NHL

[mmmmsnouts]

I want to hear more about this. Who did Nill want that's not available if he's just using Gulutzan as a temporary filler?

I don’t fault Nill, it was really unfortunate timing. All of the top coaching candidates in the offseason cycle had already been hired by other teams who didn’t make the playoffs or got knocked out early.

 

[Efcjake]

Without quibbling facts, my two issues with these ideas:



Nobody is paying or saving 30-40% in state income tax. I don't offer tax advice or legal opinions, but it seems that for high earners (the people we are talking about) you'd see effective income tax rates (before accounting wizardry) in these ranges:

Montreal: 58% (33% Canada, 25% Quebec)
Vancouver 53% (33% Canada, 20% BC)
Los Angeles: 50% (37% USA, 13% CA)
Calgary: 48% (33% Canada, 15% Alberta)
New York: 48% (37% USA, 11% NY)
Massachussets: 46% (37%, 9% MA)
Florida, Texas: 37% (37% USA, 0% state)



But they're not irrelevant; just because they aren't as easy to measure doesn't mean they're irrelevant. And just because Marchand talks about the impact of this (when has he ever not talked?) doesn't mean every player feels the same. My most basic argument is that the state-income tax discussion puts too much emphasis on a small matter that carries a lot less impact than people suggest.

My point about them being irrelevant is that those non financial factors are irrelevant to the reasoning behind a salary cap.

The cap is intended to level the financial playing field, it could never do anything about these factors outside of what is paid to a player. If the tax rate significantly alters the earning potential to the point that contracts of supposed equal value are in fact not equal value then what's the entire point of the cap?

It clearly carries some impact. These pills and the words from Marchand are blatantly telling us this.