MonkeysUncle
4th Line Grinder
I always thought that a salary cap should be adjusted to each state a team plays in. Something like if your paying let's say 15% in one state, the cap for those teams increases to make it fair and even across the board. To have the cap for all 32 teams the same and punish teams for living in Canada or California is wrong, in my opinionI saw in the free agency thread how several members praised the Tampa GM for being able to once again get their players to accept lower salaries than they would get from other teams. This time it was Victor Hedman who have accepted a new contract with a cap hit of ”just” $8MM, before him both Stamkos and Kusherov have done the same = taken less money to stay in Tampa.
But the ”problem” is that they simply haven’t! Those players actually get more money in the pocket accepting way less in Tampa compared to what they would get in for example LA.
I seriously don’t understand how the other teams, like Kings, can accept this injustice and advantage that Tampa (and other teams like Florida and Vegas) get when their players don’t have to pay state income taxes!?!?
Of course their GM can make ”great” deals with his players when their offer of $8MM is better and gives them more money than other teams offers of $10MM!
And this is just for one player. If you take the whole team into consideration it gets even more unfair! A Kings salary cap at $85MM is basically the same as a $100MM salary cap for Tampa! That’s two great players that Tampa gets ”for free” compared to what Kings can pay. Talk about having a HUGE advantage in the hunt for a Stanley Cup!!
What’s the point with a salary cap if it’s like this? Can someone please explain?
Here is an article that better explains what I mean:
Tax tricks: How an $8.5M Lightning contract keeping Steven Stamkos in Tampa is better than $10.5M to leave
Obviously I dont all the tax rates,but that was just an example.