Speculation: Brayden Point Mega Thread

[Legion34]

Again... why would Tim concede the tax advantage to Billionaire owners? Wouldn't he just ask for the same cap percentage/term as the comparable?

Let's also add how common trades are, and rfa's can't have ntc's. Are rfa's really going to sign 5 years at the "tax discount" rate even though they could be traded to a higher tax city? Isn't ALL the risk on the player? Isn't ALL the benefits on the team? Why would they concede the tax advantage to the billionaires? Why would players/agents accept this? I don't think they do. I think Tampa's gm has just been better at getting their players to buy into the team.

He’s NOT conceding the tax advantages.

He is Getting AS much as he can take home. This isn’t hard.

He is getting players to get into buying in to getting the EXACT same money. In a good market. With nice weather. And a competitive team.

He isn’t getting that money. IF you are only getting say 5 million dollars and you have the chance to A. Give it to the government. Or B. Let your team use a loophole.

What do you choose?



Come on. You have already embarrassed yourself with all this. You act completely different in different threads. Stop pretending you haven’t asked this and been corrected a hundred times before

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Habana ahah and when he signed again? Let me guess you are going to use hypothetical contracts and ignore actual GMs. Media. Players. Agents. Tax experts Again.

Yawn.

When he signed again he was 8th in cap hit. That was fair for a guy who had just finished 24th in scoring and played in only one of his team’s playoff games.

You do realize that the comments that come from actual GMs, media, players, agents, and tax experts are nowhere NEAR what you make them out to be, right? Everybody has seen the article from The Athletic that you keep posting. It does not say what you are acting like it says.

 

[Legion34]

When he signed again he was 8th in cap hit. That was fair for a guy who had just finished 24th in scoring and played in only one of his team’s playoff games.

You do realize that the comments that come from actual GMs, media, players, agents, and tax experts are nowhere NEAR what you make them out to be, right? Everybody has seen the article from The Athletic that you keep posting. It does not say what you are acting like it says.

It’s right where i think it is. Because i think it is what the experts say.

You are the one trying to make up fake studies with hypothetical contracts. Not me

 

[Dekes For Days]

I'm seeing a lot of "/60" and "/GP" here.

Yes, statistics that don't blatantly ignore important context. It's quite frankly hilarious that in their anti-Matthews fury, people won't even accept P/GP anymore.

Injuries matter.

Past minor injuries don't really matter, especially when considering contract valuation, quality of player, and probable future production.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

He’s NOT conceding the tax advantages.

He is Getting AS much as he can take home. This isn’t hard.

He is getting players to get into buying in to getting the EXACT same money. In a good market. With nice weather. And a competitive team.

He isn’t getting that money. IF you are only getting say 5 million dollars and you have the chance to A. Give it to the government. Or B. Let your team use a loophole.

What do you choose?



Come on. You have already embarrassed yourself with all this. You act completely different in different threads. Stop pretending you haven’t asked this and been corrected a hundred times before

Again, here's how I see it going.

Point "I want this comparable contract. Same money and term as officially listed".
Brisebois "Ok. But you pay less taxes."
Point "Good for me."
The end.

Again, it's sooooo silly and embarrassing for you to suggest this would happen next.
Brisebois "No. Our owners (billionaires) are taking that tax advantage for themselves. We're just deducting that tax advantage from your total contract value. We're saving MILLIONS. There is no advantage for you. Oh, and if we trade you to a city that has higher taxes... yeah... you're kind of sol on that. All risks on you. None on us."

Yeah, I'm sure Point and his agent will just say "Ok. Clark34 on the internet says it works this way."

 

[PromisedLand]

point please take your time no need to hurry back to the bolts. take it till dec 1st

 

[CanadienShark]

He’s NOT conceding the tax advantages.

He is Getting AS much as he can take home. This isn’t hard.

He is getting players to get into buying in to getting the EXACT same money. In a good market. With nice weather. And a competitive team.

He isn’t getting that money. IF you are only getting say 5 million dollars and you have the chance to A. Give it to the government. Or B. Let your team use a loophole.

What do you choose?



Come on. You have already embarrassed yourself with all this. You act completely different in different threads. Stop pretending you haven’t asked this and been corrected a hundred times before

Oh the irony here...

There's a difference between take home pay in Tampa vs other teams. It's not a matter of $5m either way.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Legion34]

Oh the irony here...

There's a difference between take home pay in Tampa vs other teams. It's not a matter of $5m either way.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I was using an example? Actually the take home difference on a 5 million salary between ottawa and Dallas is about 6-700 k

 

[Legion34]

Again, here's how I see it going.

Point "I want this comparable contract. Same money and term as officially listed".
Brisebois "Ok. But you pay less taxes."
Point "Good for me."
The end.

Again, it's sooooo silly and embarrassing for you to suggest this would happen next.
Brisebois "No. Our owners (billionaires) are taking that tax advantage for themselves. We're just deducting that tax advantage from your total contract value. We're saving MILLIONS. There is no advantage for you. Oh, and if we trade you to a city that has higher taxes... yeah... you're kind of sol on that. All risks on you. None on us."

Yeah, I'm sure Point and his agent will just say "Ok. Clark34 on the internet says it works this way."

I don’t say it works that way. Agents. GMs and players do.

[MOD]

 

[Legion34]

When he signed again he was 8th in cap hit. That was fair for a guy who had just finished 24th in scoring and played in only one of his team’s playoff games.

You do realize that the comments that come from actual GMs, media, players, agents, and tax experts are nowhere NEAR what you make them out to be, right? Everybody has seen the article from The Athletic that you keep posting. It does not say what you are acting like it says.

Also. Just to be clear. You are now arguing that player contracts are not based on AAV. Or cap percent. But salary orders regardless of when signed?

So mcadavids contract is the highest in the league. could be 1 penny over the second highest. Or the league max and it’s the same?

Matthews contract or panarin s could have gone up to 12.49 and it’s the same value to you?

2nd when signed?

Come on.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I don’t say it works that way. Agents. GMs and players do.

The agents/gm's/etc. say MANY different things on the matter. Burke recently said that players like MOVING to cities with low taxes, because they make more money there. That DIRECTLY counters your argument that the tax advantage in such cities is 100% subtracted out of the total contract value.

I've heard all sides and think it's much more complicated than your "they pay 15% less taxes? Then subtract 15% from their aav" argument.

 

[CanadienShark]

I was using an example? Actually the take home difference on a 5 million salary between ottawa and Dallas is about 6-700 k

That's huge.

 

[Legion34]

Typical appeal to authority logical fallacy.

The agents/gm's/etc. say MANY different things on the matter. Burke recently said that players like MOVING to cities with low taxes, because they make more money there. That DIRECTLY counters your argument that the tax advantage in such cities is 100% subtracted out of the total contract value.

I've heard all sides and think it's much more complicated than your "they pay 15% less taxes? Then subtract 15% from their aav" argument.

Huh? He said they are better off in AMERICAN markets. Because they get to make more deductions AND tax rates.

He said that stamkos was offered 10 from Toronto and took 8.5 in Tampa and was STILL better off.

If you are taking Burke as truth here

1.) Stamkos contract Can NOT be compared to Toronto contracts because according to Burke. He stayed in Tampa for money.

2.) an 8.5 million contract in Tampa is worth MORE than a 10 million contract in Toronto for NHL players so on a 10 million contract it is at least 1.5 million and a penny of a difference when you compare tax rates and deductions

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Also. Just to be clear. You are now arguing that player contracts are not based on AAV. Or cap percent. But salary orders regardless of when signed?

So mcadavids contract is the highest in the league. could be 1 penny over the second highest. Or the league max and it’s the same?

Matthews contract or panarin s could have gone up to 12.49 and it’s the same value to you?

2nd when signed?

Come on.

Nope, what I’m saying is that the salary climate changes quite often, and that it’s good to look at things in a lot of different ways.

In 2005, when Kovalchuk signed his deal at 16.41%, he was the 9th highest paid player in the NHL.

By comparison, Stamkos came in at 11.66%, yet was the 6th highest paid player.

Should Kovalchuk’s contract really be considered 41% more valuable than Stamkos’s? After factoring in the way that the landscapes were so drastically different back then for top players, my answer is emphatically no. Their contracts were not nearly as far apart as that 41% gap; as evidenced by the fact that Stamkos was actually paid higher relative to his peers than Kovalchuk was. This is extremely simple stuff.

 

[Legion34]

That's huge.

This is according to cap friendly and Marc methot. Who had the same contract in ottawa transferred to Dallas.

 

[Legion34]

Nope, what I’m saying is that the salary climate changes quite often, and that it’s good to look at things in a lot of different ways.

In 2005, when Kovalchuk signed his deal at 16.41%, he was the 9th highest paid player in the NHL.

By comparison, Stamkos came in at 11.66%, yet was the 6th highest paid player.

Should Kovalchuk’s contract really be considered 41% more valuable than Stamkos’s? After factoring in the way that the landscapes were so drastically different back then for top players, my answer is emphatically no. Their contracts were not nearly as far apart as that 41% gap; as evidenced by the fact that Stamkos was actually paid higher relative to his peers than Kovalchuk was. This is extremely simple stuff.

And Matthews signed AFTER a successful expansion. When the rest were drains on the NHL economy. A second expansion. A new TV deal being projected in the billions AND legalized gambling.


So comparing him to mcdavid and eichel makes no sense in your eyes.

Of course. You have no problem comparing Matthews to stamkos. McAvoy to Kulikov. Or Meir to parise right?

Whoops

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Huh? He said they are better off in AMERICAN markets. Because they get to make more deductions AND tax rates.

He said that stamkos was offered 10 from Toronto and took 8.5 in Tampa and was STILL better off.

If you are taking Burke as truth here

1.) Stamkos contract Can NOT be compared to Toronto contracts because according to Burke. He stayed in Tampa for money.

2.) an 8.5 million contract in Tampa is worth MORE than a 10 million contract in Toronto for NHL players so on a 10 million contract it is at least 1.5 million and a penny of a difference when you compare tax rates and deductions

So what is the perk of moving to a "tax free state" if the tax advantages are just subtracted from total contract value?

Isn't that what you (lol) constantly argue?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

And Matthews signed AFTER a successful expansion. When the rest were drains on the NHL economy. A second expansion. A new TV deal being projected in the billions AND legalized gambling.


So comparing him to mcdavid and eichel makes no sense in your eyes.

Of course. You have no problem comparing Matthews to stamkos. McAvoy to Kulikov. Or Meir to parise right?

Whoops

In none of those cases was I comparing a top player from the pre-2007 era to the post-2007 era like you did with Kovalchuk and Stamkos, and in none of those cases is the difference so drastic. I also did use league-wide cap hit ranking in addition to cap hit percentage when comparing Meier and Parise.

You are just trying to ignore what is obviously in front of your eyes here. Kovalchuk’s 16.41% contract was clearly not as far from Stamkos’s 11.66% contract as you claim it was or as far as those two numbers with no additional context make it seem.

 

[These Are The Days]

Such big tax breaks Point has waited til the 4th week of September to sign his deal

 

[Legion34]

In none of those cases was I comparing a top player from the pre-2007 era to the post-2007 era like you did with Kovalchuk and Stamkos, and in none of those cases is the difference so drastic. I also did use league-wide cap hit ranking in addition to cap hit percentage when comparing Meier and Parise.

You are just trying to ignore what is obviously in front of your eyes here. Kovalchuk’s 16.41% contract was clearly not as far from Stamkos’s 11.66% contract as you claim it was or as far as those two numbers with no additional context make it seem.

In those cases you did. That’s the point. You change your criteria and timeframes depending on how it suits you.

It’s obvious. And sad if you are actually trying to have a research career

 

[Critical13]

If Matthews has a great year, the part i look forward to most is not having to listen to other teams tell us how bad his contract is in every salary related thread.

I’m glad to have him. Lets see how he actually performs once the contract has started. Can we move on now?

Who plays #2 C with Point out? What does a Point less lineup look like?

 

[DFC]

Yes, statistics that don't blatantly ignore important context. It's quite frankly hilarious that in their anti-Matthews fury, people won't even accept P/GP anymore.


Past minor injuries don't really matter, especially when considering contract valuation, quality of player, and probable future production.

That's probably more true when the player has put up real stats. Like, if a player has scored 50 goals, and has a G/PG to suggest he hasn't fall off that pace, it means more than if a player can put up the pace, but has never actually done it.

 

[DFC]

If Matthews has a great year, the part i look forward to most is not having to listen to other teams tell us how bad his contract is in every salary related thread.

I’m glad to have him. Lets see how he actually performs once the contract has started. Can we move on now?

Who plays #2 C with Point out? What does a Point less lineup look like?

Matthews' contract isn't awful. It's just that Dubas could probably have done better with him. Either that, or the player is a little greedy, knowing that the team would need money for other stars, and then would need enough left over to surround them with depth.

Without Point, Cirelli's the guy who's likely to step up. He's definitely not Point, but he looks poised to take a step forward. He could probably put up 50 in a 2C role. If not him then Johnson will move back to C. In terms of scoring, it probably doesn't matter. Both are a huge step down from Point though, at least offensively.

 

[CanadienShark]

If Matthews has a great year, the part i look forward to most is not having to listen to other teams tell us how bad his contract is in every salary related thread.

I’m glad to have him. Lets see how he actually performs once the contract has started. Can we move on now?

Who plays #2 C with Point out? What does a Point less lineup look like?

Johnson? Cirelli?

They have options.

 

[Critical13]

Matthews' contract isn't awful. It's just that Dubas could probably have done better with him. Either that, or the player is a little greedy, knowing that the team would need money for other stars, and then would need enough left over to surround them with depth.

Without Point, Cirelli's the guy who's likely to step up. He's definitely not Point, but he looks poised to take a step forward. He could probably put up 50 in a 2C role. If not him then Johnson will move back to C. In terms of scoring, it probably doesn't matter. Both are a huge step down from Point though, at least offensively.

Interesting. Johnson was my first guess but Cirelli might have it in him.

What’s the top 6 lineups look like with Andy without Point?