Ottawa is looking for a top 4 guy preferably one to replace Gonchar.
Milan Michálek for Bieksa, thoughts?
Valuewise it's fair, but there are more UFA impact forwards than defensemen, so I think it would be more prudent to try and fill the need at forward via UFA than trade and try to find a defenseman in UFA.
1) What sort of idiot rebuilding team would trade their top-3 pick for 1 year of the Sedins? Or Alex Edler?
2) How could you find two teams that stupid?
3) Why would the Sedins waive their NTCs to go to a bottom-3 team?
4) Why would a team that has won 5 straight division titles blow up their entire team in order to ice a roster that is destined to miss the playoffs?
5) 7 rookies on the roster? Really? Plus another 5 players with under 100 NHL games?
1) Florida and Tampa Bay? Florida has enough prospects and Tallon thinks they're a playoff team. Tampa Bay needs a defenseman a lot more than a forward.
2) See above.
3) Sedins + Luongo on Florida could do some damage, especially in the East.
4) Because our team isn't good enough to do anything in the playoffs anymore. It's time to shake the core to the very foundation, especially with how pathetic they have been in the past two playoffs. Better to get it over with quickly than continue a slow regression and then having to do this in two/three years anyway.
5) Gotta gain experience somehow.
EDIT: I also realize this fantasy lineup is pretty unrealistic. Deals for those top 3 picks just don't happen, but I would certainly love it if it did. Not expecting it though, nor would I hold it against Gillis when it doesn't.
Nevertheless, the IRS not only agreed with Veeck but allowed any owner claiming the write-off to deduct roster expenses twice — first under "player salaries," in the case of the Nets' documents, and then under "loss on players' contracts" — and an enormous tax shelter sprang up within the balance sheets of franchises everywhere. This can't be emphasized enough: Every year, taxpayers hand the plutocrats who own sports franchises a fat pile of money for no other reason than that one of those plutocrats, many years ago, convinced the IRS that his franchise is basically a herd of cattle. Fort calls it "special-interest legislation." "It's not illegal," he says. "It's just weird."
The rules have changed over the years, but the depreciation shelter remains one of the great graces of owning a sports team. In some ways, it's gotten more fanciful. Between 1977 and 2004, owners could write off half the team's purchase price over five years, thanks to the pretend-loss of player value. One consequence, Fort notes, is that teams would change hands every five or six years, once the exemption had dried up. Now, after tax law revisions in 2004, owners can write off 100 percent of their team's purchase price, albeit over a 15-year span. What they're buying, as far as the RDA is concerned, is a set of players — the brand identity, the right to stage games and charge admission, and everything else are throw-ins. (According to Fort's analysis [pdf], the new RDA rules had the twin effect of increasing both tax payments and team values.)
So, apparently, a significant tax shelter benefit of owning a pro sports team is that player value can be depreciated over time in the accounting books... If a player is bought out and not even playing on the team, I assume the team will be able to write off a depreciated value of 100%, for the remaining years of the contract (after all, the player isn't even playing, so his value to the team is 0, yet is being paid)... I would think... I am not an accountant, but I assume if it's a tax benefit to have a player depreciate value over time... having a player that is not even contributing amplifies this benefit (his value to the team is now 0... he is contributing nothing to income)...
For a team that is making too much money from a tax savings optimization point-of-view (and as the article says, if a team is showing up profitable the accountant isn't doing his job) in a "cost certainty" world of salary cap, acquiring a bad contract to buyout must be pretty attractive, IMO... The buyout cost you have to pay that player (legit expense), not counting against your cap (which would affect your ability to compete), being able to get full benefit of depreciation going forward (for the life of the buyout period) making income significantly lower, on paper, for tax purposes (after all, player expenses are a major expense), combined with getting potentially significant assets to take this contract off of another team's hands (to free up the room to invest in another player, a new depreciating asset)...
By taking on a contract to buyout, the owner is basically giving himself an excellent tax shelter... If the Flyers (or, more correctly, Sinden, when looking at his entire portfolio of income-generating endeavours) is/are making too much money (from a paying taxes point of view), maybe Sinden doesn't have a problem both buying out Bryz and getting Luongo... The tax benefit of the combined depreciation cutting into generated income would be significant... and this ignores that Philly would have improved their goaltending a few notches for the foreseeable future (in case Sinden wants to win... the inner child, never really gone, in us all)... Hell, do Aquilini a favour (if he's making too much money on paper, for tax purposes) and allow him to buyout Briere... Then the Flyers can (I think) re-aquire Briere at a better cap hit (to potentially field a more competitive team), assuming Briere wants to remain a Flyer, which it seems he does... Aquilini is going through a divorce... The poorer that he looks on paper (through putting more money in a tax shelter, that player depreciation is) the better it might be for him... His accountant and lawyer would know, but maybe Aquilini wouldn't be as opposed to acquiring a significant contract to buyout as some are speculating - taking full advantage of a player depreciation opportunity before him, at no cap penalty (i.e. not affecting the potential competitiveness of his team)... "Look at the books, Wife's Lawyer... Look at how much money I'm losing"... "Look at the books, Taxman... Look at how much money I'm losing"... It walks like a rabbit, but it quacks like a duck...
Pro sports teams are fantastic tax shelters, and compliance buyout is a gift from the hockey gods, that they gave themselves, for a super rich owner who needs to look poorer on paper (boy, those owners sure know how to do it right... Never trust fish that try to teach you how to fish)...
Last edited by I in the Eye: 05-18-2013 at 03:15 AM.