Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
remkin

FREE AGENT TALK: 2016

Recommended Posts

It has been reported that Stamkos signed with Tampa for 8.5 x 8. Talk about a home team discount! He must like Tampa. Could have got a bunch more.

 

Florida doesn't have a state income tax which effectively bumps up the $8.5m relative to other teams (except the Panthers, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida doesn't have a state income tax which effectively bumps up the $8.5m relative to other teams (except the Panthers, of course).

 

 

That's a point.  Income tax on $8.5m is easily a couple million, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a point. Income tax on $8.5m is easily a couple million, yes?

Michigan would have been 4.25% ($361,000) and New York would have been 8.82% (750,000).

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a point.  Income tax on $8.5m is easily a couple million, yes?

 

Top Federal tax bracket is 39.6% on incomes over $415,000 filing single and around $467,000 filing jointly. So a little over $3 million in taxes on $8.5 million. Still better than making the same in, say, Toronto, where the top Canadian federal tax bracket is 29% over $138,000 and the Ontario provincial is 13.16% on anything over $220,000, so the hit there could approach 50%.

Edited by JonKerfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a point.  Income tax on $8.5m is easily a couple million, yes?

 

It's only the state income tax that would be zero. The federal income tax would actually be higher for taxpayers in states like Florida and Texas, as the federal rate would apply to a larger percentage of income.

 

The national average of each state's highest marginal income tax rate is currently 5.8%.. with the highest being California at 13.3%.  So $8.5 million in Florida is worth the same as (approximately) $9.4 million in California. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Stamkos's agent sniffed things out and reported back who would pay him, and between wanting to stay put and tax issues with the teams that were interested it just wasn't enough to pry him loose. Eight years puts him at around 34. Tampa got a better deal than anyone else would have.

 

We were paying E. more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only the state income tax that would be zero.

 

 

Total lack of forethought on my part there - yeah, our incomes are taxes by two government entities, aren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realm, in places like NYC, there is a 3rd local income tax to boot. Generously assuming Stamkos saved $500k in taxes signing in Florida (not the only state w/o a state income tax btw, Texas and Tennessee come to mind), Stammer gave Tampa a minimum extra $1.5 million to play with for the next 8 years. And they got to within 1 game of the SCF without him. They should be good for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro athletes have to pay taxes in every state and city (if applicable) that they play in. Not just the state they are based out of. Their income is basically split out per game and the applicable taxes are paid in the state that the income is earned in. You can't figure that a player will pay no state income tax at all if he signs with a Florida team. It will be greatly reduced because at least half of his income will not be state taxed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/04/13/tax-day-april-15-accountant-pro-athletes/25742385/

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After yesterday's moves, I have a feeling Nash gets signed now.

 

That said, I have faith that Ron will find us an RW, but I really hope he's capped the age at 30. Hudler, Eriksson, Versteeg--really? To me, older guys are a bigger gamble than just opening up the competition among our kids, many of whom are in that 20-22 range where they should be challenging for roster slots anyway. 

 

I do get the desire to pick up that top-tier RW and push other guys DOWN the depth chart. But I also think the culture here has changed. If guys don't get that after what happened with Slavin and Pesce, they never will. BP has emphasized competition for slots--something we NEVER heard during JR's reign. So, if it turns out that our best option is challenging guys to climb UP the depth chart, I hope that's what RFBP do.

 

Here's what COULD be, if we can't land a top-six guy:

 

Skins-Rask-TT

Nordy-Staal-Nesty

PDG-Lindholm-Aho

Nash-McC-Bickell

 

I gotta tell ya, I already like the look of that a WHOLE lot more than what we were forced to ice with Eric, Kris, Chris, and Bugsy last year.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2649187-nhl-free-agency-2016-rumors-predictions-for-andrew-ladd-eric-staal
 

A team that could use some fortification down the center of its middle lines could see Staal as a nice target.

In terms of fit, he could do well with a team like the Vancouver Canucks, who could be relying on young centers such as Brendan Gaunce and Bo Horvat on their third and fourth lines next season. Staal would not only be able to step in and bring support to the uncertain situation, but he could also mentor the duo through the early portions of their NHL careers.

Prediction: Staal signs a two-year, $11 million deal with the Canucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder what Eric is going to end up getting and how long it takes. At this point I can have a nice detachment about it because I know it won't be us overpaying him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't see a GM going $5.5M on Staal, even if it's just 2 years. Maybe GM Ray Charles can see it, but GM Dave can't.

 

I think that there is a very solid chance that if they do it, Vancouver ends up regretting paying him that much too.

 

The odds are pretty high that Eric is at best a 40 point, minus 15 player, and the under is as likely as the over on that.  That is not worth $5.5 million for even one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Stamkos's agent sniffed things out and reported back who would pay him, and between wanting to stay put and tax issues with the teams that were interested it just wasn't enough to pry him loose. Eight years puts him at around 34. Tampa got a better deal than anyone else would have.

 

We were paying E. more.

 

Yep.  I think also Stamokos saw a chance to continue playing on a winning team.  Remember, Tampa has been in the mix and has a very good chance to continue in the mix for the next few years.  Sure, there will be some resorting as Stevie Y. is now hitting the cap, but there is time for Stamkos to lead a team to the Cup.   Not so clear elsewhere.

 

Pro athletes have to pay taxes in every state and city (if applicable) that they play in. Not just the state they are based out of. Their income is basically split out per game and the applicable taxes are paid in the state that the income is earned in. You can't figure that a player will pay no state income tax at all if he signs with a Florida team. It will be greatly reduced because at least half of his income will not be state taxed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/04/13/tax-day-april-15-accountant-pro-athletes/25742385/

Thank you, I've wanted to point this out too.  The state tax is does play a part, but it is only an effect on about 35 games,   (Remember, players in say, Carolina, also pay no tax on games in TN and FL.).  So that average income tax of say 6% is based only on less than 1/2 the salary.  In the case of Stamkos, probably somewhere around $200k savings over being in a typical tax state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, unlikely we go top of the class.

 

We need either a center or a RW ideally.

 

This player needs to be reasonably expected to produce 40-50 points because PDG could do 35 without having to get a new guy.

 

So if 50 point potential, second tier, UFA RW or Center, leaves (loosely, depending on how you tier them);

 

So my list of guys I'd smile if we got:

 

I'm going to start out of the box with a nod to GoCanes and Jerome087 who mentioned him, but I'd take a look at Tomas Vanek. Now he shoost right but mostly plays LW. That could an issue that deflates the whole thing, but that aside:

 

It's all about price and expectations and risk/reward. Since he's bought out, we could probably get him for a short term deal for say $3.0 million. We are looking for points here. The orginal thesis on Vanek was 40 goal guy, big bucks elite scorer. That, was clearly a bad bet.

 

But for us, picking him up on the cheap, we get a guy who almost certainly gives us 40 points (his worst), and has an upside that is pretty massive. He put up 68 points 3 years ago, and 30 goals two years ago.

 

I would not pay a lot for this guy, but at $2-3 mililon on a short deal? He may want to prove himself.

 

But here are three more:

 

Troy Brouwer: RW 30 yo. Basically a lock for 40 points, 20 goals. No less, but also no more. Amazingly consistent at that level of production. But he has produced in the playoffs, and he's big and gritty and goes to "the areas" and is probably really my top pick.

 

Frans Neilson: Center 32. The Islanders still might sign him today, and he wants around $6 million/year, so is kind of almost a top tier guy, but another 50 point center would make us instantly strong down the middle.

 

Juri Hudler: RW. This is a guy not getting much love in the UFA ratings. He dropped off last year, but still put up 46 points. He's not a big gritty guy like Brouer, but a playmaker. And probably signs a 3 year deal, for less money.  He did put up 76 points two years ago, so there is that upside potential too.

 

I would be thrilled with any of those three. If I had to pick, I might actually go Troy Brouwer because on top of his 40 points he brings that grit. And we've been clamoring for a gritty winger who can score, for a long time. This is a guy you could really use for 4-5 years.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis Seidenberg just got bought out by the Bruins...and you know how we LOVE re-treads...oh snap, JR isn't here anymore, or else he would have been calling him by now!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since he is not likely to sign Lovejoy, or Shultz...JR has Seidenberg on speed dial, & I would be ok with him as a 5-6 D for the Pens for around 1M-2M for 2 years so we can expose him to the Expansion draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro athletes have to pay taxes in every state and city (if applicable) that they play in. Not just the state they are based out of. Their income is basically split out per game and the applicable taxes are paid in the state that the income is earned in. You can't figure that a player will pay no state income tax at all if he signs with a Florida team. It will be greatly reduced because at least half of his income will not be state taxed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/04/13/tax-day-april-15-accountant-pro-athletes/25742385/

 

Interesting, but very strange. Of course, I'm not a pro athlete making multi-millions a season playing a sport all over North America, but I'm having a hard time making sense of this.

 

To put it in terms of my situation, say my employer sends me to one of our facilities in, say, Pennsylvania, for a two-week pay period every other month. That's six pay periods, about 1/4 of the year. Then I'd owe OK taxes on 3/4 of my salary and PA taxes on the rest?

 

Weird. And thank the hockey gods my bosses don't send me anywhere. :lol:

 

Edit: I know, I know. Two words - Revenue Stream. Still, I can't blame the athletes for being irritated.

Edited by JonKerfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since he is not likely to sign Lovejoy, or Shultz...JR has Seidenberg on speed dial, & I would be ok with him as a 5-6 D for the Pens for around 1M-2M for 2 years so we can expose him to the Expansion draft.

Get out of here with your "we Pens" talk.

6q8vup.jpg

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but very strange. Of course, I'm not a pro athlete making multi-millions a season playing a sport all over North America, but I'm having a hard time making sense of this.

 

To put it in terms of my situation, say my employer sends me to one of our facilities in, say, Pennsylvania, for a two-week pay period every other month. That's six pay periods, about 1/4 of the year. Then I'd owe OK taxes on 3/4 of my salary and PA taxes on the rest?

 

Weird. And thank the hockey gods my bosses don't send me anywhere. :lol:

 

Edit: I know, I know. Two words - Revenue Stream. Still, I can't blame the athletes for being irritated.

 

It is more a matter of 1099s, and the state and province laws that require such reporting.

 

This is why the guys are calling it a "jock tax", because the laws require the employing entity to report the state based income is very much targeted at high paying situations.  The law gets sticky here, but what the States have successfully argued is that the service performed by the athelete was paid for by sources from that state (i.e. the tickets).  This differs from your business trip to your manufacturing facility in a different state where the ultimate income may come from somewhere else.

 

Now if your trips to PA are for something that PA residents or entities are exclusively paying your employer, then your employer may issue a 1099 for PA.  That's unusual for most of us peons, however.  Say you were in the banking industry for a big bank, and your trips to PA were for that.  It is doubtful that sufficient "nexus" (see below) would apply for you to get a PA 1099. 

 

This is all very legal.  There's a bit more about it here:  

 

  http://thelegalblitz.com/blog/2013/04/22/level-playing-field-an-analysis-of-the-jock-tax/  Constitutional principles mandate that in order for a taxpayer to be subject to State income tax, the taxpayer’s income producing activities must have sufficient minimum contacts or “nexus” with that State. The two main bases for State income taxation are: 1) that the taxpayer has established State “residency” (a technical legal term which varies from state to state), or 2) that the income is generated from in-state business or sources. In the case of professional athletes, their income is generated from the performance of personal services, which generally are sourced where the services are performed. Thus any State where an athlete is paid to compete would have a jurisdictional basis to tax the income earned in that State.

It is worth noting that this also affects many other performers, from concerts to speaking engagements.

 

And it also affects little guys.  I know someone who consults for schools.  They get a 1099 from every state they do their 2 day gig at.

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To put it in terms of my situation, say my employer sends me to one of our facilities in, say, Pennsylvania, for a two-week pay period every other month. That's six pay periods, about 1/4 of the year. Then I'd owe OK taxes on 3/4 of my salary and PA taxes on the rest?

 

 

You're in OK?  Where at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...