Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
I get what you're saying, and you're right, but technically it wouldn't allow a player to make more than the others. The CBA allows a player's annual cap hit to be up to 20% of the current upper limit at the time of signing their contract. My initial suggestion (which I've since realized is not really feasible) was a 15% Franchise tag.
I guess another way to explain what I'm looking for is along the lines of saying,
"Hey, this guy isn't just a hockey player for us. He's the face of our franchise, the heart and soul of this team. He represents us in the local community and all over the hockey world. Our club would not be the same without him, and we consider him more of an employee than a hockey player. In fact, one of the reasons we pay him as much as we do is because we acknowledge everything else he does for us off the ice. I would even say it's about a 75/25 split, where we consider 25% of his contract to be for tasks and responsibilites that should realistically fall under the purview of a salaried employee, not an external contractor (which is essentially what a hockey player is)."
Like... just imagine all the creative ways in which we still wouldn't have been able to find Iggy another top line player, if we were able to remove a quarter of his salary from our cap hit.
|
But if the franchise tag is removed from a team’s cap, isn’t that just another way of increasing the cap and giving the players a larger share of revenue?
That willl never happen as owners would never agree to it.
It would actually benefit the larger market teams and penalize the smaller market teams that have trouble spending to the cap as it is.