Mighty OILERS!!!!! 23/24 Thread! Cup Time Baby!!!

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by trailraat

If he wants to win he would, and I think the same could be said for any top-end player. He is already probably making enough on endorsements to double his salary. I guess being exceedingly well paid instead of exceptionally well paid may have it's merits to some. Winning lasts forever, money only lasts a lifetime.

Without checking, who won the Cup in 2008?

Winnings is fun, feels good, and is a great accomplishment, no denying that. But I know I'd much rather have an extra $2M/year on my salary for 8 years than maybe, possibly, win the Plumbers Cup in 2027. Especially when I was working at 70% of my ideal salary for the last 8 years, in an attempt to win the Plumbers Cup, and no dice.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Without checking, who won the Cup in 2008?

Winnings is fun, feels good, and is a great accomplishment, no denying that. But I know I'd much rather have an extra $2M/year on my salary for 8 years than maybe, possibly, win the Plumbers Cup in 2027. Especially when I was working at 70% of my ideal salary for the last 8 years, in an attempt to win the Plumbers Cup, and no dice.

That plumbers cup seems to me like some kind of pipe dream

[trailraat]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Without checking, who won the Cup in 2008?

Winnings is fun, feels good, and is a great accomplishment, no denying that. But I know I'd much rather have an extra $2M/year on my salary for 8 years than maybe, possibly, win the Plumbers Cup in 2027. Especially when I was working at 70% of my ideal salary for the last 8 years, in an attempt to win the Plumbers Cup, and no dice.

Pittsburgh was my guess but it was Detroit as they went back to back in cup finals in 2008 and 2009.

I guess for some (maybe most) the old Rockefeller quote about money is correct.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Without checking, who won the Cup in 2008?

Winnings is fun, feels good, and is a great accomplishment, no denying that. But I know I'd much rather have an extra $2M/year on my salary for 8 years than maybe, possibly, win the Plumbers Cup in 2027. Especially when I was working at 70% of my ideal salary for the last 8 years, in an attempt to win the Plumbers Cup, and no dice.

I bet you the players on both the winning and losing team remember the cup final in 2008 very well. I don't think McDavid is taking the pay cut for the owner or the fans, if he does it, it will be for him and his teammates.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by trailraat

Pittsburgh was my guess but it was Detroit as they went back to back in cup finals in 2008 and 2009.

I guess for some (maybe most) the old Rockefeller quote about money is correct.

I guess what I was asking, in a round about way, would you rather get a 15% raise, or keep your current salary and maybe, hopefully have a slightly better shot at winning, what's your profession, Plumber/Electrician/Doctor/Teacher/Engineer/Farmer of the Year Award?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I guess what I was asking, in a round about way, would you rather get a 15% raise, or keep your current salary and maybe, hopefully have a slightly better shot at winning, what's your profession, Plumber/Electrician/Doctor/Teacher/Engineer/Farmer of the Year Award?

The Stanley Cup is hands down the hardest trophy in professional sports to win. Didn't it take LA 27 games in 2011 or 2014 to win it? That is a 1/3 of a season. It is not considered a 1 time best of anything. It is the ultimate goal for anyone who has ever laced up skates. And only a few of those get to actually compete for it. Every year players up root their family, move across the country, and leave dollars on the table just for the chance to compete for it. There is no guarantees in life, but when a guys like McDavid already has more money than he can spend in a life time, and has probably another $145,000,000 coming in salary over the next 10 years, yeah I think the cup will come first.

[fishnguy]

^ By that logic, he should take a larger discount, so that Oilers can get a good goalie. I mean he does have more money than he can ever spend, no? Draisaitl sure had enough money as well. I am sure if he and McD talked it over, the team could buy a good goalie. Probably would guarantee at least one Cup win.

There are also other teams that are competitive and Cup contenders. Addition of McDavid could maybe guarantee that win for them.

[elkhunter11]

I find it ironic, that when the salary cap was implemented ,Edmonton was one of the teams that it was supposed to protect, now it keeps Edmonton from having the extra cash to upgrade their defense/goal tending. It would be interesting to know what the league would look like today, if there was no salary cap.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I find it ironic, that when the salary cap was implemented ,Edmonton was one of the teams that it was supposed to protect, now it keeps Edmonton from having the extra cash to upgrade their defense/goal tending. It would be interesting to know what the league would look like today, if there was no salary cap.

Like communism, in theory the salary cap is a good idea was was intended to level the playing field. But when 1 team is locate in area with very little tax is paid, and another team is in an area taxing to the hilt, that level playing field gets severely tilted.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Like communism, in theory the salary cap is a good idea was was intended to level the playing field. But when 1 team is locate in area with very little tax is paid, and another team is in an area taxing to the hilt, that level playing field gets severely tilted.

It’s a significant advantage, especially in that most of those states are in the southern US, so the weather is obviously nicer. Wives and money rule.

I feel the NHL should have a multiplier assigned to each team based on their state/provincial tax, so that every contract resulted in the same net pay regardless of where you play.

I have enjoyed the parity that exists in the league much more than before we had the cap.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by sns2

I feel the NHL should have a multiplier assigned to each team based on their state/provincial tax, so that every contract resulted in the same net pay regardless of where you play.

I agree, as I doubt this is a coincidence. "Four of the last five Stanley Cup Champions play in tax-free states".

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I agree, as I doubt this is a coincidence. "Four of the last five Stanley Cup Champions play in tax-free states".

So how many of the top 5 contracts belonged to those 5 champions?

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by sns2

I feel the NHL should have a multiplier assigned to each team based on their state/provincial tax, so that every contract resulted in the same net pay regardless of where you play.

Just for a quick comparison using federal, state/provincial and city taxes. Note that 'city' taxes are an income tax that do not exist in all NHL cities. Sales taxes and property taxes would need to come into the discussion if you wanted to put all forms of taxation on the table.

A player in Dallas is subject to 39% tax, which leaves them with 61% take home.
A player in Montreal is subject to 53% tax which leaves them with 47% take home.

If Dallas had a salary cap of $88M, Montreal would need to have a salary cap of $114M if you wanted to level the playing field.

Suppose the Oilers could trade Darnell Nurse and his $9.25M contract. (Dare to dream, Arnold. Dare to dream.)

In Edmonton, his pay is 9.25M
In Dallas his pay would be 7.9M
In Montreal, his pay would be 10.22M
All of these would give him the same take home pay of about $4.8M