Florida is now committed to Barkov for 9 years. 26 is probably the oldest I'd want to go that long on, but I think it's a fair extension for him. If he didn't get 8x10 from Florida he probably would have got 7x11 somewhere else, and the Panthers couldn't allow that to happen. But I voted no because of the signing bonuses. That's just stupid. If a player is afraid of being bought out then the team should be equally afraid of him not performing. Buyouts are there for a reason, and being bought out isn't necessarily so bad for the player anyway. Sure it's embarrassing, but you're either paid not to play or you can go sign somewhere else and double dip. Look at Alex Wennberg. He got bought out by Columbus and then got close to the same AAV with Seattle. Ryan Suter actually got 46% more than what was left on his bought out contract, and he's 36 years old!
He is not afraid of getting bought out lol... just wants to earn more money
I don't have a problem with the amount. I don't like the fact that it's paid as a signing bonus instead of salary.
What is the issue with that? The more signing bonuses he gets, the more he actually gets paid (since he lives in Florida, all of that money is taxed less than his base salary would be)
It'll be a cold day in July in Miami before FL residents pay higher taxes than Toronto residents, lol. FL is the retirement capital of the Western Hemisphere.
that's funny considering they are flooding them with migrants who will all vote to raise taxes.
good deal, though signing Weegar, Hubby and Knight 1 year after the extension kicks in will be a pain
Very true. Though Hornqvists 5.3m and Gudas 2.5m contracts will expire then. So they got roughly 19 mil to pay the 3 guys and bring in 2 league min guys to replace Patric and Gudas.
What is the issue with that? The more signing bonuses he gets, the more he actually gets paid (since he lives in Florida, all of that money is taxed less than his base salary would be)
I didn't realize that signing bonuses were taxed differently than regular salary. I always thought they were all about making it more difficult for the team to buy out the contract if the player doesn't perform up to expectations, basically putting all the risk on the team and none on the player. If it's really just a way to let the player keep more of the money that the team is paying him, then I take back what I said about it being stupid. In fact, I wonder why they don't structure all players' contracts above the league minimum that way (I assume the minimum salary must be paid as salary and not as a signing bonus). I'm not interested in having a discussion on NHL players' tax challenges, but I assume teams would rather have their money go to their players than to governments if they have a choice.
EsoYeezus69 liked this.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly