Dreger: Filppula rejected a deal to Montreal too

[Lempo]

If you had a standard NMC you would not be able to be sent to the minors.
You could however waive the NMC to go to the minors. At that point, you can allow the team to place you on waivers, OR you too can waive the waiver process and report straight to the minors.


So, if you go on waivers, with a standard, defaulted NMC, it's pretty much your choice (you're hoping you'll be claimed).



EDIT: On second thought , I realized I might be wrong. I know a player with a NMC to the minors can waive their NMC to go to the minors (see: Mike Komisarek), but I may be wrong about skipping the waiver process and reporting directly.
I have a vivid memory of a player skipping the waiver process (but for the life of me cannot remember whom) but I think I was conflating the idea with NMCs and buyouts/contract terminations. I know for a fact, you can skip "unconditional waivers" for the purpose of mutual termination with an NMC, and I am quite sure in the event of a buyout you can elect to be put on waivers first (in hopes of someone taking you and your contract) or elect to proceed directly to the buyout, with an NMC...
I however cannot confirm either way (without going back to the CBA) you can skip waivers for demotion, if you waive your NMC.

Sending a player to minors may well be restricted under some other stipulation within the CBA; it's just that this particular wording seems to be specifically about a Waiver claim made on a player on Waivers.

Of course, if you can't be claimed on Waivers, there's not much point in putting you on Waivers.

 

[BM14]

Time for the NHL to step in and make individual team salary caps relative to the take home percentage.

 

[uncleben]

Sending a player to minors may well be restricted under some other stipulation within the CBA; it's just that this particular wording seems to be specifically about a Waiver claim made on a player on Waivers.

Of course, if you can't be claimed on Waivers, there's not much point in putting you on Waivers.

I think I might be slightly confused by your point then...
What are you trying to ask/say?


Are you inferring from the passage in the CBA that if a player elects to be put on waivers, and then is claimed, they can invoke their NMC to block the claim? Like there is a distinction between being on waivers and being claimed off waivers?

Because if they waive their NMC in a way that leads them to be put on waivers, I think the spirit of the rule in the CBA and all NHL lawyers would agree, that that by waiving their protection from waivers, the player has waived their protection from being claimed off waivers.

 

[Rschmitz]

Time for the NHL to step in and make individual team salary caps relative to the take take home percentage.

Why would they do this

 

[BM14]

Why would they do this

Same reason teams have to take part in revenue sharing. Equal playing field and all.

 

[uncleben]

Time for the NHL to step in and make individual team salary caps relative to the take take home percentage.

Then you would more or less go back to pre-salary cap days.
Big spending teams (in theory) could build a feedback loop where they invest in a bigger player, increase profit from tickets, merch, and tv, increase their cap, bring in better players, increase profit, increase cap, etc.

Or worse, large market teams with perennial support and record profit regardless of success can just abuse it even easierly.

You'd get New York paying big money for Messier, Kovalev, Lindros, Jagr, Fleury, Bure, Leetch, Nedved, Holik, Dvorak and Rucinsky or Toronto bringing in players like Mogilny, Belfour, Nieuwendyk, Leetch, Francis, Roberts, Nolan, Wesley, Renberg, Reichel, and Svehla in a small window of team to try to pay for success.

I mean those two teams in the early 2000s were not the epitome of success, and their spending did not payoff in Stanley Cup form, but they by all means exploited their wealth to try to reach that goal.

You don't think if Toronto had an $80 million dollar cap hit this past year (at the expense of say, Tampa being at 60 - Toronto being the 3rd most profitable organization last year, and Tampa being 24) it would be a far fetch to say Toronto would've had a greater chance to convince Stamkos to sign? Now do this again for Drouin, and Kucherov. How successful would Tampa be if their players kept getting poached? What pull would their be for fans to show up and pay, if all the stars keep leaving. Profits drop, and Tampa's financial flexibility and buying power drop even more.

Not all players solely chase money, I'm oversimplifying things, but you're setting yourself up to potentially cripple some teams.

 

[stuffradio]

Hansen rejected a deal to Montreal too. It's just not a team liked by players I guess.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Hansen rejected a deal to Montreal too. It's just not a team liked by players I guess.

Heard that too that one is odd too

 

[BM14]

Then you would more or less go back to pre-salary cap days.
Big spending teams (in theory) could build a feedback loop where they invest in a bigger player, increase profit from tickets, merch, and tv, increase their cap, bring in better players, increase profit, increase cap, etc.

Or worse, large market teams with perennial support and record profit regardless of success can just abuse it even easierly.

You'd get New York paying big money for Messier, Kovalev, Lindros, Jagr, Fleury, Bure, Leetch, Nedved, Holik, Dvorak and Rucinsky or Toronto bringing in players like Mogilny, Belfour, Nieuwendyk, Leetch, Francis, Roberts, Nolan, Wesley, Renberg, Reichel, and Svehla in a small window of team to try to pay for success.

I mean those two teams in the early 2000s were not the epitome of success, and their spending did not payoff in Stanley Cup form, but they by all means exploited their wealth to try to reach that goal.

You don't think if Toronto had an $80 million dollar cap hit this past year (at the expense of say, Tampa being at 60 - Toronto being the 3rd most profitable organization last year, and Tampa being 24) it would be a far fetch to say Toronto could've convinced Stamkos to sign?

That is the exact point I'm making.

Let's face it: sports is a business first.
Teams benefit from a universal TV deal thats split vs individual TV market deals already.

This thought is relative to the thread as it's been mentioned plenty of times that the theory of the trade proposal rejections is based on the individual provincial/state income tax.

I'm sure quite a few of us on this forum know people who play/have played in the NHL and can verify it's a legitimate consideration when they sign/have signed contracts.

Why have a level playing filed for unsuccessful or perennially struggling financial teams but not for teams who have higher taxation rates which they have zero control over?

 

[The Macho King]

That is the exact point I'm making.

Let's face it: sports is a business first.
Teams benefit from a universal TV deal thats split vs individual TV market deals already.

This thought is relative to the thread as it's been mentioned plenty of times that the theory of the trade proposal rejections is based on the individual provincial/state income tax.

I'm sure quite a few of us on this forum know people who play/have played in the NHL and can verify it's a legitimate consideration when they sign/have signed contracts.

Why have a level playing filed for unsuccessful or perennially struggling financial teams but not for teams who have higher taxation rates which they have zero control over?

What are some other considerations when people sign contracts? Do they consider weather? Do they consider non-contractual income opportunities (sponsorship deals, etc.)? Do they consider proximity to family? Do they consider quality of city?

Because without controlling for all of them, controlling for one of them just shifts the advantage somewhere else.

 

[Rschmitz]

Same reason teams have to take part in revenue sharing. Equal playing field and all.

Are they going to calibrate for cost of living, sponserships, quality of life, living conditions?

 

[BM14]

What are some other considerations when people sign contracts? Do they consider weather? Do they consider non-contractual income opportunities (sponsorship deals, etc.)? Do they consider proximity to family? Do they consider quality of city?

Because without controlling for all of them, controlling for one of them just shifts the advantage somewhere else.

Clearly you know everyone one of those considerations are accounted for but are not within a team's scope of control. The constant comparables that can be offered by teams are salary and term, which again have parameters set in order to create parity but it's a flawed formula.

 

[The Macho King]

Clearly you know everyone one of those considerations are accounted for but are not within a team's scope of control. The constant comparables that can be offered by teams are salary and term, which again have parameters set in order to create parity but it's a flawed formula.

So a player that has 2 kids is able to claim them on his taxes, which gives him a significantly lower tax burden than a single guy with no dependents. Therefore, on the same salary, player a has a higher take-home than player b.

When factoring in take-home pay, are we going to factor in these situations? Are we going to say "well, this guy gets to claim the mortgage interest deduction, so his check will be lower, while this guy is renting and gets no such deduction."

This is a solution in search of a problem. This is Toronto (and now Montreal) fans sad that players pass up playing for them. It's not going to change, and the proposed solutions are stupid because they just create new inequities (except these BENEFIT Toronto and Montreal so we're okay with them!).

 

[Lempo]

I think I might be slightly confused by your point then...
What are you trying to ask/say?


Are you inferring from the passage in the CBA that if a player elects to be put on waivers, and then is claimed, they can invoke their NMC to block the claim? Like there is a distinction between being on waivers and being claimed off waivers?

Because if they waive their NMC in a way that leads them to be put on waivers, I think the spirit of the rule in the CBA and all NHL lawyers would agree, that that by waiving their protection from waivers, the player has waived their protection from being claimed off waivers.

I have no point actually, I just lost my way thinking the wording about waiver claim and what it may entail.

 

[uncleben]

That is the exact point I'm making.

Let's face it: sports is a business first.
Teams benefit from a universal TV deal thats split vs individual TV market deals already.

This thought is relative to the thread as it's been mentioned plenty of times that the theory of the trade proposal rejections is based on the individual provincial/state income tax.

I'm sure quite a few of us on this forum know people who play/have played in the NHL and can verify it's a legitimate consideration when they sign/have signed contracts.

Why have a level playing filed for unsuccessful or perennially struggling financial teams but not for teams who have higher taxation rates which they have zero control over?

I should admit then that I misunderstood your post

I thought you were arguing for variable salary caps based on Team Profit (like if Team A makes more profit as an organization than Team B, Team A should have the right to spend more money, which is not inherently flawed, but is the exact opposite function of a salary cap).

You're saying teams should have variable cap hits based on taxation.
This is actually an idea I can get more behind.
Another solution would be to keep consistent salary caps, but only applies cap hits after taxes have been calculated.
Either way though, this would be trickier though because of changing tax rates. You may sign the contract at 40% taxation only to see it rise to 50% over the course of your deal. So is it something you constantly keep updating? Surely that's a nightmare NHL head offices, and team financial offices alike. Do you go by taxation rate at the time of signing? Surely that will discourage longterm deals? Do you go by financial projections and hope you are close? Or is it updated at the start of each season, such that a player's cap hit is fluid, year-to-year, even throughout the life of a single contract? You're just asking to see a team get screwed over by some new, unexpected financial policy in a state or province.

I'm not against the idea of proportional cap hits, based on taxes, but I think there are just way too many variables involved.

 

[JustAHabFan]

Refused to play for team that will make a plyoff and then go playing for a team that is unlikely to make the playoff? Filppula is a loser and the Leafs/Habs are better off without him.

 

[uncleben]

This is a solution in search of a problem. This is Toronto (and now Montreal) fans sad that players pass up playing for them. It's not going to change, and the proposed solutions are stupid because they just create new inequities (except these BENEFIT Toronto and Montreal so we're okay with them!).

To be fair, I don't think many Toronto fans are overly sad about this...

I have no point actually, I just lost my way thinking the wording about waiver claim and what it may entail.

Fair enough!

 

[llamateizer]

delete

 

[Doodootheclown]

Refused to play for team that will make a plyoff and then go playing for a team that is unlikely to make the playoff? Filppula is a loser and the Leafs/Habs are better off without him.

He is such a loser with his Stanley Cup ring, and having never missed the playoffs in his career.

 

[JustAHabFan]

He is such a loser with his Stanley Cup ring, and having never missed the playoffs in his career.

It's going to happen to him now.

 

[Butchered]

Why would they do this

Because obviously the only reason Flip didn't want to play in Montreal is taxes.

It is literally the only thing that could possibly make sense.

 

[Curufinwe]

Because obviously the only reason Flip didn't want to play in Montreal is taxes.

It is literally the only thing that could possibly make sense.

Philly is a lot closer to where he's lived the past few years, and in the same country.

 

[Rebels57]

It's going to happen to him now.

He'll be right back in there next year though.

 

[Butchered]

Philly is a lot closer to where he's lived the past few years, and in the same country.

I was being sarcastic, since we've now got people honestly saying the NHL needs to make individual salary caps due to tax differences.

I think taxes were at the bottom of the list in things that Filppula considered, but that's obviously not possible because who would turn down playing in Montreal otherwise?

 

[CalderSchmalder]

im sensing a trend here...