[Report] Canucks re-sign Pettersson to 8 year contract @ $11.6M

[Coryberg]

1 hour ago, 43isprime said:

 

He's not been good since before the All Star Break.

 

He had 19 points in his first 10 games. In the 53 games since, he has 56 points, for an 82-game pace of less than 87 points. And that's including the 4 game stretch in which he scored 12 points playing on Miller's wing.

 

Pencilling him in as a back to back 100pt center ignores that he's been on an 87 point pace for the latter 84% of this season.

 

In the 21 games since his 12 points in 4 games on Miller's wing, he has 19 points. 9 of those points came in 3 games versus Detroit (twice) and Columbus (once). So he has 10 points in the other 18 games.

 

I don't see how focusing on the latter 84% of this season, or 86% of the last 21 games is cherry-picking.

Hilarious when people say "if you take out this point streak and that point streak he isn't as good".

 

Taking away parts that don't support your argument is the definition of cherry picking.

Edited March 4 by Coryberg

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, 43isprime said:

 

He's not been good since before the All Star Break.

 

He had 19 points in his first 10 games. In the 53 games since, he has 56 points, for an 82-game pace of less than 87 points. And that's including the 4 game stretch in which he scored 12 points playing on Miller's wing.

 

Pencilling him in as a back to back 100pt center ignores that he's been on an 87 point pace for the latter 84% of this season.

 

In the 21 games since his 12 points in 4 games on Miller's wing, he has 19 points. 9 of those points came in 3 games versus Detroit (twice) and Columbus (once). So he has 10 points in the other 18 games.

 

I don't see how focusing on the latter 84% of this season, or 86% of the last 21 games is cherry-picking.

lol you are literally cherry picking yourself.. he has 45 points in 39 games prior to the all star game if you take out ur so call first 10 games.. that's still a 95 point pace?

[43isprime]

1 hour ago, Coryberg said:

Hilarious when people say "if you take out this point streak and that point streak he isn't as good".

 

Taking away parts that don't support your argument is the definition of cherry picking.

 

My "argument" is his play has been inconsistent (or sporadic, to use Tocchet's term) and that he's been not good for large chunks of the season. All the numbers I cited (including his 19pts in the first 10 games) support my argument just fine.

 

[wai_lai416]

15 minutes ago, 43isprime said:

 

My "argument" is his play has been inconsistent (or sporadic, to use Tocchet's term) and that he's been not good for large chunks of the season. All the numbers I cited (including his 19pts in the first 10 games) support my argument just fine.

 

i'd love a player that can be top 10 scoring in the league and disappear LARGE CHUNK of the season.. again take out ur so call first 10 game he was still on a 95 point pace prior to the asg.. go kick rock with ur complaints or go pick a team that doesn't have a 10mil player to cheer for

[Conscience]

Sign and trade right?

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

i'd love a player that can be top 10 scoring in the league and disappear LARGE CHUNK of the season.. again take out ur so call first 10 game he was still on a 95 point pace prior to the asg.. go kick rock with ur complaints or go pick a team that doesn't have a 10mil player to cheer for

Without shoes.   And hard. 

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, Conscience said:

Sign and trade right?

For Luke and Jack Hughes? Devils add their 2024 first too? 

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, Provost said:

You keep changing goalposts.  If the player wants to spend ALL their money that they earn every year then sure it won’t work as they aren’t going to defer income.

 

That is a genuinely nonsensical comment though as players have the most advanced tax and wealth strategy advisors available to them.  They play for 10-15 years and have to fund another 50 years of retirement from that income…. They put money away, this isn’t the ‘70’s when guys didn’t make much and spent their whole paycheques.  Petterson can have a multi million dollar lifestyle plus still take full advantage of this strategy putting millions away for deferred income. 
 

Go back and read the links I provided.

 

That is just one tax avoidance strategy.  The entire conversation using highest tax rates in each jurisdiction is silly and simplistic.  

Creating a corp, and drawing dividends, is what anyone making a little extra money does to lower taxes, and create a retirement fund.   The state still gets its pound of flesh.   So do the accountants.   Profits are still profits.   And they get taxed at the corporate rates.  

 

This applies only to endorsement income with NHL players.   And only the income that that player makes.   So corporate tax rates then they can take it out as a dividend.     That's 9-15% upfront, then 15% when taken out.   That's for anyone who incorporates (doctors, movie workers etc).   Just the basics.    So that's an easy one for endorsement income only. 

 

As for this RCA.   50% of income, is withheld by CCRA, and deferred to the future.     That money can't be invested.   The remaining money, can be inside the trust fund.    All beneficiary's need to be named.    The remaining money is taxed, as in whatever money isn't put into the fund.   So if 2/3 of it is. the remaining 1/3 is taxed at provincial and federal rates, which vary from approx 47.7-53 and change.    The then 50% is withheld indefinitely and released in portions as the trust is used.    It's not reducing the tax rates from 50% all the way down to no state tax rates.    Not really.   The future value of money matters a lot, and having 36.6% taken off the top right away, especially in front loaded deals, allows those players an upper hand on watching their nest egg grow.    Taxes are a concern.    And have been for awhile now. 

 

If it was me, and location didn't matter, i'd take the money upfront, and watch it grow, over needing to create a trust fund, with half the money gone off the top that goes into a trust fund, and the remainder gone quickly too.   It doesn't take long to get to the top brackets.   Also consider the same thing, creating a Trust in the US and lowering the taxes from 36.6-42% which covers all the states with the exception of CALi and NY really, those ones are closer to Alberta's bracket.   Quite a disparity, even at the league minimum.    That trust, only gets half the contributions for growth.   That's a big tax disadvantage.   Saves 3% though, off the top, for Canucks, Habs, and Leafs that plan to go live at their home country when they retire. 

 

The fund cannot exceed a "reasonable amount" to fund retirement.  It's designed for those planning to live outside of Canada, once retiring.  So US and Euro players with countries that have a tax treaty with Canada.   Pretty sure that won't include Russia. 

 

Eventually the CRA, refunds a significant portion of the 50%, over time.    It's held in pepertuity.    It does appear, that it allows non-residents, to use it as a vehicle, to lower taxes.   

 

The finance part of me looks at it like this as well.   What is the value of future money?   A 65 cents invested today, in the same vehicle, is always going to earn more then 50 cents in the same vehicle.     And you can bet, that US players, also have a way to reduce their tax bracket using their own retirement vehicles as well.    

 

The math problem is, when and how much of this tax retention, will be released.   That's for sure got to be valued as part of the investment.   Factor in the annual requirements as costs the trust incurs versus other wealth management vehicles, then compare the same with guys playing in Vegas, SEa, Dallas, FLD and even teams like COL, PIT etc.  

Edited March 4 by IBatch

[Alflives]

10 hours ago, The Duke said:

 

not sure if this was posted. I didn’t see this before I said something similar a few pages back. Not going long on Petey will (relatively) hurt the next few years, but certainly helps this one. 
 

I still stand by the idea that I’d rather have a guy’s contract run to 33 than end at 29 or whatever. Not when they easily command 8 year deals in their prime. Overall, this worked out extremely well.

Benning was a Moran. Petey at 8.5 right now, and for five more years, was the best option. Benning, the Moran, signed a bunch of old guys to fat contracts so didn’t have to cap space to sign Petey long term. This Gear guy sounds like a guy who helped Benning, the Moran, do Petey’s contract. 

[HKSR]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

That is where your assumption is just wrong.  It isn’t how tax avoidance strategies work in the real world.

 

Name any “take 50% off your taxes” strategy? 
 

Virtually every method is reducing taxes from higher rates to lower rates. That is by moving money from a high tax person, location, or year… to one that is lower.  That is literally why players defer taxable income to later years and can move to lower tax jurisdictions when they retire.

 

If someone retired from an 50% highest tax rate jurisdiction and moved to Florida ant an 25% highest tax rate (I anl just picking those numbers as an example) all that deferred income is taxed at that rate…. Same as someone who played and retired in Florida.  That is just one way your premise is simply false.  The person who played in Florida doesn’t get some extra tax reduction for that income than the person who retired there and deferred their taxable earnings until the retired. If there is an ability to cut their tax rate from the 25% max… that is available to both of them… not just one of them.

 

That is just one example.

 

My post was that the folks just using the biggest tax brackets in different jurisdictions and calculating the take home pay of the same contract in different places is just wrong.  None of them are paying that rate or anywhere close to it.  The delta between the two is reduced or eliminated entirely.

That's why I said arbitrarily.  Unless there is a floor for the lowest tax rate possible, the US player has an advantage in that they are already starting at a lower rate.  If the goal is to not even pay any tax at all, it's a lot easier to reduce 36% to nil than it is 54%.  

 

I believe your assumption is that Canadians are able to reduce their taxes more than Americans.  You are inherently stating it when you say the delta is eliminated entirely so it makes no difference if you play in Florida or Vancouver.

 

Real world data infers otherwise unless you think guys like Tkachuk, Barkov, Kucherov, and others just decided to give their teams massive home town discounts.

[HKSR]

53 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Creating a corp, and drawing dividends, is what anyone making a little extra money does to lower taxes, and create a retirement fund.   The state still gets its pound of flesh.   So do the accountants.   Profits are still profits.   And they get taxed at the corporate rates.  

 

This applies only to endorsement income with NHL players.   And only the income that that player makes.   So corporate tax rates then they can take it out as a dividend.     That's 9-15% upfront, then 15% when taken out.   That's for anyone who incorporates (doctors, movie workers etc).   Just the basics.    So that's an easy one for endorsement income only. 

 

As for this RCA.   50% of income, is withheld by CCRA, and deferred to the future.     That money can't be invested.   The remaining money, can be inside the trust fund.    All beneficiary's need to be named.    The remaining money is taxed, as in whatever money isn't put into the fund.   So if 2/3 of it is. the remaining 1/3 is taxed at provincial and federal rates, which vary from approx 47.7-53 and change.    The then 50% is withheld indefinitely and released in portions as the trust is used.    It's not reducing the tax rates from 50% all the way down to no state tax rates.    Not really.   The future value of money matters a lot, and having 36.6% taken off the top right away, especially in front loaded deals, allows those players an upper hand on watching their nest egg grow.    Taxes are a concern.    And have been for awhile now. 

 

If it was me, and location didn't matter, i'd take the money upfront, and watch it grow, over needing to create a trust fund, with half the money gone off the top that goes into a trust fund, and the remainder gone quickly too.   It doesn't take long to get to the top brackets.   Also consider the same thing, creating a Trust in the US and lowering the taxes from 36.6-42% which covers all the states with the exception of CALi and NY really, those ones are closer to Alberta's bracket.   Quite a disparity, even at the league minimum.    That trust, only gets half the contributions for growth.   That's a big tax disadvantage.   Saves 3% though, off the top, for Canucks, Habs, and Leafs that plan to go live at their home country when they retire. 

 

The fund cannot exceed a "reasonable amount" to fund retirement.  It's designed for those planning to live outside of Canada, once retiring.  So US and Euro players with countries that have a tax treaty with Canada.   Pretty sure that won't include Russia. 

 

Eventually the CRA, refunds a significant portion of the 50%, over time.    It's held in pepertuity.    It does appear, that it allows non-residents, to use it as a vehicle, to lower taxes.   

 

The finance part of me looks at it like this as well.   What is the value of future money?   A 65 cents invested today, in the same vehicle, is always going to earn more then 50 cents in the same vehicle.     And you can bet, that US players, also have a way to reduce their tax bracket using their own retirement vehicles as well.    

 

The math problem is, when and how much of this tax retention, will be released.   That's for sure got to be valued as part of the investment.   Factor in the annual requirements as costs the trust incurs versus other wealth management vehicles, then compare the same with guys playing in Vegas, SEa, Dallas, FLD and even teams like COL, PIT etc.  

Thanks for going into the details for me lol.  I didn't wanna type that much 

[The Duke]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Benning was a Moran. Petey at 8.5 right now, and for five more years, was the best option. Benning, the Moran, signed a bunch of old guys to fat contracts so didn’t have to cap space to sign Petey long term. This Gear guy sounds like a guy who helped Benning, the Moran, do Petey’s contract. 

Yep. This is the type of comment Gear kept getting on Twitter.  
 

He abjectly refuted the possibility of getting Petey long term for significantly less than what he’s getting right now.  and pointed out that the Petey’s current cap hit, right now, has really helped management this season.
 

But people love to go on little rants about Benning. 

 

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, The Duke said:

Yep. This is the type of comment Gear kept getting on Twitter.  
 

He abjectly refuted the possibility of getting Petey long term for significantly less than what he’s getting right now.  and pointed out that the Petey’s current cap hit, right now, has really helped management this season.
 

But people love to go on little rants about Benning. 

 

 

Benning did draft us this current core. Benning was also a shite GM. Both things can be true. 

[Provost]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Creating a corp, and drawing dividends, is what anyone making a little extra money does to lower taxes, and create a retirement fund.   The state still gets its pound of flesh.   So do the accountants.   Profits are still profits.   And they get taxed at the corporate rates.  

 

This applies only to endorsement income with NHL players.   And only the income that that player makes.   So corporate tax rates then they can take it out as a dividend.     That's 9-15% upfront, then 15% when taken out.   That's for anyone who incorporates (doctors, movie workers etc).   Just the basics.    So that's an easy one for endorsement income only. 

 

As for this RCA.   50% of income, is withheld by CCRA, and deferred to the future.     That money can't be invested.   The remaining money, can be inside the trust fund.    All beneficiary's need to be named.    The remaining money is taxed, as in whatever money isn't put into the fund.   So if 2/3 of it is. the remaining 1/3 is taxed at provincial and federal rates, which vary from approx 47.7-53 and change.    The then 50% is withheld indefinitely and released in portions as the trust is used.    It's not reducing the tax rates from 50% all the way down to no state tax rates.    Not really.   The future value of money matters a lot, and having 36.6% taken off the top right away, especially in front loaded deals, allows those players an upper hand on watching their nest egg grow.    Taxes are a concern.    And have been for awhile now. 

 

If it was me, and location didn't matter, i'd take the money upfront, and watch it grow, over needing to create a trust fund, with half the money gone off the top that goes into a trust fund, and the remainder gone quickly too.   It doesn't take long to get to the top brackets.   Also consider the same thing, creating a Trust in the US and lowering the taxes from 36.6-42% which covers all the states with the exception of CALi and NY really, those ones are closer to Alberta's bracket.   Quite a disparity, even at the league minimum.    That trust, only gets half the contributions for growth.   That's a big tax disadvantage.   Saves 3% though, off the top, for Canucks, Habs, and Leafs that plan to go live at their home country when they retire. 

 

The fund cannot exceed a "reasonable amount" to fund retirement.  It's designed for those planning to live outside of Canada, once retiring.  So US and Euro players with countries that have a tax treaty with Canada.   Pretty sure that won't include Russia. 

 

Eventually the CRA, refunds a significant portion of the 50%, over time.    It's held in pepertuity.    It does appear, that it allows non-residents, to use it as a vehicle, to lower taxes.   

 

The finance part of me looks at it like this as well.   What is the value of future money?   A 65 cents invested today, in the same vehicle, is always going to earn more then 50 cents in the same vehicle.     And you can bet, that US players, also have a way to reduce their tax bracket using their own retirement vehicles as well.    

 

The math problem is, when and how much of this tax retention, will be released.   That's for sure got to be valued as part of the investment.   Factor in the annual requirements as costs the trust incurs versus other wealth management vehicles, then compare the same with guys playing in Vegas, SEa, Dallas, FLD and even teams like COL, PIT etc.  

Just to be clear, I have posted ACTUAL LINKS from a super agent who regularly does this for clients as well as links to several major wealth management entities who also say this is one particular tool a great vehicle for NHL players and it is used all the time by them to make the tax burden relatively equitable between jurisdictions.

The responses have included no links or supporting evidence, just opinions from folks who have used google and/or have never been a wealth manager or tax lawyer for NHL players. 

Also, the discussion was actually around the fact the folks using the top marginal tax rates from different jurisdictions and making commments like $11.6 million in BC is the same as $9 million in Florida in terms of take home money.  Those posts are just not true as NHL players, like any high income earners, have access to tax avoidance strategies not available to regular folks.  They just aren't paying the top margin tax rates.

Here are a bunch more ACTUAL LINKS AND EVIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WRONG, your feelings without supporting evidence don't stack up to anything. 

https://transcanadawealthmanagement.com/rca-trust/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-how-pro-athletes-and-other-high-earners-stick-handle-high-canadian/

https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/documents/17271/17295/Reitrement+Compensation+Arrangements+(RCAs) for+NHL.pdf

https://theathletic.com/1050270/2019/06/27/yes-quebec-has-high-taxes-but-heres-how-the-canadiens-can-level-the-playing-field/?access_token=4802246&redirected=1

 

https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/bringing-home-the-canadian-bacon-u-s-tax-and-canadian-retirement-plans

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-how-pro-athletes-and-other-high-earners-stick-handle-high-canadian/

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/for-marner-and-leonard-it-pays-to-know-a-few-contract-shortcuts/article_c4c0fa9f-d7d2-5687-871c-d9264ecfad92.html

[Provost]

47 minutes ago, The Duke said:

Yep. This is the type of comment Gear kept getting on Twitter.  
 

He abjectly refuted the possibility of getting Petey long term for significantly less than what he’s getting right now.  and pointed out that the Petey’s current cap hit, right now, has really helped management this season.
 

But people love to go on little rants about Benning. 

 

Wait, so the source you are using is literally the "yes" guy in the Benning era responsible for signing all the bad contracts?  Dude posted taking credit for the extension and has been roasted by everyone in the comments with very valid points.  

That extra cap space is courtesy of having to buy out the terrible OEL contract and will haunt us for years.
 

 

 

 

 

https://x.com/Satanas_Blanco/status/1764020093514834056?s=20

 

 

[HKSR]

22 minutes ago, Provost said:

Just to be clear, I have posted ACTUAL LINKS from a super agent who regularly does this for clients as well as links to several major wealth management entities who also say this is one particular tool a great vehicle for NHL players and it is used all the time by them to make the tax burden relatively equitable between jurisdictions.

The responses have included no links or supporting evidence, just opinions from folks who have used google and/or have never been a wealth manager or tax lawyer for NHL players. 

Also, the discussion was actually around the fact the folks using the top marginal tax rates from different jurisdictions and making commments like $11.6 million in BC is the same as $9 million in Florida in terms of take home money.  Those posts are just not true as NHL players, like any high income earners, have access to tax avoidance strategies not available to regular folks.  They just aren't paying the top margin tax rates.

Here are a bunch more ACTUAL LINKS AND EVIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WRONG, your feelings without supporting evidence don't stack up to anything. 

https://transcanadawealthmanagement.com/rca-trust/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-how-pro-athletes-and-other-high-earners-stick-handle-high-canadian/

https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/documents/17271/17295/Reitrement+Compensation+Arrangements+(RCAs) for+NHL.pdf

https://theathletic.com/1050270/2019/06/27/yes-quebec-has-high-taxes-but-heres-how-the-canadiens-can-level-the-playing-field/?access_token=4802246&redirected=1

 

https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/bringing-home-the-canadian-bacon-u-s-tax-and-canadian-retirement-plans

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-how-pro-athletes-and-other-high-earners-stick-handle-high-canadian/

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/for-marner-and-leonard-it-pays-to-know-a-few-contract-shortcuts/article_c4c0fa9f-d7d2-5687-871c-d9264ecfad92.html

I really like the "theathletic" article.  It outlines specific examples with the math to back it up.  However, even WITH tax reduction strategies like signing bonuses (taxed at lower rates), and RCAs, on average, the players outlined in the examples are still taxed in the 43% to 50% range.  Does it close the gap a bit?  Sure... but that's STILL 7% to 14% higher than the low state taxes in the USA.  Walsh is a lawyer talking like a lawyer.  The 20% flat rate he's talking about sounds WAY better than it is because he's ignoring provincial taxes completely.  Add federal and provincial taxes and there's NO WAY a person only pays 20% taxes a year. 

 

And also, again, you simply ignore the fact that Americans have tax advantages (or loopholes like some people like to call them) that reduces their tax burdens over and above the lower tax rates that they ALREADY benefit from.  Do you really think the USA players in the low tax states sit down with THEIR super tax advisors and they just twiddle their thumbs and say, "Welp, looks like it's 36% for you just like every other joe schmoe in this state.  Too bad you didn't live in Canada, I'd be able to help you then."

 

C'mon man, you're isolating Canadian tax advantages and giving zero shits about the fact the USA have tax advantages for the super wealthy too. 

 

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/

"According to a 2021 White House study, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the U.S. paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent. For comparison, the average American taxpayer in the same year paid 13 percent."

 

Billionaires?  No.  Multimillionaires?  Yes.  Maybe they don't save 4.8% on federal taxes, but certainly 3%+.  That's only on the federal portion too.

 

Like I said, the real world application CLEARLY shows that NHL players sign reduced cap hit contracts in low tax state franchises.  It's not some random coincidence.

[The Arrogant Worms]

 

[The Lock]

11 hours ago, 43isprime said:

 

He's not been good since before the All Star Break.

 

He had 19 points in his first 10 games. In the 53 games since, he has 56 points, for an 82-game pace of less than 87 points. And that's including the 4 game stretch in which he scored 12 points playing on Miller's wing.

 

Pencilling him in as a back to back 100pt center ignores that he's been on an 87 point pace for the latter 84% of this season.

 

In the 21 games since his 12 points in 4 games on Miller's wing, he has 19 points. 9 of those points came in 3 games versus Detroit (twice) and Columbus (once). So he has 10 points in the other 18 games.

 

I don't see how focusing on the latter 84% of this season, or 86% of the last 21 games is cherry-picking.

 

So to you then, being above a point per game's not good enough even though he plays a 200 foot game along with those points. 

 

You really seem to want to lean into Tocchets comments when I'm even pretty such Tocchet himself considers Pettersson to be an 11.6mil player despite being sporadic. He's sporadic based on how he's played at other times, meaning that when he's not sporadic, he's up there with the best of the best and for a bargain at that point.

 

Also, cherry picking involves ignoring ANY part of the season, doesn't matter the percentage, nor do I think you're even correct with that percentage. He's only really been sporadic since the all-star break since an 87 point pace could hardly be called sporadic in the first place when he's playing the full 200 foot game anyway.

 

Here, I'll debate the same way you do but the opposite. If you take out every bad game Pettersson's had, he should have been paid 13.5mil. Sounds stupid right? Yet, that's your argument but just the opposite direction.

Edited March 4 by The Lock

[RU SERIOUS]

16 hours ago, Hammertime said:

I litterally can't understand how anyone who is a fan of hockey can refer to Garland as an albatross. He's full value night in night out.  

He's been looking better this year because of the Joshua line's chemistry but he's still not worth his hefty $4,950,000.00 contract ! 

 

Players like Hogs, Joshua, Suter and Laffarty have the same output (more & less) at anywhere from 1/4 to 1/7th the co$t of him!    He's no Bargain!

 

That is undisputable!!!

[Hammertime]

2 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

He's been looking better this year because of the Joshua line's chemistry but he's still not worth his hefty $4,950,000.00 contract ! 

 

Players like Hogs, Joshua, Suter and Laffarty have the same output (more & less) at anywhere from 1/4 to 1/7th the co$t of him!    He's no Bargain!

 

That is undisputable!!!

The difference is those players put those points up in short top 6 stints. it's not so much the points Garland personally puts up it's that he drives his line and makes guys like Dak Blueger better and on pace for career years. Like I said with Pete earlier I don't care if he scores a hundred I care that he makes the players around him better.  Garland has the 3rd best corsi% and fenwik% (on ice shot attempts/unblocked shot attempts) on the team. He's accomplished this while rarely playing with Hughes who is the biggest play driver on the team.

 

Dak Blue Garland  GF 21 GA 10

Dak Suter Garland GF 3  GA 0

 

Garlands on ice Goal differential 5v5 is +15 Joshua's is +13 and Blueger is +9 . Garland has the lowest on ice shots against and goals against per 60 of any canuck fwd 5v5. 

 

I agree Suter's been good too hell of a pickup. I love the way he's been able to bounce up and down the lineup and never look out of place. That doesn't make Garland an albatross though. It makes Suter a shrewd signing. For every Pius Suter there's a Mikheyev/Kuzi. 

Edited March 4 by Hammertime

[cripplereh]

6 hours ago, HKSR said:

That's why I said arbitrarily.  Unless there is a floor for the lowest tax rate possible, the US player has an advantage in that they are already starting at a lower rate.  If the goal is to not even pay any tax at all, it's a lot easier to reduce 36% to nil than it is 54%.  

 

I believe your assumption is that Canadians are able to reduce their taxes more than Americans.  You are inherently stating it when you say the delta is eliminated entirely so it makes no difference if you play in Florida or Vancouver.

 

Real world data infers otherwise unless you think guys like Tkachuk, Barkov, Kucherov, and others just decided to give their teams massive home town discounts.

That should be part of the revenue sharing.

 

Places that don't tax the NHL should tax them so the playing field is even.

 

Then teams like the Jets and Coyotes can stay where they are.

[The Duke]

4 hours ago, Provost said:

Wait, so the source you are using is literally the "yes" guy in the Benning era responsible for signing all the bad contracts?  Dude posted taking credit for the extension and has been roasted by everyone in the comments with very valid points.  

That extra cap space is courtesy of having to buy out the terrible OEL contract and will haunt us for years.
 

 

 

 

 

https://x.com/Satanas_Blanco/status/1764020093514834056?s=20

 

 

The irony of someone named “Provost” calling an actual AGM a poor source, while propping up the unhinged Chris K, best known for challenging someone (a girl?) to a fist fight over a Twitter argument as a good one is just staggering. Absolutely staggering.  

 

Go on being salty thinking Petey would have signed for 9 mil long term.
 

Ask yourself why no one even remotely credible is challenging Gear’s claims.  Just the “Benning ruined everything” enthusiasts trying for one more day of glory.
 

I even started this discussion saying the way it played out doesn’t absolve the bad cap management of the day.  If you’re able to read the tongue in cheek tone of Gear’s posts it’s obvious he’s half joking as well. 

[The Duke]

5 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

Benning did draft us this current core. Benning was also a shite GM. Both things can be true. 

Of course.  Also, his bungling of the cap at the time led to a bridge for Petey, which *this season* is a better cap hit than if he had gone long for 10 or 10+ mil he was asking for.  That’s what Gear is saying.  I’d also add I’d rather have Petey locked up until 33 than 29 or whatever as that last contract will be a lot clearer.

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, The Duke said:

Of course.  Also, his bungling of the cap at the time led to a bridge for Petey, which *this season* is a better cap hit than if he had gone long for 10 or 10+ mil he was asking for.  That’s what Gear is saying.  I’d also add I’d rather have Petey locked up until 33 than 29 or whatever as that last contract will be a lot clearer.

 

I have no issues with Gear, thought he did a good job here. 

[JeremyCuddles]

13 hours ago, Coryberg said:

Hilarious when people say "if you take out this point streak and that point streak he isn't as good".

 

Taking away parts that don't support your argument is the definition of cherry picking.

If you take away every game Mikheyev hasn't scored, he'd be on pace for 82 goals. I am just saying. It's a pretty incredible pace.