Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Realistic Value of Quinn Hughes


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Karlsson played for Ottawa. They wasted his talent. The guys you mentioned were all 2nd overall picks accept Pietrangelo who went 4th, so good luck acquiring those guys unless you are a crappy team. Then you need to spend years surrounding them with talent. 
 

We were lucky to get Hughes at 7. We may never get a top 3 pick ever again. So we have to build around Hughes. If you trade him how do you replace his 80 points?  What you need to do is find a stud defensive Dman who can partner him. That’s what Benning needs to do and it’s his #1 priority right now. 

They may very well pick too 3 this summer and there's some good dman to be had.

 

Not to mention they have players in the org who can make up for some the lost offense while making up the rest in preventing goals against.

Edited by stawns
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stawns said:

They may very well pick too 3 this summer and there's some good dman to be had.

 

Not to mention they have players in the org who can make up for some the lost offense while making up the rest in preventing goals against.

Have you seen our success in the lottery?  How many times have we picked in the top 3 since the lottery started?  Zero...

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

How silly.

 

My point is that you don't trade a second year phenomenal player because you are chasing something else.  You build your team.  You develop Hughes and see what he can become. I'm glad you are not the GM who loudly declares to young guys we draft in the top ten, come to Vancouver we will trade you early on in your career for players that have been developed by other teams because we don't believe we can develop you. Utter nonsense.

 

The fact that fans for 50 years don't see the value in speculating on trading one of our very top talents less than two years into his career is lost on people who are more interested in the glory of posting than the reality of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the question to me isn’t really whether you consider trading QH (my school of thought is that you have to at least consider it given commensurate return) but rather if you are of the belief that you are going to win with him as #1A. I don’t think you win wth QH as #1A. Others in this thread have made similar observations and proclamations. I don’t recall anyone suggesting the young man be summarily shipped out.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

Lol. Yes i should have answered his specific post by addressing the title of the thread instead.

 

 

I happen to agree with you that he shouldn’t be traded, I just disagree that there is something blasphemous about discussing it. I seriously hope that there is no one on this team that JB would be unwilling to have a trade discussion about. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -AJ- said:

It's so hard to place a value on him at this point, but it would be a ton. Of course, as @Teemu Selänne says, if we were to actually trade him, it would have to involve overpayment due to how critical he is to our team.

 

As far as his value, distinct from how much we need him, I'd say two unprotected 1sts, a good rookie/sophomore player (19-22 y/0 middle six/2nd pairing), and 23-28 y/o middle six/2nd pairing defenseman might be about right. Add more to that for us to trade him since we need Hughes so badly.

 

Using the Blackhawks as an example, it might be (straight value, not a realistic actual trade):

 

To Van:

Kubalik (21 years old - borderline 1st line winger)

2021 1st

2022 1st

Murphy (27 years old - 2/3 defenseman)

 

To Chi:

Hughes

 

A more realistic actual trade (from VAN's perspective) might be:

To Van:

Kubalik (21 years old, borderline 1st line winger)

2021 1st

2022 1st

Murphy (27 years old - 2/3 defenseman)

Boqvist (20 years old - 3/4 defenseman)

 

To Chi:

Hughes

Eriksson (no retention)

Roussel (no retention)

 

I don't think Chicago agrees to the 2nd above trade though.

 

 

Chicago is in the middle of a rebuild.   Chicago’s biggest weakness is that they have trouble defending.  It does not make much sense for them to target Hughes when they don’t have a Tanev + they won’t have the picks/assets to find a partner for him.  Their roster construction would be too flawed after such a trade.

 

It’s a lot of assets to give up and the acquiring team probably should have that reliable defensive partner to fully benefit from his impact. Losing Tanev/Markstrom is also exposing Hughes’ defensive game.

 

With the long breaks and the more limited scouting opportunities it sounds like some teams have invested more into advanced stats.  The NHL is also introducing puck tracking so some teams are probably already preparing to break down the data.  It could become harder to trade just on production alone.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

If Buff has to add they don't do the deal. I don't think they do a 1 for 1 either. In terms of potential Dahlin has the capabilities to be greater(Do it all defenseman). Potential is just that though but still. If you're gonna do Hughes for Dahlin there needs to be more pieces involved for both sides. Needs to be a hockey trade that makes sense.

 

Avs don't need Hughes.

 

Neither do NYI for that price. Islanders need Barzal more than they need Hughes.  They don't have many offensive forwards of his caliber or young forwards in general. They also don't score a lot so trading their Top C who drives their offense isn't a smart idea. Their D-corp is a whole lot younger. They don't trade Dobson either, he's shown a lot of promise so far.

oh I assure you I didn't put much thought into these trades. I was simply stating the minimum I would trade Hughes for. Hughes isn't being traded so it's not worth much thought or debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look  I  have to take issue with jumping on Quinn Hughes who has been here less than 2 years.

 

Fans need to have patience and stop undermining the development of the team by lurching back and forth between the latest trade whims.

 

I think fans of this team could do a much better job of supporting the team and creating an environment that is supportive.

 

You guys realize that Vancouver's tax rate is 14 points higher than Florida and Vegas and Seattle?  7 points higher than Edm and Calgary. 5 to 10 points higher than most US teams.  This puts us already at a distinct disadvantage for players making their careers here.  Players like Quinn Hughes. Players whose agents make them very aware of this. When they are told that they will make 1M more clear take home pay every year by playing elsewhere in the future. As fans we can't simply continue to ignore this uneven playing field. It is a very real and very destructive fact that stops players from wanting to spend their entire careers here.

 

Why then do you want to make the players all feel like holy crap you get grilled by the fans in Vancouver if anything goes wrong?

It's not the same elsewhere. Fans are more supportive in other cities. It is widely reported that the fans in Vancouver are  ultra critical of their own players.  You guys have heard this right? Toronto media says it every week in case you are wondering. And whether you believe it or not our players hear it every week from that very same  media.

 

So with Quinn Hughes I think it is awful to be speculating about trading him and what his value is.  Good god.  He hasn't even been here two years.  What is the possible point of chucking him away to chase someone else?  And for god sake where is the loyalty to the team and to the organization that drafted him.

 

The team cannot announce that we don't develop our young talent we simply look to trade them.  And for anyone who thinks that it doesn't matter that the fan base here does this crap to our players I just suggest that you ask them. I have many friends and family who are currently playing or have played in the past in the WHL OHL USHL BCHL AHL Europe and the NHL.  And the players know how corrosive the environment in Vancouver can be.  

 

So why not think about it before perpetuating yet another trade Boeser Trade Hughes trade Petterson trade Demko trade Horvat trade Juolevi trade em all  thread.

 

It would be great to see a thread about how supportive our fan base wants to be to develop a cup winner here with this group of young players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

 

Look  I  have to take issue with jumping on Quinn Hughes who has been here less than 2 years.

 

Fans need to have patience and stop undermining the development of the team by lurching back and forth between the latest trade whims.

 

I think fans of this team could do a much better job of supporting the team and creating an environment that is supportive.

 

You guys realize that Vancouver's tax rate is 14 points higher than Florida and Vegas and Seattle?  7 points higher than Edm and Calgary. 5 to 10 points higher than most US teams.  This puts us already at a distinct disadvantage for players making their careers here.  Players like Quinn Hughes. Players whose agents make them very aware of this. When they are told that they will make 1M more clear take home pay every year by playing elsewhere in the future. As fans we can't simply continue to ignore this uneven playing field. It is a very real and very destructive fact that stops players from wanting to spend their entire careers here.

 

Why then do you want to make the players all feel like holy crap you get grilled by the fans in Vancouver if anything goes wrong?

It's not the same elsewhere. Fans are more supportive in other cities. It is widely reported that the fans in Vancouver are  ultra critical of their own players.  You guys have heard this right? Toronto media says it every week in case you are wondering. And whether you believe it or not our players hear it every week from that very same  media.

 

So with Quinn Hughes I think it is awful to be speculating about trading him and what his value is.  Good god.  He hasn't even been here two years.  What is the possible point of chucking him away to chase someone else?  And for god sake where is the loyalty to the team and to the organization that drafted him.

 

The team cannot announce that we don't develop our young talent we simply look to trade them.  And for anyone who thinks that it doesn't matter that the fan base here does this crap to our players I just suggest that you ask them. I have many friends and family who are currently playing or have played in the past in the WHL OHL USHL BCHL AHL Europe and the NHL.  And the players know how corrosive the environment in Vancouver can be.  

 

So why not think about it before perpetuating yet another trade Boeser Trade Hughes trade Petterson trade Demko trade Horvat trade Juolevi trade em all  thread.

 

It would be great to see a thread about how supportive our fan base wants to be to develop a cup winner here with this group of young players.

 

 

 

The tax comments are misinformed per NHL hockey agent Allan Walsh who says you can pay less taxes in Canada with the right set up. 

 

Girard’s agent also says it’s jock tax in the US where players get taxed where they are for the day.  He gives the example that Girard gets taxed in Calgary, Montreal, Tampa etc based on where the team is for the day and only a portion in Colorado given the road trips.

 

Can’t see Benning interested in the slightest in trading Hughes.

 

Not sure a team can win a Cup if players just see it as a job.  Teams that treat players like interchangeable chess pieces could have trouble building the closeness it takes to win a Cup - need players that are going to sacrifice for each other and the team.  Hard to do if the roster is constantly changing and there’s no loyalty to anyone.  There’s a certain core that has to be able to grow together.  GM McLellan in Washington cites having a group that has weathered battle together as one of the 5 key reasons they finally won a Cup.  Players talked of how they had to become more than just guys playing hockey together. 

 

Edited by mll
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Have you seen our success in the lottery?  How many times have we picked in the top 3 since the lottery started?  Zero...

let alone move up in the draft order ,we always go down a spot  lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mll said:

The tax comments are misinformed per NHL hockey agent Allan Walsh who says you can pay less taxes in Canada with the right set up. 

 

Girard’s agent also says it’s jock tax in the US where players get taxed where they are for the day.  He gives the example that Girard gets taxed in Calgary, Montreal, Tampa etc based on where the team is for the day and only a portion in Colorado given the road trips.

 

 

 

Let's just agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

Partner the rates I quoted are accurate so let me give you  an example (approximate).  Player in FLA making 6m US pays 30% tax on first 500k US earnings and 39% on next 5.5m.  Total tax paid is 2.295m. Take home is 3.705m.

 

Same player making 6m US in BC pays (approximate)  40% on first 150k US plus 53.5% on next 5.85m. Total tax is 3.189, take home is 2.81m.

 

Difference in take home pay is 895k per year.  On a 6m salary. For guys like Hughes and Petterson in their later years it will be even more. That is huge.

 

So now what "structure' is there? First of all you said there is a set up where you can pay less tax in Canada.  That is patently false. Absolute BS so stop.

 

The only available structure is an RCA.  This means you take a chunk of salary and rather than receiving it you pay it into the RCA.  It sits there until you retire and pull it out.  If you pull it out after you have moved to the US you pay tax on it at US rates at that time. Inside the RCA he amount contributed is cut in half while it sits there so you can invest only that half. It is subject to Canadian tax rates on anything it makes.

 

So if you take 'advantage' of this ultimately you pay US rates on the salary you deferred but you lose out on having it available personally for all the years it is in the RCA. And this is only on salary you put into the RCA.  Players have to take a chunk of money to live which is subject to Canadian rates period. No player would choose this over just paying tax in Florida cuz you live and work there. Also if you are a European player you may pull out the funds in the RCA into a tax regime which is actually higher than Canada so it works in reverse in that case. Meaning this structure is marginally beneficial for US players and that's it.

 

Or you just live and work in a low tax state and get all your dough personally at much lower rates.  So don't tell me there is a magic pill. Cuz you'd be wrong.

 

WRT your jock tax comment whatever that means.  Players pay tax on their home games based on their home state so that is half their income.  On away games they get  taxed in other states at the applicable rates there. Except bonuses etc if paid while the player is resident in the home state.  We've filed sometimes 20 ish state tax returns for players. Nickels and dimes difference from what I quoted. They don't pay Canadian tax as Canada taxes on residency and these guys are US residents.

 

Hope that clears it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1st choice........................Arizona............................Jakob Chychrun, Victor Soderstrom + 2022 1st (?)

2nd choice.......................NJ....................................Ty Smith, Nolan Foote + 2021 1st (11th OA)

3rd choice........................Detroit...............................Moritz Seider, 2021-1st (2nd OA), + Michael Rasmussen

4th choice.........................NYI..................................Noah Dobson, 2021-1st (18th OA), 2022-2nd (50th OA)

Added late........................Buffalo.............................Ramus Ristolainen, Dylan Cozens, and 2021-1st (5th OA)

 

for 

 

Quinn Hughes + one of Gaudette/Virtanen/DiPietro/Jasek

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
  • Vintage 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fanfor42 said:

Let's just agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

Partner the rates I quoted are accurate so let me give you  an example (approximate).  Player in FLA making 6m US pays 30% tax on first 500k US earnings and 39% on next 5.5m.  Total tax paid is 2.295m. Take home is 3.705m.

 

Same player making 6m US in BC pays (approximate)  40% on first 150k US plus 53.5% on next 5.85m. Total tax is 3.189, take home is 2.81m.

 

Difference in take home pay is 895k per year.  On a 6m salary. For guys like Hughes and Petterson in their later years it will be even more. That is huge.

 

So now what "structure' is there? First of all you said there is a set up where you can pay less tax in Canada.  That is patently false. Absolute BS so stop.

 

The only available structure is an RCA.  This means you take a chunk of salary and rather than receiving it you pay it into the RCA.  It sits there until you retire and pull it out.  If you pull it out after you have moved to the US you pay tax on it at US rates at that time. Inside the RCA he amount contributed is cut in half while it sits there so you can invest only that half. It is subject to Canadian tax rates on anything it makes.

 

So if you take 'advantage' of this ultimately you pay US rates on the salary you deferred but you lose out on having it available personally for all the years it is in the RCA. And this is only on salary you put into the RCA.  Players have to take a chunk of money to live which is subject to Canadian rates period. No player would choose this over just paying tax in Florida cuz you live and work there. Also if you are a European player you may pull out the funds in the RCA into a tax regime which is actually higher than Canada so it works in reverse in that case. Meaning this structure is marginally beneficial for US players and that's it.

 

Or you just live and work in a low tax state and get all your dough personally at much lower rates.  So don't tell me there is a magic pill. Cuz you'd be wrong.

 

WRT your jock tax comment whatever that means.  Players pay tax on their home games based on their home state so that is half their income.  On away games they get  taxed in other states at the applicable rates there. Except bonuses etc if paid while the player is resident in the home state.  We've filed sometimes 20 ish state tax returns for players. Nickels and dimes difference from what I quoted. They don't pay Canadian tax as Canada taxes on residency and these guys are US residents.

 

Hope that clears it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would think an NHL agent who represents multiple NHL players understands about taxation and how to maximize their income.  His agency Octagon is one of the largest agencies out there.  Here are his tweets for reference if you want to pick it up with him.   

 

 

Walsh adds to numerous comments:

 

Nope, you can leave Canada, dissolve the RCA and get your money out at 20%-25% flat tax daily quick. Great for European or American players or even Canadian players traded to a US team and cut all residency ties to Canada.

WRONG! An RCA is not a traditional retirement plan. It can be dissolved at any time. For example, player with RCA gets traded to a U.S. team, cut all ties to Canada and get money within 18-24 months of windup. Almost all players dissolve plan by or at end of career.

 

In another tweet he mentions that the discrepancies is among US states rather than Canada vs tax free States.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my personal view.

Right after hearing his name was called by Jim at the draft in Dallas you could see how disappointed Quinn was.

My guess is that he wanted to be drafted by an american team.

I really want that Jim gets something done like:

 

To VAN:              Nico Hischier

To New Jersey:  Quinn Hughes

 

Both Quinn brothers are united and play on one team close to a city like New York.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

Just my personal view.

Right after hearing his name was called by Jim at the draft in Dallas you could see how disappointed Quinn was.

My guess is that he wanted to be drafted by an american team.

I really want that Jim gets something done like:

 

To VAN:              Nico Hischier

To New Jersey:  Quinn Hughes

 

Both Quinn brothers are united and play on one team close to a city like New York.

Deal him for another small(ish), skill guy..but a fwd? Overpaid at 7 + mill, with 36 pts last yr?! That's crazy.

 

Maybe IF they threw in two more 1sts & took LouiE!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has chipped in on tax panning here.  I have a number clients who actively employ RCA's in their affairs so I will try to shed some light.

 

When a young kid signs his big contract in the NHL he wants to know how to minimize tax, what he can have to buy a house and live on, what he should invest, how to invest, how to minimize tax on investment income and how to wind up in the best financial position possible when he retires from hockey.

 

Take an example.  Player A lives and works in Florida.  Player B lives and works in Vancouver. Further assume that both earn 6m per year for 10 years in the NHL. 

 

Player A pays tax of about 2.295 leaving after tax take home of 3.705 each year.  Let's assume he takes 1m per year to buy and pay for a house over time and pay for all of his living expenses.  That leaves him 2.705 per year to invest.  He invests and earns a 5% return per year.  He pays US tax on the investment earnings and nets a 4% after tax return on  his investments. In 10 years his after tax investment portfolio will have grown to a total of 33.775m.

 

Player B wants the same 1m after tax each year to buy and pay off a house and cover his living expenses. So his advisors say you need to place  3.9m    into an RCA each year.  That will leave your taxable income in Canada at 2.1m   which will leave you 1m after tax net. Same as your friend Player A.  The biggest downside of an RCA is this.  Of the 3.9m  that he puts into the RCA each year CRA sets aside 50% of it into a tax account.  Meaning the amount Player B has available to invest inside the RCA is cut in half. The second downside is that the investment income earned inside the RCA is taxed at Canadian tax rates.  So if he earns 5% before tax his after tax return is more like 3.3% (compared to 4% Player A earns.)

 

So Player B puts 3.9m  per year into his RCA and invests half of that and earns 3.3% on it.  At the end of ten years he has 23.41m   in the investment portfolio of the RCA and he has 19.5m     in the tax account.  When he collapses this he (simplifying for brevity) gets the tax back but pays tax in the jurisdiction he resides at that time. Lets say he moves to Florida to live next door to Player A.  After collapse of the RCA he winds up with after tax cash of approximately 26.17m   . Meanwhile Player A has 33.775m. That means Player B has 7.605m less than Player A.  With reference to the 60m salary he earned that is like 12.6% less.

 

This is a simplified analysis and doesn't involve any possible tax planning on the US side for either player. I have simplified the taxation of withdrawls and the mechanism for how that actually works.  But in essence it illustrates the downsides of RCA planning:

 

1. Less investment capital available

2. Canadian tax rates on investment income

3. Tax on withdrawl effectively at the rates of the jurisdiction to which you retire. (So if you retire in Canada you can get hammered). In the above example if Player B actually retired in Canada and collapsed his RCA he would only be left with about 19.95m. 

4. Complicated and can be expensive

5. Gets messy if traded

6. Player A has his  investment capital all at his disposal to do with it what he wants. Player B has to leave his in only prescribed investments in the RCA. So player A has much more certainty, flexibility and simplicity than player B.

 

While RCA planning is fairly common and does help bridge the gap it doesn't work that well and there are downsides. For players making under 1m per year it is of little use   as there isn't enough left over to invest each year in an RCA to make much difference.

 

Tax planning is a significant issue for players and coaches alike.  Remember Torts refused to establish residency in Canada and lived in Pt Roberts so he could pay only US tax.  He could have done an RCA but it was simpler in his mind to do what he did. Leivo pays 7% less tax playing in Calgary than he did in BC. Each player's situation is unique given their country of origin, salary, age, marital status etc etc. 

 

RCA's are not a  simple decision and not a one size fits all solution.  

 

Hope that helps shed some light on this fascinating topic. For my two cents if BC's top tax rate was 44% like it was 10 years ago  this would all be moot lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

Just my personal view.

Right after hearing his name was called by Jim at the draft in Dallas you could see how disappointed Quinn was.

My guess is that he wanted to be drafted by an american team.

Leave the mind reading to the experts.

 

Are You a Mind Reader or a Mind Knower? | Kathleen Smith, PhD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 6:39 PM, stawns said:

But, if he's the cost of getting that cman quality top 6 left winger/puck moving point getting defencemam this org has always coveted and never had, then yes, I give it serious consideration and probably would want them to do that deal.

Here's my issue with this and only mine.

 

I believe over time Hughes will get bigger and stronger and thus better defensively.  But during the entire tenure of the Sedins we chased those two items.  Puck moving defenseman and top 6 left winger.  10+ years we looked and couldn't find one.

 

Now we have one, potentially have his partner in the AHL or prospect pool and this year have a chance at a quality top pick, in a year where we will be freeing up a decent amount of cap under a depressed league wide economy meaning bargain contracts.

 

If Hughes was ever to be moved we're looking at years down the line not today or this season imo.  

 

Too much addition by subtraction as it was for my liking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...