Around the NHL: 2018-2019 (Part 2) Off-Season Thread, Arbitration Anyone?

[Icicle]

The statistical community has indisputably added value to the game that wasn’t being addressed otherwise.

And hand-waiving away the past few years of work as nerds making **** up to angle for jobs is flatly wrong, when these models already exist in other sports, and still involve tons of drudge work like tracking passing.

One presentation at a sports analytics conference doesn’t change either of those things.

Multiple presentations grasping at straws is absolutely evidence of where things are TODAY. I wasn't talking about the 'last few years'. I'm talking about bad stats being pervasive in the latest seminars.

 

[Icicle]

You forgot to add tax free state. Same reason Stamkos took a discount

Nashville has a great hockey community that's up and coming as well with tons of transplants moving in. Buffalo would be better off out of NY.

 

[Reddawg]

Nashville has a great hockey community that's up and coming as well with tons of transplants moving in. Buffalo would be better off out of NY.

Wife and I are Nashville-bound as soon as the kids are out of school. Cannot wait.

 

[Dingo44]

My girlfriend (who is from Michigan) and I would so move back to Buffalo except for a number of reasons and none of them have to do with the weather. They just can't be discussed on this board. It's a real shame too because I miss the city like crazy.

 

[valet]

That Ellis contract is ****ing amazing, god damnit Poile.

not much incentive for Ellis to leave, it's a sensible number if you look at the bigger picture down in Nashville.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Unless we can get him for a prospect/pick/depth player I don’t really see the value. I’ve never been all that impressed by him, just looks like a future 4/5 guy to me.

He was hurt all last year. Healthy, he’s an all situation defender. I’d get him now before he impresses at the WJC.

 

[sabrebuild]

I don’t think it’d be that hard. Three feet on each side. One row of seats.

One row of seats around Pittsburg is $250 a seat x 41 games x 200 seats at minimum.

Roughly 2 million a year per team, not counting playoffs, unless they jack up the price of other seats.

They’d be better off calling interference.

 

[sabrebuild]

Nashville has a great hockey community that's up and coming as well with tons of transplants moving in. Buffalo would be better off out of NY.

Idk, I like good public education.

 

[Der Jaeger]

One row of seats around Pittsburg is $250 a seat x 41 games x 200 seats at minimum.

Roughly 2 million a year per team, not counting playoffs, unless they jack up the price of other seats.

They’d be better off calling interference.

Or just make the cost of the "new" first row the same, bump the pricing for tickets one row back, and lose the cost of the last row in the bottom sections. Not that hard.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Bad news for the Oil.

 

[enthusiast]

Idk, I like good public education.

Buddy, I've got some news about Buffalo

 

[sabrebuild]

Buddy, I've got some news about Buffalo

Buddy, I thought we were talking about the State of New York vs the State of Tennessee.

Plenty of excellent schools in Buffalo.

 

[sabrebuild]

Or just make the cost of the "new" first row the same, bump the pricing for tickets one row back, and lose the cost of the last row in the bottom sections. Not that hard.

Tell that to the gomer in the 200s that is pissed he has to come up with another 800 dollars a year.

Tho I agree teams could do that. I just don’t see them bothering for a minor benefit. And they are going to Jack prices up each year anywho, so why hurt my revenue.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Tell that to the gomer in the 200s that is pissed he has to come up with another 800 dollars a year.

Tho I agree teams could do that. I just don’t see them bothering for a minor benefit. And they are going to Jack prices up each year anywho, so why hurt my revenue.

You're over thinking it. Why would it effect the 200s? You take sections 100-123. Eliminate row one. Make row two row one and price it accordingly. At the last row of the 100s, you stop the bumping of pricing one row, and everything else stays the same. You lose the revenue from the top row of the 100s all the way around.

Improved play (increased zone entries, more offensive zone puck possession) isn't just a minor benefit.

 

[Reddawg]

Idk, I like good public education.

Hence not moving until the kids finish school.

 

[sabrebuild]

You're over thinking it. Why would it effect the 200s? You take sections 100-123. Eliminate row one. Make row two row one and price it accordingly. At the last row of the 100s, you stop the bumping of pricing one row, and everything else stays the same. You lose the revenue from the top row of the 100s all the way around.

Improved play (increased zone entries, more offensive zone puck possession) isn't just a minor benefit.

I think you are thinking like a hockey fan, and not like an owner.

If I’m spreading the pain of lost revenue, I’m not just doing it in the bottom bowl. It’s just not how business works, for enormous sports companies.

They don’t give up money for hockey nerd improvement ideas. I wish they did, but if that was a focus or something to be sacrificed for, the season would already be 70 games and they would aggressively change the game to promote offensive flow and opportunities to score.

 

[sabrebuild]

Hence not moving until the kids finish school.

Absolutely. My parents are moving to Jacksonville fl this winter to enjoy a snow free winter.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I think you are thinking like a hockey fan, and not like an owner.

If I’m spreading the pain of lost revenue, I’m not just doing it in the bottom bowl. It’s just not how business works, for enormous sports companies.

They don’t give up money for hockey nerd improvement ideas. I wish they did, but if that was a focus or something to be sacrificed for, the season would already be 70 games and they would aggressively change the game to promote offensive flow and opportunities to score.

Lose the top row of the 100s and spread the lost revenue out across all ticket sales in a price increase. That wouldn't be a crazy hike.

Take a look at scoring in the WCs, WJCs, GHT, WJSS, and any other IIHF game where you've got big 5 teams playing each other. Look at SHL scoring. Lots of scoring, easier zone entries, better offensive zone possession. Unless you're a hard-core old-time hockey fan, it's fun hockey. If owners are looking to expand their fanbase, which is a much better way to add revenue than just ticket sales, then their on-ice product needs to be maximized. The NFL knows this and adjusted their rules to make passing easy compared to 25 years ago.

The NHL can tinker with goalie equipment.... it won't make the splash they think because goalies are bigger and more technical than ever.

The NHL tinkered with penalties, and it made for more power plays and hence more scoring.

If the NHL wants better 5v5 play, they need to go to a wider ice surface.

 

[dotcommunism]

Let's try to stay somewhat on topic. Discussing state education systems isn't really close.

 

[Moskau]

Anyone else find it insane that Ottawa never moved Karlsson yet? I just can’t believe the market is going to get any better.

I haven't been paying too much Hockey this Summer but isn't the rumor that there's an offer to buy the team from Melynk that may have put a stop to trading Karlsson for the time being?

 

[tsujimoto74]

You forgot to add tax free state. Same reason Stamkos took a discount

No income tax =/= no tax. Every state collects revenue, some more than others, but you're paying state taxes everywhere. Plus, the federal deduction for state taxes substantially levels the playing field. You can deduct either state income tax or state sales tax, so players in income tax states are gonna do the former, and players in no income tax states obviously would do the latter. Players who pay more state tax will get bigger federal deductions.

The new tax rules put a ceiling on the state tax deduction of $10,000, which will probably affect some players in years 2018 onward, but it obviously could not have had any impact on decision-making prior to the TCJA's enactment in December of 2017.

TL;DR--I think the impact of state tax on player signing decisions is grossly overestimated.

 

[missingmika]

No income tax =/= no tax. Every state collects revenue, some more than others, but you're paying state taxes everywhere. Plus, the federal deduction for state taxes substantially levels the playing field. You can deduct either state income tax or state sales tax, so players in income tax states are gonna do the former, and players in no income tax states obviously would do the latter. Players who pay more state tax will get bigger federal deductions.

The new tax rules put a ceiling on the state tax deduction of $10,000, which will probably affect some players in years 2018 onward, but it obviously could not have had any impact on decision-making prior to the TCJA's enactment in December of 2017.

TL;DR--I think the impact of state tax on player signing decisions is grossly overestimated.

The players are still paying state taxes in states they play in. If you play in a non-tac state, the other half of your games could still be subject to state income tax depending on where you play.
Plus players in states where they pay tax, typically get tax credits for taxes paid to other states, which you don't get if you're in a non-tac state.

 

[sabrebuild]

Lose the top row of the 100s and spread the lost revenue out across all ticket sales in a price increase. That wouldn't be a crazy hike.

Take a look at scoring in the WCs, WJCs, GHT, WJSS, and any other IIHF game where you've got big 5 teams playing each other. Look at SHL scoring. Lots of scoring, easier zone entries, better offensive zone possession. Unless you're a hard-core old-time hockey fan, it's fun hockey. If owners are looking to expand their fanbase, which is a much better way to add revenue than just ticket sales, then their on-ice product needs to be maximized. The NFL knows this and adjusted their rules to make passing easy compared to 25 years ago.

The NHL can tinker with goalie equipment.... it won't make the splash they think because goalies are bigger and more technical than ever.

The NHL tinkered with penalties, and it made for more power plays and hence more scoring.

If the NHL wants better 5v5 play, they need to go to a wider ice surface.

The point being the nhl doesn’t give a real crap about improving the game. Sorry dot

 

[joshjull]

That sucks

 

[Icicle]

The players are still paying state taxes in states they play in. If you play in a non-tac state, the other half of your games could still be subject to state income tax depending on where you play.
Plus players in states where they pay tax, typically get tax credits for taxes paid to other states, which you don't get if you're in a non-tac state.

If you’re paid in bonuses it hardly matters.