Do teams with lower state tax rates get significant discounts?

[TomasHertlsRooster]

This has come up a lot lately, and it's really tough to say what the truth is. When discussing this, an overwhelming amount of weight is put on anecdotal evidence by both sides; one side will mention that Nikita Kucherov took $9.5M, and the other side will mention that Sergei Bobrovsky took $10M. Confirmation bias is also heavily at play here; if you already believe that teams that play in states without state income taxes get heavy discounts, then William Karlsson signing for less than $6M on an 8-year term in Vegas will help confirm what you believe. If you already believe that these teams don't get heavy discounts, then Andrei Vasilevskiy signing for $9.5M on an 8-year term will help confirm what you believe.

What I wanted to do was take an objective look at all of the data available. I didn't want to just bicker over one, two, or even 5 contracts. So I looked at every free agent (UFA or RFA) skater who was signed to a contract with an AAV of at least $1M, and and added together the full cap hit that each team had signed their players to. (Extensions signed that take place at the start of 2020-2021 are not present here.) Then, using Evolving Hockey's contract projections, I entered their projected cap hit on the same term that they signed for. Then I created a new variable, titled "Cap hit/Projected Cap hit", which divides the team's cap hit by their projected cap hit, and attempts to discern whether or not certain teams are getting heavy discounts or not. A team below 100% would be doing well, since they paid less than full value for their players, where as a team above 100% is doing worse than full value.

Here is the data for every player:

Spoiler

Player	Position	Signed as	Age	Team	Term	Cap Hit	Projected Cap Hit	Cap Hit Over Projected
Lawson Crouse	F	RFA	22	ARI	3	$1,533,000	$1,823,399	($290,399)
Danton Heinen	F	RFA	23	BOS	2	$2,800,000	$2,819,150	($19,150)
Brett Ritchie	F	UFA	25	BOS	1	$1,000,000	$794,944	$205,056
Jeff Skinner	F	UFA	27	BUF	8	$9,000,000	$8,341,377	$658,623
Marcus Johansson	F	UFA	28	BUF	2	$4,500,000	$3,143,553	$1,356,447
Jake Mccabe	D	RFA	25	BUF	2	$2,850,000	$2,685,410	$164,590
Evan Rodrigues	F	RFA	25	BUF	1	$2,000,000	$1,262,744	$737,256
Zemgus Girgensons	F	RFA	25	BUF	1	$1,600,000	$1,389,466	$210,534
Johan Larsson	F	RFA	26	BUF	1	$1,550,000	$1,238,189	$311,811
Sebastian Aho	F	RFA	21	CAR	5	$8,454,000	$8,773,423	($319,423)
Ryan Dzingel	F	UFA	27	CAR	2	$3,375,000	$4,171,461	($796,461)
Brock Mcginn	F	RFA	25	CAR	2	$2,100,000	$2,195,805	($95,805)
Gustav Nyquist	F	UFA	29	CBJ	4	$5,500,000	$5,577,975	($77,975)
Ryan Murray	D	RFA	25	CBJ	2	$4,600,000	$3,128,864	$1,471,136
Scott Harrington	D	RFA	26	CBJ	3	$1,633,333	$1,366,977	$266,356
Sam Bennett	F	RFA	23	CGY	2	$2,550,000	$2,407,183	$142,817
David Kampf	F	UFA	24	CHI	2	$1,000,000	$1,293,504	($293,504)
Ryan Carpenter	F	UFA	28	CHI	3	$1,000,000	$1,680,243	($680,243)
J.T. Compher	F	RFA	24	COL	4	$3,500,000	$3,428,686	$71,314
Joonas Donskoi	F	UFA	27	COL	4	$3,900,000	$3,326,413	$573,587
Andre Burakovsky	F	RFA	24	COL	1	$3,250,000	$2,079,146	$1,170,854
Nikita Zadorov	D	RFA	24	COL	1	$3,200,000	$2,458,808	$741,192
Colin Wilson	F	UFA	29	COL	1	$2,600,000	$1,247,204	$1,352,796
Pierre-Edouard Bellemare	F	UFA	34	COL	2	$1,800,000	$1,424,773	$375,227
Joe Pavelski	F	UFA	34	DAL	3	$7,000,000	$7,408,595	($408,595)
Esa Lindell	D	RFA	25	DAL	6	$5,800,000	$5,709,883	$90,117
Mattias Janmark	F	RFA	26	DAL	1	$2,300,000	$2,091,628	$208,372
Roman Polak	D	UFA	33	DAL	1	$1,750,000	$1,675,162	$74,838
Corey Perry	F	UFA	34	DAL	1	$1,500,000	$1,102,330	$397,670
Andrej Sekera	D	UFA	33	DAL	1	$1,500,000	$1,008,539	$491,461
Patrik Nemeth	D	UFA	27	DET	2	$3,000,000	$2,213,156	$786,844
Valtteri Filppula	F	UFA	35	DET	2	$3,000,000	$2,943,253	$56,747
Alex Chiasson	F	UFA	28	EDM	2	$2,150,000	$2,567,505	($417,505)
Markus Granlund	F	UFA	26	EDM	1	$1,300,000	$1,338,082	($38,082)
Jujhar Khaira	F	RFA	24	EDM	2	$1,200,000	$1,138,249	$61,751
Anton Stralman	D	UFA	32	FLA	3	$5,500,000	$4,475,273	$1,024,727
Brett Connolly	F	UFA	27	FLA	4	$3,200,000	$3,648,650	($448,650)
Noel Acciari	F	UFA	27	FLA	3	$1,666,667	$1,505,589	$161,078
Alex Iafallo	F	RFA	25	L.A	2	$2,425,000	$2,402,877	$22,123
Mats Zuccarello	F	UFA	31	MIN	5	$6,000,000	$6,015,461	($15,461)
Ryan Donato	F	RFA	23	MIN	2	$1,900,000	$1,746,496	$153,504
Ryan Hartman	F	UFA	24	MIN	2	$1,900,000	$2,703,931	($803,931)
Brett Kulak	D	RFA	25	MTL	3	$1,850,000	$2,365,692	($515,692)
Joel Armia	F	RFA	26	MTL	2	$2,600,000	$2,918,875	($318,875)
Ben Chiarot	D	UFA	28	MTL	3	$3,500,000	$2,766,359	$733,641
Jordan Weal	F	UFA	27	MTL	2	$1,400,000	$1,848,538	($448,538)
Nick Cousins	F	UFA	25	MTL	1	$1,000,000	$841,415	$158,585
Mike Reilly	D	RFA	25	MTL	2	$1,500,000	$1,294,063	$205,937
Nate Thompson	F	UFA	34	MTL	1	$1,000,000	$905,746	$94,254
Wayne Simmonds	F	UFA	30	N.J	1	$5,000,000	$1,938,597	$3,061,403
Will Butcher	D	RFA	24	N.J	3	$3,730,000	$3,327,467	$402,533
Matt Duchene	F	UFA	28	NSH	7	$8,000,000	$7,675,778	$324,222
Colton Sissons	F	RFA	25	NSH	7	$2,857,143	$3,905,167	($1,048,024)
Anders Lee	F	UFA	28	NYI	7	$7,000,000	$6,558,841	$441,159
Jordan Eberle	F	UFA	29	NYI	5	$5,500,000	$5,654,091	($154,091)
Brock Nelson	F	UFA	27	NYI	6	$6,000,000	$4,895,832	$1,104,168
Artemi Panarin	F	UFA	27	NYR	7	$11,642,000	$10,482,359	$1,159,641
Jacob Trouba	D	RFA	25	NYR	7	$8,000,000	$6,873,268	$1,126,732
Pavel Buchnevich	F	RFA	24	NYR	2	$3,250,000	$2,874,385	$375,615
Ron Hainsey	D	UFA	38	OTT	1	$3,500,000	$2,264,619	$1,235,381
Anthony Duclair	F	RFA	23	OTT	1	$1,650,000	$1,222,631	$427,369
Kevin Hayes	F	UFA	27	PHI	7	$7,140,000	$6,579,110	$560,890
Travis Sanheim	D	RFA	23	PHI	2	$3,250,000	$2,859,126	$390,874
Brandon Tanev	F	UFA	27	PIT	6	$3,500,000	$3,821,772	($321,772)
Zach Aston-Reese	F	RFA	24	PIT	2	$1,000,000	$1,268,315	($268,315)
Erik Karlsson	D	UFA	29	S.J	8	$11,500,000	$9,720,403	$1,779,597
Timo Meier	F	RFA	22	S.J	4	$6,000,000	$4,852,639	$1,147,361
Kevin Labanc	F	RFA	23	S.J	1	$1,000,000	$1,893,645	($893,645)
Joel Edmundson	D	RFA	26	STL	1	$3,100,000	$4,021,205	($921,205)
Oskar Sundqvist	F	RFA	25	STL	4	$2,750,000	$2,348,432	$401,568
Carl Gunnarsson	D	UFA	32	STL	2	$1,750,000	$1,001,246	$748,754
Braydon Coburn	D	UFA	34	T.B	2	$1,700,000	$2,084,100	($384,100)
Cedric Paquette	F	RFA	25	T.B	2	$1,650,000	$1,436,654	$213,346
Jan Rutta	D	UFA	28	T.B	1	$1,300,000	$934,481	$365,519
Cody Ceci	D	RFA	25	TOR	1	$4,500,000	$3,057,622	$1,442,378
Andreas Johnsson	F	RFA	24	TOR	4	$3,400,000	$3,672,590	($272,590)
Alex Kerfoot	F	RFA	24	TOR	4	$3,500,000	$4,216,644	($716,644)
Kasperi Kapanen	F	RFA	22	TOR	3	$3,200,000	$2,884,599	$315,401
Tyler Myers	D	UFA	29	VAN	5	$6,000,000	$5,536,915	$463,085
Alex Edler	D	UFA	33	VAN	2	$6,000,000	$5,738,872	$261,128
Micheal Ferland	F	UFA	27	VAN	4	$3,500,000	$4,106,404	($606,404)
Jordie Benn	D	UFA	31	VAN	2	$2,000,000	$2,741,134	($741,134)
Josh Leivo	F	RFA	26	VAN	1	$1,500,000	$1,133,691	$366,309
William Karlsson	F	RFA	26	VGK	8	$5,900,000	$7,567,491	($1,667,491)
Tomas Nosek	F	UFA	26	VGK	1	$1,000,000	$886,753	$113,247
Nathan Beaulieu	D	UFA	26	WPG	1	$1,000,000	$1,435,683	($435,683)
Neal Pionk	D	RFA	23	WPG	2	$3,000,000	$2,934,707	$65,293
Andrew Copp	F	RFA	24	WPG	2	$2,280,000	$2,176,861	$103,139
Richard Panik	F	UFA	28	WSH	4	$2,500,000	$4,795,203	($2,295,203)
Jakub Vrana	F	RFA	23	WSH	2	$3,350,000	$3,100,747	$249,253
Carl Hagelin	F	UFA	30	WSH	4	$2,750,000	$3,309,399	($559,399)
Garnet Hathaway	F	UFA	27	WSH	4	$1,500,000	$2,062,733	($562,733)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You'll notice that Anaheim is missing because they didn't sign a single player to a contract with an AAV of at least $1M.

After I put all of this data together for each team, I used data from CapFriendly to get every team's estimated tax rate.

Spoiler

TEAM	Estimated Tax Rate	Cap Hit	Projected Cap Hit	Cap Hit/Projected Cap Hit
Arizona Coyotes	44.02%	$1,533,000	$1,823,399	84.07%
Boston Bruins	44.41%	$3,800,000	$3,614,094	105.14%
Buffalo Sabres	47.23%	$21,500,000	$18,060,739	119.04%
Calgary Flames	47.46%	$2,550,000	$2,407,183	105.93%
Carolina Hurricanes	44.73%	$13,929,000	$15,140,689	92.00%
Chicago Blackhawks	44.16%	$2,000,000	$2,973,747	67.26%
Colorado Avalanche	43.97%	$18,250,000	$13,965,030	130.68%
Columbus Blue Jackets	46.05%	$11,733,333	$10,073,816	116.47%
Dallas Stars	40.54%	$19,850,000	$18,996,137	104.49%
Detroit Red Wings	44.67%	$6,000,000	$5,156,409	116.36%
Edmonton Oilers	47.46%	$4,650,000	$5,043,836	92.19%
Florida Panthers	40.20%	$10,366,667	$9,629,512	107.66%
Los Angeles Kings	51.52%	$2,425,000	$2,402,877	100.92%
Minnesota Wild	48.66%	$9,800,000	$10,465,888	93.64%
Montreal Canadiens	52.91%	$12,850,000	$12,940,688	99.30%
Nashville Predators	40.28%	$10,857,143	$11,580,945	93.75%
New Jersey Devils	47.50%	$8,730,000	$5,266,064	165.78%
New York Islanders	47.26%	$18,500,000	$17,108,764	108.13%
New York Rangers	47.23%	$22,892,000	$20,230,012	113.16%
Ottawa Senators	52.93%	$5,150,000	$3,487,250	147.68%
Philadelphia Flyers	47.50%	$10,390,000	$9,438,236	110.08%
Pittsburgh Penguins	44.87%	$4,500,000	$5,090,087	88.41%
San Jose Sharks	51.52%	$18,500,000	$16,466,687	112.35%
St. Louis Blues	45.42%	$7,600,000	$7,370,883	103.11%
Tampa Bay Lightning	40.27%	$4,650,000	$4,455,235	104.37%
Toronto Maple Leafs	52.93%	$14,600,000	$13,831,455	105.56%
Vancouver Canucks	49.26%	$19,000,000	$19,257,016	98.67%
Vegas Golden Knights	40.47%	$6,900,000	$8,454,244	81.62%
Washington Capitals	45.00%	$10,100,000	$13,268,082	76.12%
Winnipeg Jets	49.96%	$6,280,000	$6,547,251	95.92%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Then, I looked to try and find a correlation between cap hit/projected cap hit and estimated tax rates.

There is a slight correlation here, meaning that teams with higher tax rates are paying more than projected value to their players. However, the correlation isn't nearly strong enough to draw any conclusion, with an R^2 value of only 0.0764. And just looking at the chart, the data really is all over the place.

More specifically, if you look at just the teams with no state taxes, there doesn't seem to be a consistent trend. 3 of the 5 teams with no state taxes (Tampa Bay, Florida, and Dallas) actually paid more than projected to their players.

Just based on this data we have here, I don't think we can really conclude that teams in states with lesser tax rates get significant discount. I know that people will have some issues with the contract evaluation model, and so do I. I think some of the projected cap hits are fairly wonky for some of these players. For example, Matt Duchene in Nashville was widely regarded as a major discount, yet his projected contract on a 7-year term was slightly less than what he actually signed for. Duchene is definitely an outlier, and the model has a few.

Having said that, even with a model that isn't perfect, we would probably still observe a much stronger correlation between discounts and low estimated tax rates if the correlation was extremely strong.

UPDATE: I just did these same calculations using Matt Cane's 2018 contract projection model, along with contracts signed in 2018.

Teams:

Spoiler

TEAM	Estimated Tax Rate	Cap Hit	Projected Cap Hit	Cap Hit/Projected Cap Hit
Anaheim Ducks	51.52%	$9,953,833	$8,922,702	111.56%
Arizona Coyotes	44.02%	$10,625,000	$11,378,304	93.38%
Boston Bruins	44.41%	$10,425,000	$13,078,792	79.71%
Buffalo Sabres	47.23%	$7,450,000	$8,406,517	88.62%
Calgary Flames	47.46%	$21,600,000	$20,500,627	105.36%
Carolina Hurricanes	44.73%	$8,350,000	$8,481,157	98.45%
Chicago Blackhawks	44.16%	$6,250,000	$6,235,644	100.23%
Colorado Avalanche	43.97%	$14,858,333	$11,642,238	127.62%
Columbus Blue Jackets	46.05%	$11,825,000	$10,685,522	110.66%
Dallas Stars	40.54%	$13,150,000	$12,905,882	101.89%
Detroit Red Wings	44.67%	$26,225,000	$25,134,711	104.34%
Edmonton Oilers	47.46%	$12,850,000	$12,933,237	99.36%
Florida Panthers	40.20%	$3,250,000	$2,477,629	131.17%
Minnesota Wild	48.66%	$14,750,000	$14,835,032	99.43%
Montreal Canadiens	52.91%	$8,483,000	$6,493,404	130.64%
Nashville Predators	40.28%	$2,750,000	$6,466,913	42.52%
New Jersey Devils	47.50%	$7,691,667	$8,023,544	95.86%
New York Islanders	47.26%	$18,500,000	$17,147,729	107.89%
New York Rangers	47.23%	$20,700,000	$17,630,642	117.41%
Ottawa Senators	52.93%	$12,650,000	$12,980,572	97.45%
Philadelphia Flyers	47.50%	$8,150,000	$7,387,652	110.32%
Pittsburgh Penguins	44.87%	$10,987,500	$10,846,554	101.30%
San Jose Sharks	51.52%	$20,562,500	$19,700,640	104.37%
St. Louis Blues	45.42%	$15,500,000	$18,880,234	82.10%
Tampa Bay Lightning	40.27%	$7,400,000	$8,014,053	92.34%
Toronto Maple Leafs	52.93%	$19,262,366	$18,519,585	104.01%
Vancouver Canucks	49.26%	$17,392,000	$14,188,865	122.57%
Vegas Golden Knights	40.47%	$25,800,000	$22,309,039	115.65%
Washington Capitals	45.00%	$18,770,000	$17,267,096	108.70%
Winnipeg Jets	49.96%	$19,883,333	$18,207,279	109.21%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

What's interesting is that when using data from both years, you get a slight correlation with almost identical R^2 values. Both in that 0.06-0.08 range, which is not significant on its own, but the fact that this is repeated through two samples with two different models is very interesting.

When combining the results of both years, the results grow in significance.

At this point, the evidence is note worthy, but the R^2 value that we are working with here is still less than 0.1. However, the fact that the level of significance increases as the sample size increases - even with two different models - increases the likelihood that there is something here, but that it is definitely not extreme, and that it is certainly prone to strong variance.

Click to read more...

 

[New Jersey]

Love this thread. Did you plug your variables into some jazz like R or just use good old Excel?

Very interesting to see your findings of trying to back it up, I’m sure there are always tax discussions between players and agents. Obviously the overall cost of living will be much different in certain markets. The NY/NJ/CT Metro is a bit different than Tampa Bay, for example, and players (especially ones with kids) obviously consider all of these variables when considering where to move their family to with UFA leverage.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The only difference between federal tax rates is US vs Canada. The differences are due to state/provincial tax rates, not differences in the federal rate.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Teams I would say no. The players that play for them? Absolutely.

The salary cap was put in place to ensure a level of parity throughout the league. That level is not an absolute black and white. There's always going to be some advantages for some teams that other teams don't have. A big market will always have an inherent advantage over a small market, a spot with great weather will always have an advantage over one that doesn't, and a team seen to be competing for a cup will always have an advantage over a team at the bottom of the standings. Just the way of the world. Totally fair and balanced is an unrealistic ideal.

 

[Erep]

I really like the idea of this, but I think by splitting it up by team you are breaking it down too far. Most teams only have a few qualified signings, and there are so many other market factors around these signings. Things like, for example some teams are more or less effective at getting quality contracts drafted. Some teams don't have the cap space, so while they would have overspent, they could not, and instead only signed guys who were available at a discount for other reasons like aging. Then on top of that there is how those same factors affect the model that was used to generate the projected salary that may cause bias in a teams sample set.

I would recommend a system where you model (Paid/Projected) against(tax adjusted payment/projected). That would then show, as you deviate from the projection by a larger percentage of the projection, does it correlate to a more accurate projection when you take into account the taxes. This way you can plot all the data without needing to filter it by market, and instead calculating each case's own tax adjusted payment.

 

[Legion34]

Teams I would say no. The players that play for them? Absolutely.

The salary cap was put in place to ensure a level of parity throughout the league. That level is not an absolute black and white. There's always going to be some advantages for some teams that other teams don't have. A big market will always have an inherent advantage over a small market, a spot with great weather will always have an advantage over one that doesn't, and a team seen to be competing for a cup will always have an advantage over one that doesn't. Just the way of the world. Totally fair is an unrealistic ideal.

Again. No one is saying they have to make every single thing equal.

What we are
Saying is. If you artificially impose a system and claim it provides parity. Then it has to be fair.

That’s the problem

 

[Legionnaire]

LMAO. We are being taxed at a ridiculous rate in CA. The Bay area in particular.

SO should athletes be taxed at a higher rate in Palo Alto just because there is a a bogus property valuation?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Why is there this repetition that the purpose of the cap is to provide parity? It’s not.

The purpose of the cap is to provide cost certainty to the owners. Period.

 

[Dekes For Days]

What a lazy analysis. Not only are you putting everything on this one evaluation model to be correct for all levels of players and all terms across all different contract statuses and ages and positions, but you based it all on signings in one year with specific contract parameters, and you barely have any sample for any team. For some, you don't have any. Your evaluation is going to be so heavily influenced by the results of individual contracts, and the circumstances around those individual contracts are so wildly different from each other. The vast differences in percentages between teams should alert you to the fact that you aren't actually measuring the effect of taxes.

And then you go on to claim that the correlation (that exists) isn't strong enough to state that the advantage exists with confidence? Well duh, because you literally did an "analysis" that made it impossible to have strong correlation.

That doesn't say anything about the ability for taxes to affect contracts, despite your attempt to force a conclusion.

For the record, even by your evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%.

EDIT: A bigger analysis with a bigger sample of teams (OP's choice) using OP's own methods of total cap hit/total projected cap hit for the given sample:

2019:

All contracts between 40-45% taxes: 98.8% of projected cap hit
All contracts between 49-53% taxes: 105.2% of projected cap hit

2018:

All contracts between 40-45% taxes: 101.7% of projected cap hit
All contracts between 49-53% taxes: 109.3% of projected cap hit

Still a significant difference.

EDIT#2:

All contracts between 40-41% taxes over 2 years: 99.7% of projected cap hit
All contracts between 41-45% taxes over 2 years: 100.9% of projected cap hit
All contracts between 45-49% taxes over 2 years: 106.4% of projected cap hit
All contracts between 49-53% taxes over 2 years: 107.5% of projected cap hit

Still a significant difference between low-tax areas and high-tax areas, and we see a consistent trend throughout the entire sample.

 

[txpd]

Its a factor among factors. Players decide to where they want to play for a variety of reasons. Taxes may be one. Available endorsement money might be another. The high profile nature of the team in the market of the amount of privacy desired. Players are different. Some want to be celebrities while others want to be well paid professionals like their next door neighbor doctor and live a normal life.

So taxes are important to some and less important to others. I would suggest that taxes are more important to agents than players

 

[Ms Maggie]

Another factor is how/if unearned income is taxed. Key for big earners--capital gains, investment income. In PA for instance, it's not taxed at the state level.

 

[Legion34]

Why is there this repetition that the purpose of the cap is to provide parity? It’s not.

The purpose of the cap is to provide cost certainty to the owners. Period.

Because I’m sure you were there during the meetings. And how it was sold in each individual market.

Many people lost their jobs. The NHL employs hundreds of people in Ontario Sporting revenue is huge in our economy.

But sure. You decide exactly what it was sold as and promised and the purpose of a system that affected thousands in a single sentence

 

[Legion34]

What a lazy analysis. Not only are you putting everything on this one evaluation model to be correct for all levels of players and all terms across all different contract statuses and ages and positions, but you based it all on signings in one year with specific contract parameters, and you barely have any sample for any team. For some, you don't have any. Your evaluation is going to be so heavily influenced by the results of individual contracts, and the circumstances around those individual contracts are so wildly different from each other. The vast differences in percentages between teams should alert you to the fact that you aren't actually measuring the effect of taxes.

And then you go on to claim that the correlation (that exists) isn't strong enough to state that the advantage exists with confidence? Well duh, because you literally did an "analysis" that made it impossible to have strong correlation.

That doesn't say anything about the ability for taxes to affect contracts, despite your attempt to force a conclusion.

For the record, even by your evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%.

Well at least it’s better than a single poll that was argued to prove. “Their is no bias on hfboards”.

But as much as there is a lot missing from the analysis. Funny thing.

Even with the flaws. Hi tax minus low tax. About 15 percent extra money spent in high tax markets.

High tax. About. 53%. No tax. About 38%
15 percent extra money in High tax markets

Coincidence?

 

[HenrikW]

Kucherov is the only Russian I've heard of that took less. It's quite clear based on previous comments that his number #1 goal is to win though.

Vasi, Bobrovsky, Panarin etc. Nah Russians want cash, they are no good comparables. Ovechkin too. The guy signed the highest cap hit % ever. Doesn't look that bad atm though. The upside of 13 year long contracts...

 

[txpd]

Kucherov is the only Russian I've heard of that took less. It's quite clear based on previous comments that his number #1 goal is to win though.

Vasi, Bobrovsky, Panarin etc. Nah Russians want cash, they are no good comparables. Ovechkin too. The guy signed the highest cap hit % ever. Doesn't look that bad atm though. The upside of 13 year long contracts...

So, Ovechkin signed away all those UFA years and he didn't help the team?

 

[aufheben]

Whatever the reason may be, I was kind of shocked Tampa actually had to pay market value for Vasilevskiy. Seems like they just never run out of cap space.

Kucherov is the only Russian I've heard of that took less. It's quite clear based on previous comments that his number #1 goal is to win though.

Vasi, Bobrovsky, Panarin etc. Nah Russians want cash, they are no good comparables. Ovechkin too. The guy signed the highest cap hit % ever. Doesn't look that bad atm though. The upside of 13 year long contracts...

Panarin was offered more from other teams. Shattenkirk could have taken more elsewhere. You can’t quantify it all of this, but some teams have an allure, some a certain climate, some cheaper cost of living, etc., that should be weighed against whatever tax advantages other teams have.

 

[Quiet Jack]

when anyone on this board actually moves due to lower taxes let me know

 

[HenrikW]

So, Ovechkin signed away all those UFA years and he didn't help the team?

The equivilent would be signing for +16M in 18/19. McDavid will have to take 18M on his next contract (if the cap is raised at current rate).

By the time Ovechkin would have come UFA today (after 8 years), if he re-signed back in 16/17 his current contract would still be fairly relative to the contract Tavares signed in 18/19. Even if you argue that a 30YO Ovechkin could command a few more % raise than Tavares did as a UFA, I can't see him getting more than 15% of cap if he was given 8 more years. That would have his contract at 10.95 today. Can't really say Ovechkin did WSH much of a favor, his contract was crippling for a good couple of years.

Crosby on the other hand took a MASSIVE discount. If he took an Ovechkin contract, he would be the highest paid player to this date.

 

[glovesave_35]

Why is there this repetition that the purpose of the cap is to provide parity? It’s not.

The purpose of the cap is to provide cost certainty to the owners. Period.

This is the truth of it but nobody cares anymore. Half the people on this site were wearing huggies during the 04-05 lockout.

 

[Balance]

Well, the states that do have lower tax rates should not be penalized as such. It only proves one thing, states with lower tax rates should be rewarded for welcoming a better structure that is conducive to business.

Its why Canada can barely have 7 teams and is the most hockey crazed nation while the US barely cares about the sport yet generates numerous more dollars with many of its teams.

Basic economics.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The equivilent would be signing for +16M in 18/19. McDavid will have to take 18M on his next contract (if the cap is raised at current rate).

By the time Ovechkin would have come UFA today (after 8 years), if he re-signed back in 16/17 his current contract would still be fairly relative to the contract Tavares signed in 18/19. Even if you argue that a 30YO Ovechkin could command a few more % raise than Tavares did as a UFA, I can't see him getting more than 15% of cap if he was given 8 more years. That would have his contract at 10.95 today. Can't really say Ovechkin did WSH much of a favor, his contract was crippling for a good couple of years.

Crosby on the other hand took a MASSIVE discount. If he took an Ovechkin contract, he would be the highest paid player to this date.

Ovechkin and McDavid at the time of signing were the same caliber of player.

The equivalent to Ovechkin's contract would've been McDavid signing a 13-year contract for $12,615,000.

It is widely known that McDavid did his team a big favor with the contract he signed. Now imagine how much of a favor it was that Ovechkin signed to an almost identical AAV for 5 more UFA years.

Also, Ovechkin could easily command over 15% of the cap today, even at his age.

Love this thread. Did you plug your variables into some jazz like R or just use good old Excel?

Very interesting to see your findings of trying to back it up, I’m sure there are always tax discussions between players and agents. Obviously the overall cost of living will be much different in certain markets. The NY/NJ/CT Metro is a bit different than Tampa Bay, for example, and players (especially ones with kids) obviously consider all of these variables when considering where to move their family to with UFA leverage.

Just good old Excel.

Not only are you putting everything on this one evaluation model to be correct for all levels of players and all terms across all different contract statuses and ages and positions

Do you not get tired of using blatant lies and misrepresentations to respond to every post I make?

I literally went out of my way to say that there are issues with the model, and I described them:

I know that people will have some issues with the contract evaluation model, and so do I. I think some of the projected cap hits are fairly wonky for some of these players. For example, Matt Duchene in Nashville was widely regarded as a major discount, yet his projected contract on a 7-year term was slightly less than what he actually signed for. Duchene is definitely an outlier, and the model has a few.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Again. No one is saying they have to make every single thing equal.

What we are
Saying is. If you artificially impose a system and claim it provides parity. Then it has to be fair.

That’s the problem

Life isn't fair, and it sure as hell isn't Lake Wobegone. The sooner people realize this, the better.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Do you not get tired of using blatant lies and misrepresentations to respond to every post I make?

What did I misrepresent/lie about? You keep saying this as a way to attack me personally and deflect away from answering to anything, without actually saying what was misrepresented. I noticed you once again failed to respond to the substance of my post, or to the countless other posts criticizing your methods.

Even more hilarious, you quoted a portion of my post instead of the whole thing, which is the exact thing you had a fit about and refused to answer because of last time.

I literally went out of my way to say that there are issues with the model, and I described them:

You described some, but not nearly all of the problems, and despite the massive issues that essentially make this evaluation completely worthless, and despite the clear difference between non-tax and high-tax areas, as I showed you in my post, you chose to post this thread (for obvious reasons), and represent the data to be complete and objective:

What I wanted to do was take an objective look at all of the data available.

Neither of which is close to true. You also had no problem using that heavily flawed data to state an incredibly premature conclusion that was in fact countered by your own data.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

What did I misrepresent/lie about? You keep saying this as a way to attack me personally and deflect away from answering to anything, without actually saying what was misrepresented. I noticed you once again failed to respond to the substance of my post, or to the countless other posts criticizing your methods.

Even more hilarious, you quoted a portion of my post instead of the whole thing, which is the exact thing you had a fit about and refused to answer because of last time.


You described some, but not nearly all of the problems, and despite the massive issues that essentially make this evaluation completely worthless, and despite the clear difference between non-tax and high-tax areas, as I showed you in my post, you chose to post this thread (for obvious reasons), and represent the data to be complete and objective:

Neither of which is close to true. You also had no problem using that heavily flawed data to state an incredibly premature conclusion that was in fact countered by your own data.

You misrepresented my post by saying that I put everything on this one evaluation model to be completely accurate across all players and ages. I didn't. I specifically made it very clear that was not the case.

You do realize that my team is one of those in the "high tax brackets", right? I know you can't bare to make an argument without accusing somebody else of having an agenda, but if anything, wouldn't my agenda be to whine about how taxes are a disadvantage to my team? Or maybe unlike you, some people don't base their opinions entirely through trying to find a way to play the victim whine about how their team is at such a disadvantage.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

when anyone on this board actually moves due to lower taxes let me know

I’m doing so right now. Destination Texas.