05-26-2023, 05:29 PM
|
#1
|
GOAT!
|
Thoughts on having a Franchise tag for exempting a single player from the cap?
Quoting this from another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
Would one solution be a CBA tweak (ok more than a tweak) that would allow teams to apply a franchise tag to one player they drafted (eg. Chucky) that would allow the team to exceed the cap for that player's contract only?
|
I think this should be explored, although the Franchise classification would have to also have a cap. Like it can't exceed 15% of the upper limit, for example.
So, for example, 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.
Another thing to think about is whether or not the Franchise tag is actually attached to a contract itself. In other words, is it a roster slot that any player can be moved in and out of (posibily limited to one or two times a season)... or is the Franchise tag negotiated as part of a contract, meaning it's locked in to that one player for the duration of their contract (and then there's the question of whether the tag would transfer with the contract if traded - ie. a Franchise player could only be traded for another Frachise player or to a franchise with a vacant Franchise tag).
I don't know if it's a good idea, or if players or teams would even want to do it... but I think it adds a very interesting layer of complexity to roster building (for whatever that's worth).
What are some thoughts on this?
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:31 PM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
|
Edit, I just noticed the "drafted" part
I may be in favor but only with that stipulation
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:33 PM
|
#3
|
GOAT!
|
I mean, techincally it would still be tied to revenue though.
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:34 PM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
No. This would just widen the gap with how hard it is for Canadian teams to get star players.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:39 PM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
No. This would just widen the gap with how hard it is for Canadian teams to get star players.
|
Why? you could pay McJesus $20M to stay in EDM.
Still not enough, but you get the gist.
(I disagree with capping the exempt salary)
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:50 PM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Or McJesus could sign for that money in a big market like LA, NY, or Toronto. Why on Earth would he stay in Edmonton?
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:54 PM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Or McJesus could sign for that money in a big market like LA, NY, or Toronto. Why on Earth would he stay in Edmonton?
|
Because they have already used up their franchise player exemption on another guy. So, $14M from TO or play chicken with Katz and see how much that weirdo values his fancy toys.
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:55 PM
|
#8
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgers Nose
Because they have already used up their franchise player exemption on another guy. So, $14M from TO or play chicken with Katz and see how much that weirdo values his fancy toys.
|
So they use up that money on another guy and that opens up the cap space for McDavid. McDavid is not staying in Edmonton anyhow, no matter how much they could offer him.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:58 PM
|
#9
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
|
Feels like an idea someone from Toronto or New York comes up with to counter the tax advantages of the Florida teams. Allowing teams to go over the cap creates even more inequality when the NHL should be going the other way, closing LTIR loopholes and adjusting salaries for local tax rates.
Also, given salaries are tied to revenue, doesn't exceeding the cap just mean more losses into escrow for every player?
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 05:59 PM
|
#10
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
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!
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:08 PM
|
#11
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgers Nose
Why? you could pay McJesus $20M to stay in EDM.
Still not enough, but you get the gist.
(I disagree with capping the exempt salary)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Or McJesus could sign for that money in a big market like LA, NY, or Toronto. Why on Earth would he stay in Edmonton?
|
The franchise tag could spread the talent out. Sure McCrybaby could go and sign a big money deal anywhere (LA, Toronto, NY, etc) but that team would only have one slot for a player like that.
I also agree that there shouldn’t be a cap on that slot either. If the franchise players take more of the pie, that would force the cap for the rest of the players lower, cause the franchise salaries would still need to fit in the players share. This would also make it harder for the players to get together to build a super team, unless some take discounts. So it’s more likely the talent will spread out.
Also, if the franchise players take larger salaries, it would be very hard for them to move teams, as they need to find a slot, or fit into the salary cap of the acquiring team.
Another possibility could be allowing a franchise tag, but the salary still counts, the difference I propose would be to apply performance bonuses to that tag, so it could attract players to seek teams where they could get the tag.
For instance, would Draibaby stay in Edmonton if he could be the franchise player for say Arizona? And qualify for bonuses! Would Tavares go to Toronto, with Matthews there already, if he could go to Ottawa and make bonuses?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Stillman16 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:08 PM
|
#12
|
Franchise Player
|
Just bring in term limits and abolish the NTC and you have pretty much fixed the contract issues in the league.
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:11 PM
|
#13
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
Just bring in term limits and abolish the NTC and you have pretty much fixed the contract issues in the league.
|
Players would never agree to either of those, without something significant going their way. The free agency age and years were reduced significantly last time they gave anything up…
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:14 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
nvm might be insensitive to god fearing people
Last edited by Badgers Nose; 05-26-2023 at 06:37 PM.
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:18 PM
|
#15
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Can’t see it, as it seems like it is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Hard cap, make it work. Those teams with superstars don’t need any further advantage.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|
|
|
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
|
BloodFetish,
DeluxeMoustache,
Finger Cookin,
Fire,
Flamezzz,
GreenHardHat,
Itse,
Jacks,
Jiggy_12,
midniteowl,
Press Level,
Scroopy Noopers,
Yrebmi,
Zevo
|
05-26-2023, 06:48 PM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
Can’t see it, as it seems like it is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Hard cap, make it work. Those teams with superstars don’t need any further advantage.
|
Especially teams that don't know how to manage their caps *cough* *cough* the stupid Oilers.
__________________
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:53 PM
|
#17
|
Norm!
|
I would make it that no matter what the agent as soon as you sign him to a franchise contract its a maximum of 5 years with a team walk away at 3 years.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-26-2023, 06:58 PM
|
#18
|
Franchise Player
|
The salary cap is working just fine the way it is.
Besides, any extra cap you can figure out a way to create will be eaten up instantly by idiot GM's giving out bigger contracts.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-27-2023, 12:23 AM
|
#19
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
So what would happen if you designated a player as a franchise player, but then you had another player surprise and was worthy of that designation and wanted to get paid accordingly? Would the team be forced to trade them or see them walk? Because that would suck.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.
|
|