Value of: Stamkos

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Let's not swing things to extremes. There are plenty of perks of living that are within reason- weather, media, fan atmosphere, work environment, friends/teammates/staff list goes on. But fundamentally, you have a salary cap for a reason. You don't have a weather cap, like the NHL for the Superbowl or some other nonsense...what's the logic behind a salary cap in the first place? Because right now, it fundamentally gives an advantage, financially, to teams in Texas/Florida. Anyways, I'll stop going off-topic.

So then you'd be all for any money that players make in endorsements counting towards the cap too? Fundamentally, that gives an advantage, financially, to teams in Canada as they have a much less competitive market for marketable sports stars.
 

firstemperor

Registered User
May 25, 2011
8,755
1,445
So then you'd be all for any money that players make in endorsements counting towards the cap too? Fundamentally, that gives an advantage, financially, to teams in Canada as they have a much less competitive market for marketable sports stars.

No, because that has nothing to do with NHL salary. What does third party endorsements have to do with circumventing the cap, meant to police NHL salary. It's outside of the scope of the cap to place regulations outside of its framework.

Those to me, are perks of living at best. Like you mentioned earlier, teams in Canada have to deal with weather, media scrutiny. Again, I have to ask, the cap was designed for a purpose- right now, it fundamentally gives teams in Florida/Texas a financial advantage.

This is beyond the point that a given player "may" make more in endorsements in Canada than the US. I don't know if endorsement money for Matt Martin swings the boat either way- playing in the US or Canada. Just like I don't know if Crosby would necessarily make more in endorsements playing in the US vs Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kobe Armstrong

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
No, because that has nothing to do with NHL salary. What does third party endorsements have to do with circumventing the cap, meant to police NHL salary. It's outside of the scope of the cap to place regulations outside of its framework.

Those to me, are perks of living at best. Like you mentioned earlier, teams in Canada have to deal with weather, media scrutiny. Again, I have to ask, the cap was designed for a purpose- right now, it fundamentally gives teams in Florida/Texas a financial advantage.

This is beyond the point that a given player "may" make more in endorsements in Canada than the US. I don't know if endorsement money for Matt Martin swings the boat either way- playing in the US or Canada. Just like I don't know if Crosby would necessarily make more in endorsements playing in the US vs Canada.

Wait. So a player playing for a team - sometimes not even by choice via draft - in a state that has decided to fund it's budget without taxing income (nevermind the fact that Florida residents pay for things in other ways - namely travel on pretty much every road, and having property taxes are much higher than the national average) is salary cap circumvention, and not a perk of living. Something that is in no way, shape, or form, tied to the NHL. But using your connections as one of the biggest businesses in Canada to get endorsement deals for your NHL players, who wouldn't have access to that money unless they were NHL players, isn't, but is a perk of living?

Endorsements tied to your status as an NHL player are beyond the scope of a salary cap, but the tax system in a state is within it? The fact that no big name UFA - outside of Steven Stamkos, who was drafted and lived there for years beforehand - has signed in Florida pretty much tells you how much of an 'advantage' it really is.

Its not giving anyone an advantage. Show me a player who plays in Dallas, or Florida, that is paid much below his peers - given similar contract status and performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sila v Kucherove

TeddyBare

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
4,226
3,149
Mississauga, Ontario
He's such a tough player to value because is so good.

multiple 1st's, plus blue chip prospects and a player who is under a super super cap friendly deal long term.
 

firstemperor

Registered User
May 25, 2011
8,755
1,445
Wait. So a player playing for a team - sometimes not even by choice via draft - in a state that has decided to fund it's budget without taxing income (nevermind the fact that Florida residents pay for things in other ways - namely travel on pretty much every road, and having property taxes are much higher than the national average) is salary cap circumvention, and not a perk of living. Something that is in no way, shape, or form, tied to the NHL. But using your connections as one of the biggest businesses in Canada to get endorsement deals for your NHL players, who wouldn't have access to that money unless they were NHL players, isn't, but is a perk of living?

Endorsements tied to your status as an NHL player are beyond the scope of a salary cap, but the tax system in a state is? The fact that no big name UFA - outside of Steven Stamkos, who was drafted and lived there for years beforehand - has signed in Florida pretty much tells you how much of an 'advantage' it really is.

Not many big UFA names have hit UFA, period, post-cap in the NHL. That has nothing to do with the state of Florida or players wanting to play there. It has more to do with- not many big name free agents hit UFA post-cap. Maybe that changes shortly, but as of now, the NHL is a far-cry from the NBA.

As I said earlier, I don't know if any endorsement money a player like Matt Martin makes playing in the US versus Canada is noteworthy if at all. And similarly for Crosby.

How much more, per year, are Radulov and Stamkos making in Florida versus Montreal? Your probably looking at degrees more than any taxable income through other taxable means on a annual basis (unless either own exorbitant properties in their given state). Your argument is predicated purely on a hypothetical.

What isn't a hypothetical is that there is a huge income tax disparity, which very likely has a far bigger financial incentive/benefit- than any other taxable income (like property tax) that favours teams in Florida/Texas. And that is a design flaw, fundamentally, in the CBA of the NHL- whereby the logic is to provide some degree of financial parity to every team in the NHL.
 

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Not many big UFA names have hit UFA, period, post-cap in the NHL. That has nothing to do with the state of Florida or players wanting to play there. It has more to do with- not many big name free agents hit UFA post-cap. Maybe that changes shortly, but as of now, the NHL is a far-cry from the NBA.

As I said earlier, I don't know if any endorsement money a player like Matt Martin makes playing in the US versus Canada is noteworthy if at all. And similarly, for Crosby. Your argument is predicated purely on a hypothetical.

What isn't a hypothetical is that there is a huge income tax disparity, which very likely has a far bigger financial incentive/benefit- than any other taxable income (like property tax) that favours teams in Florida/Texas. And that is a design flaw, fundamentally, in the CBA of the NHL- whereby the logic is to provide some degree of financial parity to every team in the NHL.

Doesn't the fact that big names havent hit ufa basically render the whole idea of Florida being some sort of economic advantage moot? If players were really inclined to "make more" money, wouldn't they be dying to hit UFA to get there?

Florida (as a state) employs 3 of the highest paid defensemen in the league - all within range of relatively comparable players, so it doesn't seem like the income tax is having much of a competitive advantage in signing players for cheaper money. They seem to be making as much against the cap as their peers, so I don't see how you can argue 'circumvention' since they are paid just as well before taxes as their peers. If you had a few good examples of players clearly taking less money because of the tax shelter you're describing Florida and Texas as, you might be able to make a point. But there aren't any - meaning it isn't an advantage at all.

On top of that, most US cities still operate with a 'jock tax' which taxes players when they play in their state. So while my 'home' may be in Florida, half of my games are in other states, which are taxing me for the ability to play there. I brielfy read through an article that actually shows - and admittedly its 4 years old, but probably still relevant, though i did hear alberta changed its tax laws recently - two of the canadian teams have the lowest after tax income of all NHL teams.

Providing financial parity would mean governing so that everything would remain equal. Allowing players to collect additional monies because of their status as an NHL player, would disrupt the idea of all being equal. It's a financial incentive that is tied to the player's status as a hockey player. Crosby isn't going to be the spokesperson for anything if he's not an NHL player, which if i'm not mistaken, the salary cap is actually supposed to cover (salaries of NHL players, not tax levels of local communities). He gets endorsement money, which in turn supplements his income, allowing him to take less money from the Pittsburgh Penguins, giving them a competitive advantage in terms of cap structure. Voila! You can even take the USA vs Canada bit out of it if you'd like. It makes no difference to me.

So if we want to normalize contracts to provide parity - what are we doing? Normalizing cost of living across contracts? Because you can't just look at income taxes and see the whole picture. Its more expensive to live in both Tampa and Miami as far as Cost of Living standards go than Toronto, so should Toronto have a lower salary cap, since it doesnt cost as much to actually live in Toronto? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with Canada's fiscal budgeting, but if it goes there, should we deduct the portion of income taxes that are used to fund Canada's healthcare, shortening the gap by quite a bit, id imagine - since that isn't something that players in US cities have to pay for?

Of course none of these scenarios are meant to be answered, and none are serious, because it's completely ridiculous to create a salary cap structure that accounts for local and governmental taxing when its clear that it isnt providing a competitive advantage for anyone. Players are still signing for teams with high taxes. It hasn't prompted any of the recent high profile UFAs to go to Florida (Hell, Shattenkirk chose to avoid Florida and went to NY - not exactly a tax break). What players make after tax is largely inconsequential as it pertains to the salary cap - unless players like Radulov are fleeing Montreal and taking less money against the cap. Its rumored Montreal and Dallas offered him the same deal, and therefore he has the same cap implications for either team if he signs. Did he go because hes going to bring home more money? Perhaps. But if his cap hit is 6 Mil in MTL and 6 Mil in Dallas, there is no advantage to be had. Now, if he took 4 mil to go play in Dallas and Montreal offered 7 - you may have a case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sila v Kucherove

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
17,986
8,089
Should the NHL also start controlling the weather, so that cities like Edmonton and Calgary are more desirable? Maybe add some nice beaches to Colorado? Restrict the media access at Leafs games so that players who dont like to live in the limelight can still play in Toronto?

No income tax is one of the perks of living in the state. But Floridians pay for things in other ways, like having to deal with other Floridians. Its part of the decision making process for a player.

As far as this thread is concerned - i dont see the point. It has all the makings of a "someone made fun of one of my players, so now i'm going to make a thread about it" post. Stamkos shouldnt be on the move. Hes had some bad luck with injuries, but hes still a good player. Him and Kucherov can play in the same sandbox, im sure.

You guys need to stop that argument. It is a salary cap. That’s what the league has imposed. Not a weather cap or a good driver cap. The cap is imposed to make a level playing field for everyone who can’t afford to play with the big boys. If they are going to do that. Then they should level the playing field on net salaries. Or let other teams with higher taxes etc spend more.

The simplest thing to do would be since all of the teams are international, make the signing bonus contingent on like an autograph signing in Florida or something...... then you would get that money tax free right? Because you earned it in Florida. Teams or the NHL could do something there.

As far as the original?
What the holy hell??? Tampa has one of the deepest teams in the league. If not the deepest. They are a cup contender or something is wrong
 

firstemperor

Registered User
May 25, 2011
8,755
1,445
Doesn't the fact that big names havent hit ufa basically render the whole idea of Florida being some sort of economic advantage moot? If players were really inclined to "make more" money, wouldn't they be dying to hit UFA to get there?

Florida (as a state) employs 3 of the highest paid defensemen in the league - all within range of relatively comparable players, so it doesn't seem like the income tax is having much of a competitive advantage in signing players for cheaper money. They seem to be making as much against the cap as their peers, so I don't see how you can argue 'circumvention' since they are paid just as well before taxes as their peers. If you had a few good examples of players clearly taking less money because of the tax shelter you're describing Florida and Texas as, you might be able to make a point. But there aren't any - meaning it isn't an advantage at all.

On top of that, most US cities still operate with a 'jock tax' which taxes players when they play in their state. So while my 'home' may be in Florida, half of my games are in other states, which are taxing me for the ability to play there. I brielfy read through an article that actually shows - and admittedly its 4 years old, but probably still relevant, though i did hear alberta changed its tax laws recently - two of the canadian teams have the lowest after tax income of all NHL teams.

Providing financial parity would mean governing so that everything would remain equal. Allowing players to collect additional monies because of their status as an NHL player, would disrupt the idea of all being equal. It's a financial incentive that is tied to the player's status as a hockey player. Crosby isn't going to be the spokesperson for anything if he's not an NHL player, which if i'm not mistaken, the salary cap is actually supposed to cover (salaries of NHL players, not tax levels of local communities). He gets endorsement money, which in turn supplements his income, allowing him to take less money from the Pittsburgh Penguins, giving them a competitive advantage in terms of cap structure. Voila! You can even take the USA vs Canada bit out of it if you'd like. It makes no difference to me.

So if we want to normalize contracts to provide parity - what are we doing? Normalizing cost of living across contracts? Because you can't just look at income taxes and see the whole picture. Its more expensive to live in both Tampa and Miami as far as Cost of Living standards go than Toronto, so should Toronto have a lower salary cap, since it doesnt cost as much to actually live in Toronto? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with Canada's fiscal budgeting, but if it goes there, should we deduct the portion of income taxes that are used to fund Canada's healthcare, shortening the gap by quite a bit, id imagine - since that isn't something that players in US cities have to pay for?

Of course none of these scenarios are meant to be answered, and none are serious, because it's completely ridiculous to create a salary cap structure that accounts for local and governmental taxing when its clear that it isnt providing a competitive advantage for anyone. Players are still signing for teams with high taxes. It hasn't prompted any of the recent high profile UFAs to go to Florida (Hell, Shattenkirk chose to avoid Florida and went to NY - not exactly a tax break). What players make after tax is largely inconsequential as it pertains to the salary cap - unless players like Radulov are fleeing Montreal and taking less money against the cap. Its rumored Montreal and Dallas offered him the same deal, and therefore he has the same cap implications for either team if he signs. Did he go because hes going to bring home more money? Perhaps. But if his cap hit is 6 Mil in MTL and 6 Mil in Dallas, there is no advantage to be had. Now, if he took 4 mil to go play in Dallas and Montreal offered 7 - you may have a case.

Even with the jock tax, your saving a lot more playing in Florida secondary to state income tax than other destinations.

Cost of living is higher in Toronto than Miami, Tampa by most accounts..not sure what this has to do with Toronto but whatever. Either way, cost of living falls under the perks that are subject for any given NHL player to gauge the value there of (when deciding a FA destination) as compared to weather, nightlife, media pressure, or whatever else they value. Those don't fall under the scope of the CBA. And those aren't things the NHL can control or has tried to control with the salary cap.

Radulov took more money to sign in Dallas over Montreal just this offseason. Since you asked for factoid examples, I don't think that is relevant regardless but whatever.

The fact that this fiscal advantadge exists- as it pertains to NHL salary, when it is inherently designed by the NHL to provide financial parity, as it pertains to NHL salaries- shows that there is a inherent design flaw in the CBA.That's the point you seem to overlook, you keep naming off either extremes, hypotheticals, or mostly, factoids that have nothing to do within the context of NHL salary, under the pretense of the CBA in the NHL.

I don't expect the NHL to regulate how Walmart will pay any given player to endorse any given product. They are two separate private entities. What does endorsements have to do with anything? Those are perks that may or may not get a given free agent to sign somewhere. The NHL doesn't control that, nor should they.

As I said earlier, I think your overstating them either way, I'm not convinced either way Crosby would make a sizeable amount more in third party endorsement money playing in Canada. And on the other extreme, I don't think Matt Martin makes anything significantly more playing in Toronto/Canada- a point you've seem to harp on for a little while here.

https://capfriendly.com/post_tax_calculator/alexander-radulov Here is a reference for you to see how much of an impact state taxes have on NHL salaries- under the pretense of the cap, designed by the NHL in the first place. Is this parity to you?

According to said reference, Radulov makes a little more than ~1 million in net salary alone this year playing in Dallas versus Montreal.
 
Last edited:

firstemperor

Registered User
May 25, 2011
8,755
1,445
You guys need to stop that argument. It is a salary cap. That’s what the league has imposed. Not a weather cap or a good driver cap. The cap is imposed to make a level playing field for everyone who can’t afford to play with the big boys. If they are going to do that. Then they should level the playing field on net salaries. Or let other teams with higher taxes etc spend more.

Basically, your agreeing with me...that's what this discussion has been about. The other poster is taking the other side of the argument. I should say though, I don't find we are arguing, it's a pretty healthy hockey discussion to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sila v Kucherove

Bizz

2023 LTIR Loophole* Cup Champions
Oct 17, 2007
10,931
6,571
San Jose
The Sharks don't have the assets necessary to land someone like Stamkos, but I would love to see him in teal.
 

Shruggs Peterson

Registered User
Mar 1, 2017
1,904
1,101
I'm having a hard time thinking of any logical reason why Tampa would trade Stamkos. If they were going to let him go, then they would've let him walk 2 summers ago. Seems like the OP just wants to reminisce on what could've been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DominicBoltsFan

ijuka

Registered User
May 14, 2016
22,162
14,650
Only 12 points in 7 games? What a bust, I think that a 6th round pick is what you would be lucky to get.

... Or maybe, just maybe he's a star player too and it's beneficial for the team to have several of them? He's a large reason for why Kucherov is doing as well as he is this season and it makes zero sense to get rid of him. His deal also is very friendly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DominicBoltsFan

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Even with the jock tax, your saving a lot more playing in Florida secondary to state income tax than other destinations.

Cost of living is higher in Toronto than Miami, Tampa by most accounts..not sure what this has to do with Toronto but whatever. Either way, cost of living falls under the perks that are subject for any given NHL player to gauge the value there of (when deciding a FA destination) as compared to weather, nightlife, media pressure, or whatever else they value. Those don't fall under the scope of the CBA. And those aren't things the NHL can control or has tried to control with the salary cap.

Radulov took more money to sign in Dallas over Montreal just this offseason. Since you asked for factoid examples, I don't think that is relevant regardless but whatever.

The fact that this fiscal advantadge exists- as it pertains to NHL salary, when it is inherently designed by the NHL to provide financial parity, as it pertains to NHL salaries- shows that there is a inherent design flaw in the CBA.That's the point you seem to overlook, you keep naming off either extremes, hypotheticals, or mostly, factoids that have nothing to do within the context of NHL salary, under the pretense of the CBA in the NHL.

I don't expect the NHL to regulate how Walmart will pay any given player to endorse any given product. They are two separate private entities. What does endorsements have to do with anything? Those are perks that may or may not get a given free agent to sign somewhere. The NHL doesn't control that, nor should they.

As I said earlier, I think your overstating them either way, I'm not convinced either way Crosby would make a sizeable amount more in third party endorsement money playing in Canada. And on the other extreme, I don't think Matt Martin makes anything significantly more playing in Toronto/Canada- a point you've seem to harp on for a little while here.

https://capfriendly.com/post_tax_calculator/alexander-radulov Here is a reference for you to see how much of an impact state taxes have on NHL salaries- under the pretense of the cap, designed by the NHL in the first place. Is this parity to you?

According to said reference, Radulov makes a little more than ~1 million in net salary alone this year playing in Dallas versus Montreal.

Yes, you pay less with the jock tax than in income tax. My point isn’t that the jock tax makes up for it. My point is that living Florida isn’t some easy street just because there is no income tax. There are numerous other local and state ordinances that Florida uses to 'tax' their residents to collect income. Afterall, the state has to function somehow, right? These are also not controlled by the NHL or CBA, but ultimately affect a players real salary. And while I’m sure you’ll lump this into the consequences of choosing that as your location, these are taxes just like income taxes.

Ive checked numerous cost of living calculators, and most put Miami well above Toronto. I chose toronto because I assume you live near that area, and it may drive the point home a little. I also suspect its one of the more expensive cities to live in in Canada, though i havent looked. You say that those are things not under control of the NHL or CBA, but ultimately, they effect a players real salary. So if you want to go granular and regulate salaries based on tax rates, it goes without saying that cost of living would be the next step. Where do you feel comfortable drawing the line in the interest of parity?
Radulov signed for the same amount that the Canadiens offered, according to multiple sources. The catch is that the Canadiens tried to sign him for less up front and didn’t make the same offer as Dallas until after he had already agreed to join Dallas. So Dallas was interested in paying him a higher wage regardless. You could say he went there for money, but you can pretty easily justify that decision based on contention (no offense, Montreal), and putting himself in a better situation with better teammates. But at the end of the day - If Dallas is willing to pay him the same as the canadiens, there isnt an 'advantage' for the team is it?

Maybe this is what's driving our disagreement, I’m not sure. But the cap isn’t designed to lower player's salary, directly, anyway – that’s what the 20% max contract rule is for.

The salary cap, imo, is designed to limit the team's spending in order to not allow 'super teams' a la the NBA (its actually officially referenced in the CBA as the "Upper limit of the Payroll Range" which would imply a limit to total spending, not individual), and not allow teams with more financial backing to overrun the league. Now, it does provide a glass ceiling type effect (you have a given budget, and 23 spots to fill, and numerous people attempting to fill said 23 positions, so 'superstars' aren’t really effected since they’re going to make cash either way. It does have an effect on your lower tier players fighting for those last roster spots – who might have to sacrifice some earning in order to play, but this effect it likely minimal, and would be universal among all teams), but it doesnt limit the per person spending. Which takes me back to my original point: If a player is willing to sign for 6 million in Texas, and 6 million in Montreal (or, pick any other non-florida, non-texas team, it makes no difference, im just using the Radulov example here), what is the advantage to the team, who the "salary cap" is designed to restrict? Sure, the player may make more - but as I’ve already stated and provided examples for - no one is choosing Florida or Texas just to make money. Radulov counts as the same % of the cap in Texas as he would have had he re-signed in Montreal at the same rate.

Income tax has no effect on a team’s operation or cap. They are cutting a player who earns 8 million a year an 8 million dollar check whether they are in Montreal, Dallas, Alberta, Philadelphia, or California. Once that check is cut, the player’s monies are then taxed according to federal and local tax rates that are dictated by entities outside of the NHL. Saying that it disrupts the idea of the CBA is just inherently false unless you believe the salary cap was designed to solely limit player salaries, which it wasn’t. It was designed to allow each team a relatively even (and minimum, mind you) playing field to play on, in order to avoid the incredibly boring product that the NBA is currently putting on display.
Until players start signing for less in no-income tax states than they are in taxed states in comparison to similar status talents (again, Florida has 3 of the highest earning defensemen in the NHL, players aren’t signing for less money to play there, and Florida teams are being hit with the same levels of AAV/Cap hits on those contracts against their caps), in order to “make the same” without an ulterior motive – which is never going to be possible to prove – you can’t say that the income tax provides an unfair advantage. All it is, is just another ‘cost of living’ factor that, once you get to a UFA eligible age – are free to consider when signing your next contract.

I do have to say - its been enjoyable to have a conversation with you without it resorting to personal attacks. I appreciate your stance on the topic, and am glad we could talk about it civilly, despite not agreeing. :cheers:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sila v Kucherove

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
You guys need to stop that argument. It is a salary cap. That’s what the league has imposed. Not a weather cap or a good driver cap. The cap is imposed to make a level playing field for everyone who can’t afford to play with the big boys. If they are going to do that. Then they should level the playing field on net salaries. Or let other teams with higher taxes etc spend more.

correct, a salary cap designed to level the playing field for everyone who cant afford to play with the big boys. Thats why they use total contract value over years of contract to determine it, and not actual salary.

If i make 7 million in Dallas, or 7 Million in anywhere else, i'm still approximately 10% of the team's cap. It doesnt get any more level than that, from a team perspective. I'm not making any more in dallas than i am anywhere else (a check for 7 million is a check for 7 million, afterall). What the government of that area wants to do with my money after that check is cut is not something I, or the NHL, can control or regulate.

For the players? Sure there's a financial incentive to choose one over the other - but it doesn't affect the competition of teams. Only players real salaries. And, as evidenced by the lack of UFAs making the journey to Dallas, Miami (Sunrise), and Tampa, doesn't appear to be a major decision in the players decision making process.
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,050
Ridiculous. Tampa's cap situation is fine through the end of next year. Dead weight contracts expire after this year and you can fill those guys internally, and only Namestnikov needs to be paid this summer (although I suspect they'll wanna lock up Kucherov too). You don't trade Stamkos while your window is still wide open and your cup chances are at their peak for the next 2 seasons.

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/lightning
 

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
17,986
8,089
correct, a salary cap designed to level the playing field for everyone who cant afford to play with the big boys. Thats why they use total contract value over years of contract to determine it, and not actual salary.

If i make 7 million in Dallas, or 7 Million in anywhere else, i'm still approximately 10% of the team's cap. It doesnt get any more level than that, from a team perspective. I'm not making any more in dallas than i am anywhere else (a check for 7 million is a check for 7 million, afterall). What the government of that area wants to do with my money after that check is cut is not something I, or the NHL, can control or regulate.

For the players? Sure there's a financial incentive to choose one over the other - but it doesn't affect the competition of teams. Only players real salaries. And, as evidenced by the lack of UFAs making the journey to Dallas, Miami (Sunrise), and Tampa, doesn't appear to be a major decision in the players decision making process.


Except they are signing players for well under market value allowing them to get more.
 

Todd1a

Kucherov or prospect
Jun 19, 2014
16,389
2,747
orlando, fl
they will sign kucherov even if they have to buyout callahan trade killorn and Johnson. Trading Stamkos won't happen 8.5 per year is a good contract
Kucherov is the offensive star of this team and stammer could be on the move what would teams be willing to offer?
why can't you have both stamkos and kucherov ?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->