Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

2019-20 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

why do you think Tampa is going to regress ?

 

I said their RHD has 3 unknown players on ELC which is never ideal had you read the paragraph above what you quoted. I guess they are not on ELC though I misread that part but still they are basically all 3rd pairing players looks worse than ours the last 3 years. Their right side is 

Rutta

Schenn

Witkowski

Cernak 

Not exactly a D lineup I would be happy with. Their probably counting on winning with offense not defense but offense may win you games but defense wins championships just look at how St. Louis won this year.

 

10 hours ago, campabee82 said:

I am looking at the teams in our division and while Toronto and Florida got better, they still have major holes. Toronto upgraded their D but their middle 6 are questionable and who are they going to have to move to for Mariner in. Tampa and the Bruins pretty well stood pat except that Tampa has to sign both Point and Erne plus have 3 RHD on entry level contracts which is never ideal. Buffalo, Detroit and Ottawa are still the bottom having done nothing to really improve again this year. So here is my prediction for 2019-2020 

Boston

Toronto

Montreal/Florida/Tampa (these three will be fighting for the last spot however depending on how well Kinkade works out we could move up)

Buffalo

Ottawa

Detroit

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

34 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

 Armia will have his hearing on July 20, followed by Hudon on August 2 and Lehkonen on August 3.

My guess is that Armia & Lehks will both sign a contract before their hearings.  I think Hudon is going to go to arbitration and it wont be pretty.  Probably signals the end of his tenure as a Hab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, maas_art said:

My guess is that Armia & Lehks will both sign a contract before their hearings.  I think Hudon is going to go to arbitration and it wont be pretty.  Probably signals the end of his tenure as a Hab. 

Yeah, my guess is if the Habs don't get what they want as a contract, they'll just walk away and make him a UFA (unless they trade him first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Yeah, my guess is if the Habs don't get what they want as a contract, they'll just walk away and make him a UFA (unless they trade him first).

I think either way its going to be ugly.  Have you read some of the supporting documents teams present when going to arbitration? I can only imagine what they'll say about Hudon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, maas_art said:

I think either way its going to be ugly.  Have you read some of the supporting documents teams present when going to arbitration? I can only imagine what they'll say about Hudon. 

I haven't. Is it really, really bad? I always assumed it might be kind of more of a statement of facts about stats and a comparison to other similar players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite sure where to post this, so... Here seems as good a place as any.

Is revenue sharing information within the NHL ever made public? For instance, do we know how much revenue Montreal may have to share back with the league each season? Does this then get distributed to poor performing organizations?

Within a cap system, it seems unfair that Montreal should have to share any revenue given that there's no accommodation in the salary cap for teams that have a "stronger" tax system in place. It seems obvious that UFAs would rather choose an environment to play in where they will make more net income. Without a cap system that can accommodate higher tax cities, why wouldn't ownership be saying, "Why should we share revenue with the league when it's not a level playing field when it comes to free agents?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Not quite sure where to post this, so... Here seems as good a place as any.

Is revenue sharing information within the NHL ever made public? For instance, do we know how much revenue Montreal may have to share back with the league each season? Does this then get distributed to poor performing organizations?

Within a cap system, it seems unfair that Montreal should have to share any revenue given that there's no accommodation in the salary cap for teams that have a "stronger" tax system in place. It seems obvious that UFAs would rather choose an environment to play in where they will make more net income. Without a cap system that can accommodate higher tax cities, why wouldn't ownership be saying, "Why should we share revenue with the league when it's not a level playing field when it comes to free agents?"

no idea if there even is revenue sharing. The TV deals on their own are a sort of revenue sharing. 

One thing that I think would be helpful is more cap flexibility. Like for example, if Montreal has 10 million in cap space to start the seasons, they could pay 10 million of Price's cap hit spread equally over the life of the contract. I'd say you would have to reach the cap floor organically, before you could do this. 

I'd also like to be able to trade cap hits, not the player, but literally team a takes on 5 million of cap hit from team b (there would have to be a maximum. I would say 5% of the the cap.  

All I know is something needs to be done to help hockey markets where fans actually care but the tax system is harder on the players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, habsisme said:

no idea if there even is revenue sharing. The TV deals on their own are a sort of revenue sharing. 

One thing that I think would be helpful is more cap flexibility. Like for example, if Montreal has 10 million in cap space to start the seasons, they could pay 10 million of Price's cap hit spread equally over the life of the contract. I'd say you would have to reach the cap floor organically, before you could do this. 

I'd also like to be able to trade cap hits, not the player, but literally team a takes on 5 million of cap hit from team b (there would have to be a maximum. I would say 5% of the the cap.  

All I know is something needs to be done to help hockey markets where fans actually care but the tax system is harder on the players

That is an interesting idea. I really hope the NHL improves the cap system during the next collective bargaining agreement. I agree, teams that play in markets where fans really care, and sink sooooooo much money into the team, should be able AT LEAST play in a fair cap system. Not one that penalizes us because of federal and provincial taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, habsisme said:

All I know is something needs to be done to help hockey markets where fans actually care but the tax system is harder on the players

To a degree i agree, but i also think that the taxes are way overblown by fans.   I mean all we ever hear is how bad taxation is in Canada but yet the 3 california teams have no problem getting players, despite having taxes that are just as high. A lot of other teams are just a smidge below in the mid 40% taxation (adding federal and state taxes)

Sure, Carey Price pays 53% in taxes but for Kopitar in LA and Burns in San Jose its 51%   Yes, it would be nicer if the tax rate was nil (so you only pay 36% federal) like in Dallas or Nashville, but a lot of the league is in the 42-46 percent which is not really that far off canadian brackets of 51-53%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maas_art said:

To a degree i agree, but i also think that the taxes are way overblown by fans.   I mean all we ever hear is how bad taxation is in Canada but yet the 3 california teams have no problem getting players, despite having taxes that are just as high. A lot of other teams are just a smidge below in the mid 40% taxation (adding federal and state taxes)

Sure, Carey Price pays 53% in taxes but for Kopitar in LA and Burns in San Jose its 51%   Yes, it would be nicer if the tax rate was nil (so you only pay 36% federal) like in Dallas or Nashville, but a lot of the league is in the 42-46 percent which is not really that far off canadian brackets of 51-53%

its overblown but new york is new york and the california teams have weather. Its just one bad thing after another for us. The one thing we have is the tradition and playing where it matters but then there are always players who would prefer their privacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, maas_art said:

To a degree i agree, but i also think that the taxes are way overblown by fans.   I mean all we ever hear is how bad taxation is in Canada but yet the 3 california teams have no problem getting players, despite having taxes that are just as high. A lot of other teams are just a smidge below in the mid 40% taxation (adding federal and state taxes)

Sure, Carey Price pays 53% in taxes but for Kopitar in LA and Burns in San Jose its 51%   Yes, it would be nicer if the tax rate was nil (so you only pay 36% federal) like in Dallas or Nashville, but a lot of the league is in the 42-46 percent which is not really that far off canadian brackets of 51-53%

Just to be clear. I don't think taxes should change for athletes. You play in Quebec, you pay Quebec taxes. Like everyone else who works in Quebec. I just think there should be an allowance in the cap ceiling to reflect local tax rates. :D

Additionally. the difference between 53% and 51% on Erik Karlsson's new contract would be almost $2 million in net income over the duration of the deal. It's significant. Maybe not for someone who's take-home is gonna be just shy of $50 million, but... $2 million is money. It's a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Sure, Carey Price pays 53% in taxes but for Kopitar in LA and Burns in San Jose its 51%   Yes, it would be nicer if the tax rate was nil (so you only pay 36% federal) like in Dallas or Nashville, but a lot of the league is in the 42-46 percent which is not really that far off canadian brackets of 51-53%

But for elite players making $10 or close, 5% is still $500,000 per year not chump change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Additionally. the difference between 53% and 51% on Erik Karlsson's new contract would be almost $2 million in net income over the duration of the deal. It's significant. Maybe not for someone who's take-home is gonna be just shy of $50 million, but... $2 million is money. It's a lot of money.

 

4 minutes ago, booboo_mtl said:

But for elite players making $10 or close, 5% is still $500,000 per year not chump change

Right, but that difference is easily recovered in endorsements in most higher taxed markets.  A marquee player making a high salary will get plenty of endorsements in any canadian city. The ones avaialble in Dallas, or Nashville are usually considerably lower pay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, maas_art said:

Right, but that difference is easily recovered in endorsements in most higher taxed markets.  A marquee player making a high salary will get plenty of endorsements in any canadian city. The ones avaialble in Dallas, or Nashville are usually considerably lower pay. 

Maybe... But we can actually look at player salaries and taxes and determine a number there. With endorsements, it's much more unknown how much someone actually makes in Montreal vs. Toronto vs. Tampa vs. Nashville. It's also not something that seems to be working for us. We would have had to pay Duchene around $10 million per season to match his take-home pay in Nashville. If Bergevin made an endorsement argument in his meeting with Duchene, it certainly didn't resonate. Endorsements also take place outside the game. There needs to be fair rules for organizations competing within the NHL. We shouldn't have to resort to arguments around endorsements to entice a free agent to Montreal. We should have a fair playing field when it comes to player salaries and take-home pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maas_art said:

 

Right, but that difference is easily recovered in endorsements in most higher taxed markets.  A marquee player making a high salary will get plenty of endorsements in any canadian city. The ones avaialble in Dallas, or Nashville are usually considerably lower pay. 

I think the endorsement think is overstated. It only works for maybe 3-4 players and personally i don't see that many. The only canadiens endorsements I've seen is RW&Co and McDonalds but i may be missing some.

My ideas are meant to also help low income teams. I want a league where all teams can compete and teams that really matter compete more often. Trading cap space will help teams who can't afford to be cap teams every year build up assets and will help cap teams that can afford to go over the cap do that but at a cost. It will help keep teams together.

I just think there needs to be some flexibility. The players would want my proposals but the owners may not. It hurts the bottom line of rich teams but actually helps their on ice product

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... Yeah, curiously... Is revenue sharing a thing in the NHL? I'm pretty sure it is. I'm mostly interested if money generated from, like, ticket sales or concessions goes into the revenue sharing thing negotiated in the last CBA.

EDIT: Also, I hope this conversation is okay to have here. I feel like it could be tied to the State of the Habs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quote online:

"Alongside the aforementioned fund, the NHL CBA includes a base revenue sharing program, which allocates 6% of total league revenue, primarily away from the top 10 revenue-generating teams, to financially struggling teams."

So... we are likely giving back between $10 and $20 million to the NHL to redistribute to struggling teams AND we have to compete with some of those teams when it comes to player salaries in an uneven system... That seems to be nonsense to me. Apparently there may have been a rule in the CBA that would penalize those struggling teams for crossing a certain player salary threshold, but that has been removed I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Maybe... But we can actually look at player salaries and taxes and determine a number there. With endorsements, it's much more unknown how much someone actually makes in Montreal vs. Toronto vs. Tampa vs. Nashville. It's also not something that seems to be working for us. We would have had to pay Duchene around $10 million per season to match his take-home pay in Nashville. If Bergevin made an endorsement argument in his meeting with Duchene, it certainly didn't resonate. Endorsements also take place outside the game. There needs to be fair rules for organizations competing within the NHL. We shouldn't have to resort to arguments around endorsements to entice a free agent to Montreal. We should have a fair playing field when it comes to player salaries and take-home pay.

True. But this only illustrates my point that its not a black and white issue.  People say "gah, our taxes are so high no one will sign here" but the point is that there are a lot of variables at play. 

Re: Duchene, a couple of things: 1) we still have no idea if we struck out, or if MB just didnt want to go 7 years on a 28 year old Matt Duchene.  2) Maybe the taxes were an issue for Matt, Im not saying they arent for everyone - and certainly Montreal vs Nashville is a pretty big swing.  But when we lose players to teams with a 45-50% taxation bracket and blame our 53% its probably not the only factor. 

I agree that a more even playing field is in order but im not sure how you do that. Any suggestions that help, say offset tax issues, tend to hurt poorer teams. 

9 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I think the endorsement think is overstated. It only works for maybe 3-4 players and personally i don't see that many. The only canadiens endorsements I've seen is RW&Co and McDonalds but i may be missing some.

Right but we were talking about how a 3-5% difference on taxes is a huge amount of money to a $10m player.  If we're talking about a $3m player on a 5 year team its considerably less of an issue.

17 minutes ago, habsisme said:

My ideas are meant to also help low income teams. I want a league where all teams can compete and teams that really matter compete more often. Trading cap space will help teams who can't afford to be cap teams every year build up assets and will help cap teams that can afford to go over the cap do that but at a cost. It will help keep teams together.

I just think there needs to be some flexibility. The players would want my proposals but the owners may not. It hurts the bottom line of rich teams but actually helps their on ice product

Yeah i feel like there's a solution there, I just think there's a small percentage of owners who seem to voice the strongest opinions & therefore control how things are implemented.  Hopefully they can figure things out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

True. But this only illustrates my point that its not a black and white issue.  People say "gah, our taxes are so high no one will sign here" but the point is that there are a lot of variables at play. 

Re: Duchene, a couple of things: 1) we still have no idea if we struck out, or if MB just didnt want to go 7 years on a 28 year old Matt Duchene.  2) Maybe the taxes were an issue for Matt, Im not saying they arent for everyone - and certainly Montreal vs Nashville is a pretty big swing.  But when we lose players to teams with a 45-50% taxation bracket and blame our 53% its probably not the only factor. 

I agree that a more even playing field is in order but im not sure how you do that. Any suggestions that help, say offset tax issues, tend to hurt poorer teams. 

Right but we were talking about how a 3-5% difference on taxes is a huge amount of money to a $10m player.  If we're talking about a $3m player on a 5 year team its considerably less of an issue.

Yeah i feel like there's a solution there, I just think there's a small percentage of owners who seem to voice the strongest opinions & therefore control how things are implemented.  Hopefully they can figure things out. 

One other thing I would say related to endorsements is this. An endorsement deal takes up extra time for the player involved. It is, essentially, an extra job for a certain period of time. That may be 3-5 hours... it may be 100 hours. I have no idea. I would guess that some players would be happier to have their NHL salary and not have to take extra time to deal with endorsement stuff. Especially if they might have a family that they are already away from for 41 games a season. It's probably not a huge factor, but it might be something that weighs on a player's mind.

I think we are agreed: The NHL could probably improve its cap system. Hopefully the owners can manage something better in the next CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

 

Right, but that difference is easily recovered in endorsements in most higher taxed markets.  A marquee player making a high salary will get plenty of endorsements in any canadian city. The ones avaialble in Dallas, or Nashville are usually considerably lower pay. 

True and good point but that also involves more work (function/appearances, commercial/ photo gigs etc) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Within a cap system, it seems unfair that Montreal should have to share any revenue given that there's no accommodation in the salary cap for teams that have a "stronger" tax system in place. It seems obvious that UFAs would rather choose an environment to play in where they will make more net income. Without a cap system that can accommodate higher tax cities, why wouldn't ownership be saying, "Why should we share revenue with the league when it's not a level playing field when it comes to free agents?"

 

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

True. But this only illustrates my point that its not a black and white issue.  People say "gah, our taxes are so high no one will sign here" but the point is that there are a lot of variables at play. 

I agree that there are definitely a lot of variables that come into play when it comes to contract negotiations and where players choose to play. Money and location/climate seem to be the biggest.

Others such as hockey market vs non hockey market, contender vs non-contender etc are also factors, but the weight on these vary from Player to player.

A California team might have the same taxes (or similar) to Toronto, but that’s about where the similarities end. Everyone wants to live in California. Beaches, movie stars, parties, year round summer. Your a star when you want to be, joe blow when your grocery shopping. So despite the high taxes, everything else is what dreams are made of.

Montreal on the other hand, arguably has it the worst of all (arguably). Canadian winters, Canadian taxes, Canadian fans and it’s the only team in the league that is in a non-English market. Clearly we have a hard time signing players, I suspect these are the biggest reasons why.

Think the implementation of the salary cap and the revenue sharing was done so with good intentions to help the struggling markets, and continue growing the greatest game on the planet. But it’s not perfect. There’s nothing you can do about players choosing to play where they want, so a lot of these factors are uncontrollable, and rightfully so. I do think however the tax gaps are an easy thing to address and a fair thing to consider. 

I’m not an accountant, but I would imagine any halfway decent accountant could figure out roughly what the “tax-gap” between markets works out to. From there, instead of having a flat salary cap, each team has their own salary cap built to fit their community.

Because I’m sure some teams have it better or worse than others, and maybe most teams find their situation to be comparable to others, but if you just take a closer look at a comparison between Montreal and Nashville, it’s kind of unreasonable. Like if you were to calculate (assuming both teams spen right to the cap) the collective  after tax take home for each team, how many millions would the difference be? Just glancing at the difference in the Duchene scenario, I get the impression it would be a lot.

i just think that strong market performers give a lot to the league through revenue sharing and playing by the salary cap (despite having more than enough money to spend well above) in the interest in sustaining  an equitable environment for all. When it is apparent that the scales could use a little tipping back in the other direction, it would be nice to see that addressed. Hopefully something along these lines gets brought to the table during the next walkout :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capfriendly actually has a tax calculator feature that allows you to input a player's salary and signing bonus and figure out roughly what they would make playing for any team. Take a player you want to sing to an 8M contract, for example. In Montreal, their net take-home pay would be 3.75M. In California, it's not a heck of a big difference... 3.84M per year. But in places like Vegas, Florida, Nashville, and Dallas, it's a full million dollars less in net income per season. So a player signing an 8M AAV, 7-year deal would be giving up 7M over the course of that deal. That's basically a full season's salary (two full seasons' salary if you go by the net pay essentially). Given guys hold out sometimes for a difference of 500k or a million a year on a contract, you would think they recognize the difference in net income. Furthermore, this is based on the current exchange rate. Because all players are paid in US dollars, there's the added risk/benefit of playing in Canada and getting taxed in Canadian dollars, with an added uncertainty built into your income. So if you play in LA or SJ, you might get taxed at an almost-as-high rate but if you play in Montreal, you get that rate too AND if the value of the American dollar happens to drop, your tax rate just went up again... it can work both ways, but most people want some amount of cost certainty and to not have to worry about their income fluctuating depending on the relative value of currencies.

If a player were to sign the same contract but have 7M awarded as an annual signing bonus and only 1M as the base salary, then the discrepancy goes up even more too. So the difference in annual salary on that deal here vs. in Vegas or Nashville for example would then be over 1.1M per season (or 8M over the course of a 7-year contract). I just don't see these differences as being marginal and in an all-other-things-being-equal scenario, a player is going to go to the place where the net income is higher. That means that cities like Montreal have to convince players to play for less take-home money in bad weather with a relentless media because the positives (hockey city, great atmosphere at games, commitment to winning, owner with deep pockets, whatever else they can think of...) outweigh those negatives. Not all players will put money first, but it's nevertheless an uphill battle.

As for revenue sharing, I don't recall the exact numbers, but it's something like 8-12 teams make up 90% of the league's revenue and basically fund the entire league. To my knowledge, it's teams like Mtl, Tor, Van, Edm, Chi, Bos, NYR, LA, Phi, Det, and Was that bring in all the money, with the majority of the other teams running minimal profits or losses and relying heavily on revenue sharing to bump up their net lines. What does that mean? It means that teams that lost money, like the Panthers, Coyotes, Islanders, Jackets, Canes, etc. can't generate revenue on their own. They sell tickets and concessions and corporate boxes for lower prices, so fans there benefit from it. Meanwhile, cities like Toronto, Montreal, and New York City raise prices astronomically because consumers continue to purchase tickets and so on. The more these cities make, the more money the owners in those cities make, but also, the more money the poor-income teams make too. So there'z zero incentive for the bad markets to actually fix their own revenue problems. Fans like us are basically paying for hockey to exist in crappy markets, and fans down in those markets are getting cheaper prices as a result. End product is that we get the old scroogie on this yet again.

Bettman is a weasel and he knows all of the above. He plays both sides for money, exploiting fans and doing what he can to show he was able to produce hockey franchises in non-hockey cities. But it's all a facade, because those teams are being heavily propped up by a few strong markets. This league could easily be 20 teams and would probably be stronger for it, but it's not in the NHLPA's interest to do that nor does Bettman care to make the game better or the fans happier.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comment on the radio from JJ Daigneault today, who when asked about Alzner said something along the lines of "that's one player I don't want to talk about. I'm being honest with you, let's just leave it at that and move on."... so even though reports were that Alzner was a good team player, it sounds like he didn't get along with JJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...