Dave Bolland

[GhostofPotvin29]

So if I understood Bolland's agent correctly in the fan, the Leafs offered a contract that was similar, however because of the lack of state tax in Florida, Bolland's take home salary will be much higher in Florida.

I'm glad it worked out that way because either way that's an insane contract.

"I would love to stay in Toronto. I want to be in Toronto. I want to be a Maple Leaf." 

"This is where I want to be. This is Toronto. This is the Mecca of the hockey world ? You want to be here."

"It's Toronto. It's my hometown. I'd love to come back here."

I wish him nothing but the worst in Florida, what a dick.

Even though the reality is that the Leafs probably dodged a bullet on skipping that contract.

It's not like I didn't already take everything a player said with a huge grain of salt, but it is funny to juxtapose it with his signing in Florida, possibly solely because of tax issues.

 

[Tigger]

That tax issue represents a pretty huge chunk of dough though, no?

 

[rdowdall]

5. NO STATE INCOME TAX: You hear this all the time about states like Texas and Florida, that their free agent pitches have a built in competitive advantage. Here's my question; in cap-centric leagues like the NBA, NHL and NFL, I wonder why this loophole wouldn't be closed. In my opinion, the cap is set up to 'level the playing field' and teams in states that have a distinct advantage with the net income equation have the upper hand. Not sure if this has ever been considered but my thought is based upon this advantage - why don't the leagues set the cap based upon what the money means on the back end in net income per team, so it's equal. In 98 per cent of the cases you're dealing with players that are in the highest taxable tax bracket in their state or Country, so why not do the research and base the cap  number (which is equal) to the after tax value in each market and even the cap that way.  Again, I'm not sure if it's ever been discussed or if it even makes any sense, I'm just thinking out loud. It's probably too complicated an issue to work on but for the life of me I can't tell you why those teams in tax friendly states gain a major advantage. It's an issue for minds much greater than mine (not saying much there!) to figure out.

Taken from Jack Armstrongs five thoughts on tsn.ca

 

[bustaheims]

That tax issue represents a pretty huge chunk of dough though, no?

His agent said it worked out to about $800K a year between the tax difference and the contract differences.

 

[Tigger]

That tax issue represents a pretty huge chunk of dough though, no?

His agent said it worked out to about $800K a year between the tax difference and the contract differences.

Thanks. Yeah, 4 mil seems fairly motivating.

 

[lamajama]

I am thrilled beyond words that Florida has this albatross of a contract. TWICE in his 7 year career has he even played 76 or more in his career. Four times 39 or less. I'll be laughing my a** off when he gets hurt for half a season.

 

[moon111]

Is he even back to 100%?

 

[Kin]

I just read that Chicago signed Brad Richards for 2million.  In what world is Bolland worth 2x Brad Richards?

The market for UFAs is highly inefficient.  If only we had a management team that could take advantage of that.

They did last year with Raymond.

Also, I've seen people comment about the Erhoff price and the Richards price being good value and something the Leafs slept on, if you think either of those would have entertained the same offer from Toronto then you're just not paying attention.

Exactly. The world where Bolland is worth twice as much as Richards is the world where Free Agency isn't an a la carte menu and player's priorities aren't always about money. Richards' last two contracts will end up paying him something in the neighbourhood of 100 million dollars. Realistically, this is Bolland's only chance to sign a big money contract. That Bolland would look for the maximum amount he could and Richards wouldn't means their cap hits aren't going to be an exact reflection of their worth. The inefficiency that princedpw sees here is that good teams can convince players to take smaller contracts for a chance to win.

The management team that "takes advantage of that" is the team that can build a good team in the first place.

 

[princedpw]

5. NO STATE INCOME TAX: You hear this all the time about states like Texas and Florida, that their free agent pitches have a built in competitive advantage. Here's my question; in cap-centric leagues like the NBA, NHL and NFL, I wonder why this loophole wouldn't be closed. In my opinion, the cap is set up to 'level the playing field' and teams in states that have a distinct advantage with the net income equation have the upper hand. Not sure if this has ever been considered but my thought is based upon this advantage - why don't the leagues set the cap based upon what the money means on the back end in net income per team, so it's equal. In 98 per cent of the cases you're dealing with players that are in the highest taxable tax bracket in their state or Country, so why not do the research and base the cap  number (which is equal) to the after tax value in each market and even the cap that way.  Again, I'm not sure if it's ever been discussed or if it even makes any sense, I'm just thinking out loud. It's probably too complicated an issue to work on but for the life of me I can't tell you why those teams in tax friendly states gain a major advantage. It's an issue for minds much greater than mine (not saying much there!) to figure out.

Taken from Jack Armstrongs five thoughts on tsn.ca

I've wondered about this recently.  My guess is that doing this adds another immense level of complexity to the cap, especially when players get traded mid-season and when players will naturally choose where they live, which can vary their taxation laws significantly.  How to compute their effective residency? What if a NY Ranger decides to live in New Jersey outside of Manhattan, which is a different state, with different tax laws, not to mention that NYC has its own special city tax.  If you started to dig in to it, it seems likely that you'd realize that the number of details to deal with are overwhelming.  The NHL would probably have to begin hiring taxation specialists to figure it out.  And the NHL cap rules are already relatively complicated to comply with.

 

[princedpw]

I just read that Chicago signed Brad Richards for 2million.  In what world is Bolland worth 2x Brad Richards?

The market for UFAs is highly inefficient.  If only we had a management team that could take advantage of that.

They did last year with Raymond.

Also, I've seen people comment about the Erhoff price and the Richards price being good value and something the Leafs slept on, if you think either of those would have entertained the same offer from Toronto then you're just not paying attention.

Exactly. The world where Bolland is worth twice as much as Richards is the world where Free Agency isn't an a la carte menu and player's priorities aren't always about money. Richards' last two contracts will end up paying him something in the neighbourhood of 100 million dollars. Realistically, this is Bolland's only chance to sign a big money contract. That Bolland would look for the maximum amount he could and Richards wouldn't means their cap hits aren't going to be an exact reflection of their worth. The inefficiency that princedpw sees here is that good teams can convince players to take smaller contracts for a chance to win.

The management team that "takes advantage of that" is the team that can build a good team in the first place.

Yes, I agree that Bolland and Richards have different motivations.  From the team perspective as opposed to the player perspective,  it will be even harder to build that competitive team that attracts the good players at cut rates when you are paying guys like Bolland so much more than they are worth.  It's a bit of a vicious circle if you get in to that game.  The only solution may be patience though the economics of Florida hockey may not allow for that either. 

 

[Joe S.]

Exactly. The world where Bolland is worth twice as much as Richards is the world where Free Agency isn't an a la carte menu and player's priorities aren't always about money. Richards' last two contracts will end up paying him something in the neighbourhood of 100 million dollars. Realistically, this is Bolland's only chance to sign a big money contract. That Bolland would look for the maximum amount he could and Richards wouldn't means their cap hits aren't going to be an exact reflection of their worth. The inefficiency that princedpw sees here is that good teams can convince players to take smaller contracts for a chance to win.

The management team that "takes advantage of that" is the team that can build a good team in the first place.

But Bolland's contract isn't worth more than Richards - unless I'm missing your point, Richards will be bringing in more than double what Bolland is.

 

[Kin]

But Bolland's contract isn't worth more than Richards - unless I'm missing your point, Richards will be bringing in more than double what Bolland is.

Richards' contract with Chicago, which is a separate deal from his one in New York. I'm not 100% on the details of how buy-outs work in terms of actual dollars going to the player but even if it's full value(and I don't think it is) Bolland's deal is still bigger.

 

[Kin]

Yes, I agree that Bolland and Richards have different motivations.  From the team perspective as opposed to the player perspective,  it will be even harder to build that competitive team that attracts the good players at cut rates when you are paying guys like Bolland so much more than they are worth.  It's a bit of a vicious circle if you get in to that game.  The only solution may be patience though the economics of Florida hockey may not allow for that either.

Well, that or Tallon's thinking is that in Bjugstad, Huberdeau, Barkov, Ekblad and various others that he's already got the big pieces in place for the competitive team that he's building and that a contract like Bolland's is essentially ballast. Obviously if Bolland doesn't live up to his deal it won't help but it's not the same thing as, say, the Canucks going out and signing a similar deal.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

That tax issue represents a pretty huge chunk of dough though, no?

His agent said it worked out to about $800K a year between the tax difference and the contract differences.

Thanks. Yeah, 4 mil seems fairly motivating.

Anything for the almighty dollar eh?  Daddy Warbux.

 

[dappleganger]

Players bought out (compliance or otherwise) receive 2/3rds of money still owing them if the player is 26 or older.

under 26 the player receives 1/3rd of money remaining on the deal.

 

[bustaheims]

Players bought out (compliance or otherwise) receive 2/3rds of money still owing them if the player is 26 or older.

under 26 the player receives 1/3rd of money remaining on the deal.

There are some other wrinkles to that. For instance, signing bonuses get paid in full, regardless of whether or not a contract is bought out.

 

[Joe S.]

Yes, I agree that Bolland and Richards have different motivations.  From the team perspective as opposed to the player perspective,  it will be even harder to build that competitive team that attracts the good players at cut rates when you are paying guys like Bolland so much more than they are worth.  It's a bit of a vicious circle if you get in to that game.  The only solution may be patience though the economics of Florida hockey may not allow for that either.

Well, that or Tallon's thinking is that in Bjugstad, Huberdeau, Barkov, Ekblad and various others that he's already got the big pieces in place for the competitive team that he's building and that a contract like Bolland's is essentially ballast. Obviously if Bolland doesn't live up to his deal it won't help but it's not the same thing as, say, the Canucks going out and signing a similar deal.

So if I understand the compliance buyout correctly, it's 2/3 of your salary over twice the remaining term. So Richards has 35 million left over 6 years, so if my math is right, he'll be taking home 1.925 mil for the next 12 years.

So either way, you were right.

 

[Joe S.]

Players bought out (compliance or otherwise) receive 2/3rds of money still owing them if the player is 26 or older.

under 26 the player receives 1/3rd of money remaining on the deal.

There are some other wrinkles to that. For instance, signing bonuses get paid in full, regardless of whether or not a contract is bought out.

Ok - then my math is off there then because he still has 8 mil in signing bonuses.

The 35 mil I figured included the signing bonus.

 

[bustaheims]

Ok - then my math is off there then because he still has 8 mil in signing bonuses.

The 35 mil I figured included the signing bonus.

The buy isn't a lump-sum payment, though. With the buyout money and the $2M from Chicago, Richards will get a shade over $5M this season. He'll "earn" $20.67M from the Rangers' buyout, but, that's paid out over 12 years. The signing bonus amounts are paid in full in the years they were contractually allotted to. So, Richards gets ~$3M this season and next from NYR, ~$5M the year after that, and, than, a shade over $1M for the next 9.

 

[Joe S.]

Looking at this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_buyout

makes the Leafs look ridiculous for their Grabovski buyout. I don't get how paying him for 8 years is better than keeping him for the remaining 4 he had.

I'm struggling with this team... trying to find any good decisions.

Actually - the Bryzgalov one is pretty hilarious as well.