Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
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.
|
It also says the players' share of revenue would still be fixed at 50% of league wide revenue, so it's not creating any new money. Either the non-franchise cap would have to decrease or escrow would have to increase to make up the difference, which makes the whole idea pointless.