Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillman16
Actually, if only one player per team can get the tag, and the salaries are still tied to the players share of HRR, it would drive all non-franchise salaries DOWN, as the cap for non-franchise players has to drop to accommodate the franchise players.
|
Uh, no. In the example proposed, "the current upper limit is 83.5M. A Franchise tag capped at 15% would mean a team could have one single contract at 12.53M (or less)
that would not count towards the cap." The team would be able to exceed the cap by up to 15% for their player flagged as the franchise player. That salary would not count towards the rest of the cap. That is inflationary as the franchise player is likely to demand the same as other franchise players, then allowing other similar players to demand similar pay or close to it. That in itself is inflationary. Since there is no limits on the rest of the roster, the salaries WILL rise to meet the excess space available in the cap. The rich teams will benefit and the poor teams will get ####ed. Look at other leagues that tried the same half-baked idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates
In theory, it actually does the opposite.
The top 32 players in the league, worthy of the big money would have to spread out to all teams to get paid in this category.
We might be able to poach a Makar because Colorado can't offer him a max contract after Mackinnon for example.
|
Nope, there is no mention of any limit on players under the cap. You could still pay another player up to the 15% of the cap, having two ungodly paid players with only one of them counting to the cap because the other is the "franchise player." Won't spread around the top players any more than the current system does.