curse on that franchise.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

lol you know you’re really reaching when you’re tossing in subjective standards like “quality of life” and “access to services” to try and somehow argue that there isn’t a massive tax difference between different jurisdictions. The fact is you keep a lot more of your money in Arizona over Toronto. The fact is you’re paying 53% of your income to taxes in Toronto, and 41% in Arizona. If you’re Matthews making 10 mil a year that’s a difference of 1.2 million per year in taxes. So no, you’re wrong, it’s millions of dollars over a contract term difference. But I’m sure people are desperate to pay more to live in buffalo or Chicago because of infrastructure differences...

Nice moving of the goalposts though, talking about "no state tax" - which is bull#### - to a comparison between Canada and the United States markets, which is also wrong, and then using one of the highest paid players in the game to make your point. Maybe look at it from the lowest common denominator and not the elite player? You can't compare the two because of the hidden of the costs of "living." There are hidden costs that you have to pay for in the United States that you don't in Canada. For example, healthcare is a cost that Americans have to pay but is included in your tax base in Canada. So if you want equitable healthcare, and your employer does not cover the full nut (hardly any do), you have to pay for those yourself, which is pretty much a hidden tax. These things add up. So while you toss out a bogus number of 41%, which is just what gets lopped off in income taxes, you ignore the other costs that come with living in a local. So while someone maybe exposed to this 41% tax, after they pay for healthcare (about 10% of their salary), then property taxes, the yearly registration fees, and so on, those things pile the hell up and you're well into the fifties for percentage. Professional athletes are on a completely different scale of magnitude, but they face the same challenges, especially of they have a family. And yes, for players that have families the quality of available services is extremely important. It's why players with families tend to gravitate to certain locations. If any of what you were saying was accurate not a single player would ever play in New York or California. But what you say is bull#### and the players continue to flock to these locations because the tax advantages between jurisdictions is not as large as you make it out to be and a lot of people want to live in these areas because of the life style advantages.

[Harry Lime]

It's going back a year or so, and I don't know which thread (NBA, MLB, NHL?) but there was a conversation on the variance in take home pay between cities for major league atheletes. What it came down to, with a lot of accountant talk that was over my head, was that the difference in actual take home pay is negligible. For a variety of reasons... most of the conversation was in some form of binary.

[CliffFletcher]

The Hockey News polls on where players prefer to play show every Canadian city except Toronto and Vancouver in the bottom third. Cities like Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa, and Vegas rate highly because however much they suck for the plebes, they have great enclaves for the rich with the best gated communities, golf courses, schools, and private hospitals money can buy. And of course the weather is much better, and players and their families get the anonymity many of them want.

[Bonded]

Yup, if I am rich the US is the place to be

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nice moving of the goalposts though, talking about "no state tax" - which is bull#### - to a comparison between Canada and the United States markets, which is also wrong, and then using one of the highest paid players in the game to make your point. Maybe look at it from the lowest common denominator and not the elite player? You can't compare the two because of the hidden of the costs of "living." There are hidden costs that you have to pay for in the United States that you don't in Canada. For example, healthcare is a cost that Americans have to pay but is included in your tax base in Canada. So if you want equitable healthcare, and your employer does not cover the full nut (hardly any do), you have to pay for those yourself, which is pretty much a hidden tax. These things add up. So while you toss out a bogus number of 41%, which is just what gets lopped off in income taxes, you ignore the other costs that come with living in a local. So while someone maybe exposed to this 41% tax, after they pay for healthcare (about 10% of their salary), then property taxes, the yearly registration fees, and so on, those things pile the hell up and you're well into the fifties for percentage. Professional athletes are on a completely different scale of magnitude, but they face the same challenges, especially of they have a family. And yes, for players that have families the quality of available services is extremely important. It's why players with families tend to gravitate to certain locations. If any of what you were saying was accurate not a single player would ever play in New York or California. But what you say is bull#### and the players continue to flock to these locations because the tax advantages between jurisdictions is not as large as you make it out to be and a lot of people want to live in these areas because of the life style advantages.

It depends on age. A young single player cares about money. His health care is taken care of. He rents. He wants fun off ice. He wants to play in Vegas.

Older players have made a pile already. They want a nice place where they can still make money, where they are relatively anonymous, where the neighborhood is nice. They play in San Jose.

That said, the tax advantage for players is a real thing, and it governs a lot of bottom line decision making. To match Stone I figure the Flames would have had to pay $1.5M more or thereabouts. Because not only do they have to make up the tax difference between what he pays there on his current salary, they'd have to pay for the incremental amount of increase on the higher salary to equal the take home.

[FlamesAddiction]

A lot of players, maybe even most, don't live in the cities they play in during the offseason and even keep their families at their offseason home during the season. They probably don't really see the benefit of their taxes. If they need a doctor for themselves, the team is likely covering it at a private facility and their families would go to the the doctor in their actual home city.

I realize that is just part of what higher taxes in Canada pay for, but many of the other things don't really affect their daily lives and they don't live in the city after playing, so there isn't even an investment value either. For an ordinary person, I can see how "hidden taxes" and costs make the difference in pay negligible, but for very wealthy people, it is probably different.

I wish the NHL would limit how many players on a team can have a NMC or NTC, or how you can qualify for one. In the NBA, a player has to be with their current team for at least 4 years to qualify. You can't just sign as a free agent and get one. Yeah, it sucks for them if they get traded somewhere with higher taxes, but it's what you sign up for when you join the NHL. Tough luck, life's not fair.

It's like when the NHL brought in the cap to have a level playing field, they had to make sure it wouldn't be exactly level.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It depends on age. A young single player cares about money. His health care is taken care of. He rents. He wants fun off ice. He wants to play in Vegas.

Older players have made a pile already. They want a nice place where they can still make money, where they are relatively anonymous, where the neighborhood is nice. They play in San Jose.

That said, the tax advantage for players is a real thing, and it governs a lot of bottom line decision making. To match Stone I figure the Flames would have had to pay $1.5M more or thereabouts. Because not only do they have to make up the tax difference between what he pays there on his current salary, they'd have to pay for the incremental amount of increase on the higher salary to equal the take home.

Actually, NHL families love Vegas. They rave about the community they live in, the schools, how great it is for kids, etc. It’s a major selling point of playing for the Knights.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, NHL families love Vegas. They rave about the community they live in, the schools, how great it is for kids, etc. It’s a major selling point of playing for the Knights.

I'm sure it is, but I was talking more about guys who haven't signed yet. They wouldn't necessarily know this. But, yeah, off strip Vegas is quite normal and pleasant (well, aside from unbearable heat for long stretches).

[shotinthebacklund]

DeBrusk scratched in Boston due to lack of effort.

Been a while since I watched him last but sure liked his skillset then, what would it take for the flames to get him ya figure?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

DeBrusk scratched in Boston due to lack of effort.

Been a while since I watched him last but sure liked his skillset then, what would it take for the flames to get him ya figure?

That would be a Sam Bennett swap I would be okay with but not much else.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

That would be a Sam Bennett swap I would be okay with but not much else.

He did score about 48 points per 82 games played over the three seasons from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. I could be wrong, but I would say the Flames would need to add to Bennett to get DeBrusk.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

DeBrusk scratched in Boston due to lack of effort.

Been a while since I watched him last but sure liked his skillset then, what would it take for the flames to get him ya figure?

I don't think the Flames are in a position in which they can acquire low-effort players. They already have enough problems with consistency as it is.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

DeBrusk scratched in Boston due to lack of effort.

Been a while since I watched him last but sure liked his skillset then, what would it take for the flames to get him ya figure?

Watching this team I’m not exactly sure adding a guy who’s getting scratched for lack of effort on a good team that’s a consistent cup contender is the best idea. Sutter or not no thanks.

[dino7c]

If only the Flames had a coach that could whip him into shape!

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Nelson

He did score about 48 points per 82 games played over the three seasons from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. I could be wrong, but I would say the Flames would need to add to Bennett to get DeBrusk.

Then I am not interested and move on.

[Geeoff]

IMO UFA signings and NTC are more likely to hurt your team than help, so I don't think where the players want to play has that much of a factor on team success. The media trying to make excuses for Canadian teams that have largely been managed poorly

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Watching this team I’m not exactly sure adding a guy who’s getting scratched for lack of effort on a good team that’s a consistent cup contender is the best idea. Sutter or not no thanks.

Maybe Boston's "lack of effort" is = Calgary's "look at that guy go".

Originally Posted by dino7c

If only the Flames had a coach that could whip him into shape!

Had the same thought, plus new team often = new effort, especially if that's why you were traded. Even James Neal seemed like he worked a bit harder when he got traded to Edmonton.