• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Updates and Rumours from around the League

number17 said:
Anyone who thinks Dion is not a top 4 dman in this league is either ridiculous and /or is delusional.

His points production, his minutes, his advanced stats all show he is clearly a top 4 defenseman, that much is crystal clear.

It doesn't mean he'll get traded though, because the problem with Dion is he's a top 4 dman making top dman $$. If Toronto is to eat big chunk of his contract then maybe he can be moved, but then again it's not like we have top dman prospect coming through the system to take away Dion's minutes, so if we're to take the cap hit and not have the player, why bother?
Click to expand...
Yeah, eating salary on Dion's contract should be a non-starter at this point. You can only retain money on three players at any given time, so if we do it with Dion for the next five years after already doing it for Phil for the next six years, we'll be seriously handcuffing ourselves (not to mention creating more unrecoverable dead cap space).

At this point, just hang onto him and keep putting him in situations where he can succeed. He's not hurting us on the ice, and hopefully the ideal situation to offload him in the most economical way will eventually present itself---like it did for the Blackhawks when Florida agreed to take Brian Campbell off their hands. It should help that the per-season real dollar value of his contract keeps going down the farther along it gets.
 
UWHabs said:
Kadri is fast losing his leverage. After this year, that's basically 3 straight years as a 50-point player since his big lockout year. Is that the sort of player you want to guarantee 5M+ for for a long term deal? I have a hard time pegging his value.

Rielly has pedigree, and if he ends the year as a 40-point D, could certainly look to cash in on coin. I can see him sign for anywhere between 4.5M and say 7M on a deal between 4 and 8 years. 5.5M on a 5-6 year deal for him is likely a reasonable compromise - I doubt he would want to lock in for a longer deal for less than that, and guaranteeing 7M for 8 years to a D who hasn't quite broken out yet is a very risky proposition.
Click to expand...

naz has developed into a really good player. from the sounds of it he's really upped his game behind the scenes and is starting to lead by example. he had a real rough go earlier in the year - just totally unlucky - which is what is keeping him out of the 60 point pace range. but despite that he never let any frustration boil over, and didn't start trying to force the offense - just stuck with the program.

at the low end, assuming he can't take that step forward offensively, he looks like he could be for toronto what pleks has been for montreal for basically a full decade now. now, obviously plekanec has been miscast at time as a first line C, but the fact that in a decade montreal hasn't been able to find anybody better should tell you how difficult it is to even find a plekanec. when you got one of those guys - who play well at both ends of the ice and can put up 50 points - it's pretty inadvisable to give them up. at least until you're sure you have something better.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Yeah, unless Marner and Nylander establish themselves as better centers, we shouldn't be parting ways with Kadri.
Click to expand...

and even if they do, how sweet would it be to have all three on the roster for 3-4 years? totally doable since they're both on entry deals.
 
Keep all three for longer than that by playing Marner on the wing as he physically matures. And once he does in a few years, make Kadri your third line center making $5m if you want them all playing down the middle.
 
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-taxes-could-impact-stamkos-signing-with-maple-leafs/

Raiola determined that if Stamkos signed the proposed eight-year, $68-million deal he’d walk away with $36,782,272 in net income after deducting agent fees, federal taxes and any state/city/jock taxes.

In contrast, if Stamkos were to sign a seven-year (because seven years would be the limit if he joined a new team) deal worth $70 million with a team like his hometown Maple Leafs his net income after agent fees plus federal and provincial taxes would be $29,729,000. That’s roughly $7 million less than the Tampa total presuming he lived in the Toronto area.
Click to expand...

On the outside looking in this makes sense however there are some major holes in the story that oddly enough weren't taken into account

A weak Canadian dollar, the ability for the Leafs to offer a heavily front loaded deal (ROR can be used as an example) and of course what I believe to be the tipping point, endorsements.

As of 2014 Stamkos was making 1.7 million with Bauer, Nike and Tissot Watches. You can easily double that figure if he signs here this summer. And I think thats low balling

If money is his true motivation the no state tax argument gets trumped by all of the above.
 
I read the article Joe Smith wrote in the Tampa Bay times about the tax issue. The end result was that Tampa's 8 year/$8.5M offer would give him $7M more in take-home pay than a hypothetical 7 year/$10M offer from Toronto---but that's also taking into account the extra year that Tampa Bay would be able to offer him. So through the first seven years of the deal, he'd still make more in straight-up salary with the "Toronto offer". And that's also assuming he spends all eight years in Tampa---far from a given in this day and age.

Like you say though---the "savings" of staying in Tampa versus playing in Toronto vanish pretty quickly in a whole multitude of ways. Money up front > Money years down the road, and if Shanahan decides he wants Stamkos, I doubt MLSE would have any problem with doing something like this:

7 years/$73.5M, $10.5M annual cap hit

Year 1: $14M
Year 2: $14M
Year 3: $14M
Year 4: $10.5M
Year 5: $7M
Year 6: $7M
Year 7: $7M

As for endorsements, I think we can all remember how many commercials and advertisements Mats Sundin appeared in while he was here. I can only imagine what it'd be for a hometown boy like Stamkos, particularly if he rings up some 50-goal seasons here and the team has any kind of playoff success.

If Stamkos stays in Tampa, it'll be because he wants to stay there, and because Tampa decided to pay up full market value. Not because of any cute tax loopholes.
 
I think 10 is light... i'm pretty sure he will get 11 or 11.5 per over 7 years.

People have touched on the dollar, endoursements etc already but one thing MLSE seams good about is giving former players cushy jobs once they are done playing. If he comes here and we have success as a team and him individually he could be that next guy to have a statue built for him outside the ACC and be kept in the organization til he is 90 years old with a steady pay cheque.

Tampa is the safe choice but if he wants the chance at something special it will never happen in tampa.
 
If it is all about top dollar he'll make the most money in Toronto or New York. Taxes or not, Tampa just can't compete with the endorsements he'd get here.

But if he comes here its not about the money.
 
Money is obviously a big thing, and the tax break does give Tampa an advantage - if it's only taxes you are talking about.

Even if you talk $$ alone, all of these millionare athletes are able to find legal tax shelters to get away from the heavy Canadian tax. In addition, like others have mentioned, the endorsement from playing in the biggest hockey market easily exceeds the difference in tax break.

It isn't gonna be a $$ alone decision, but on the $$ front there are many things MLSE can do to make up for the tax difference.
 
number17 said:
Money is obviously a big thing, and the tax break does give Tampa an advantage - if it's only taxes you are talking about.

Even if you talk $$ alone, all of these millionare athletes are able to find legal tax shelters to get away from the heavy Canadian tax. In addition, like others have mentioned, the endorsement from playing in the biggest hockey market easily exceeds the difference in tax break.

It isn't gonna be a $$ alone decision, but on the $$ front there are many things MLSE can do to make up for the tax difference.
Click to expand...

They are engaged as individuals. Not sure if contractors or employees but either way their ability to tax shelter their nhl pay is limited
 
10.5M USD = 15M CAD currently as well...not that it will always stay that way, but if we're talking about pure economic utility here, 15M CAD while living and playing in Canada is pretty ****ing substantial.
 
MindzEye said:
10.5M USD = 15M CAD currently as well...not that it will always stay that way, but if we're talking about pure economic utility here, 15M CAD while living and playing in Canada is pretty ****ing substantial.
Click to expand...

Cost of living / cost of expensive toys in each City would come into play (including the currency rate).
 
MindzEye said:
10.5M USD = 15M CAD currently as well...not that it will always stay that way, but if we're talking about pure economic utility here, 15M CAD while living and playing in Canada is pretty ****ing substantial.
Click to expand...
I averaged it out to be 25 cents on the dollar based on historical trends.

Still looking at 13 million per over the term if the indeed came in again 10.5/7
 
stamkos is already doing ads in canada. and i don't know why the analysis considers a $10/year salary. as mentioned, if they can get the AAV to $10 per it'll be because of some creative front loading. the truth is that his AAV could well be in the $11-12 range. ufa stamkos is unprecedented. the nhl has never had a 26 year old 60 goal scorer become an unrestricted free agent.

kid's gonna get paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top