Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Thoughts on having a Franchise tag for exempting a single player from the cap?

getbak · 05-26-2023, 05:59 PM

It wouldn't really make any difference as explained. If the players' share of revenue is still 50%, the overall total is still the same for everyone. It would take one player's salary off the cap, but to offset that, you'd have to reduce the cap for everyone else.

So, instead of $83.5 million to spend on 23 players, you'd have $71 million to spend on 22 players and $12.5 million to spend on 1. Either way, it's ultimately the same.

Somewhere, I saw the suggestion of reducing a player's cap hit based on the number of games he has played for the same franchise. So, let's say a player has played 500 games for a franchise and his cap hit would count at 95% for that team only. Then, every additional 100 games would reduce his cap by an additional 5%. That way, if a player has played 1000 games for your franchise, his cap hit would only be 70% of what it would be for any other team, giving the player incentive to stay with your team.

I think that would an interesting idea, but it would still have the same escrow problems with the 50/50 revenue split.

05-26-2023, 05:59 PM	#10
getbak Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Calgary, AB Exp:	It wouldn't really make any difference as explained. If the players' share of revenue is still 50%, the overall total is still the same for everyone. It would take one player's salary off the cap, but to offset that, you'd have to reduce the cap for everyone else. So, instead of $83.5 million to spend on 23 players, you'd have $71 million to spend on 22 players and $12.5 million to spend on 1. Either way, it's ultimately the same. Somewhere, I saw the suggestion of reducing a player's cap hit based on the number of games he has played for the same franchise. So, let's say a player has played 500 games for a franchise and his cap hit would count at 95% for that team only. Then, every additional 100 games would reduce his cap by an additional 5%. That way, if a player has played 1000 games for your franchise, his cap hit would only be 70% of what it would be for any other team, giving the player incentive to stay with your team. I think that would an interesting idea, but it would still have the same escrow problems with the 50/50 revenue split. __________________ Turn up the good, turn down the suck!