[CaptainCrunch]

We're entering into a brave world in terms of NHL Salary Management.

For Star players we have pretty much seen the death of the bridge deal, a major cost control lever that's pretty much gone away as teams frantically try to lock up their stars long term.

We're also starting to see the acceleration of the super contract, the McDavids of the world getting $12.5 per year, Draisaitl after one good season probably hitting the 8 mark.

We're now moving into the generation of the top heavy teams, the teams that bumbled and stumbled and rebuilt by failure are now looking at their rosters where they have two or 3 super players that are going to eat their payroll and put them in cap hell.

The emphasis is really going to be around scouting and development as teams are going to have to fill large swaths of their roster with young and cheap players and start to rotate them as they become too expensive.

The Cap really isn't going to increase, its based on a mathematical formula built around an equitable share of the pot. And its not likely that the NHL will want to remove spending controls and hurt what they see is a competitive balance mechanism.

So what's the fix. Does the NHL push up the age of UFA so teams can hold onto their players and slow down cost acceleration?

We currently have a hard rookie cap for the players first three years. What if we basically set a sophomore cap that enforces bridge deals to a maximum value of 5 million dollars a year, and after their first 6 years its UFA. The ultimate hard cap. Because the fear has to be with these super deals. Lets say Nylander signs a 8 year 9 million dollar a year contract and busts out. Or Draisaitl cashes in after one good year and can never replicate it. The current situation is basically encouraging the GMS to blow their brains out.

Or what if we put in an enforced franchise player tag? What if you can designate your franchise player, pay him the max, but the maximum contract is really 5 years long. I mean if we did that we remove money from the table for these Superstars, they're going to get the max heading out of their franchise contract so it becomes about situation and fit. But teams get a break under the cap.

So right now, lets say the super trio in Toronto sign Matthews to a 12 million dollar deal, and Nylander and Marner come in a $9 million each. So suddenly against a $75 million dollar cap they have $30 million tied up in three players.

But what if you put the franchise tag on Matthews? So now against the cap you have $18 million for three players against a $75 million dollar cap, but the trade off is that you might lose Matthews in 5 years.

Edmonton if Drai signs for $9 and they franchise tag McDavid would have a 9 million dollar hit against the cap but they risk losing McDavid in 5 years. Or they could franchise tag Drai at $9 million for 5 years and have a $12.5 million dollar hit, but get to keep McDavid for 8 years.


First of all you would have to be really clear on who your franchise player is, Calgary has three guys that they could for example tag. Johnny, Monahan or even Hamilton. But Hamilton has a steal of a contract, so do you tag Johnny so his hit doesn't count but you risk losing him quicker?

Oh and the franchise tag is non transferable on your roster, also you can trade your franchise player but you keep the franchise tag and can then assign it to someone else.

Oh and its not mandatory to have a franchise tag on your roster.

Just my two cents.

Probably way out there.