Thoughts on having a Franchise tag for exempting a single player from the cap?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The cap already isn't dependent on government decisions. I'm not sure how you'd calculate the punishments and rewards, given that teams can have vastly different player salary structures (stars and scrubs vs. spread out like the Kraken, floor team or cap team), and individuals can be single or married, have kids or not, have various types of tax deductions that they're either entitled to or not.

It's not like players don't already love going to Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, etc. Now teams like that should get more money to spend at the expense of Seattle, Nashville, or Dallas?

The clear intent of the cap is that teams have the same amount of dollars to offer players. Tax structures remove that level playing field. Like it or not, income tax rates play a huge part in player decisions, and the other after-tax financial implications just don't.

Teams can still have their varying salary structures. Cities still have their non-financial advantages. The salary cap affectes neither of those things. But the cap should be effectively the same for everyone and it just isn't right now.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The clear intent of the cap is that teams have the same amount of dollars to offer players. Tax structures remove that level playing field. Like it or not, income tax rates play a huge part in player decisions, and the other after-tax financial implications just don't.

Teams can still have their varying salary structures. Cities still have their non-financial advantages. The salary cap affectes neither of those things. But the cap should be effectively the same for everyone and it just isn't right now.

I'd argue that the clear intent of the cap is to provide cost certainty for the owners and tie expenses to revenues. I seem to recall that coming up quite a bit during the 2004-05 lockout.

What you suggest would remove that cost certainty and place it, marginally, in the hands of provincial, state, and local governments that can change rates at any time. There's probably a reason why no other league has entertained this, much less implemented it.

[Dan403]

Terrible idea is terrible.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

Imagine having 2 superstars and one leaves because you can only pay one a huge amount, then your 2nd best player just leaves to sign with Columbus or some #### because of it.

Terrible idea on many fronts.

That's not what this is.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the 12.5M I capped it at in the example I provided, but it's not about getting to pay someone 12.5M. You can already do that, and some teams (EDM) will have to do that (or more) for more than one player.

The focus shouldn't be on the 12.5. That's just a way to still tie that one salary to the cap without making it part of the cap. Using Johnny and Tkachuck as an example (and pretending that signing them was an option), we could have given them both 8x10M contracts, and been able to have one of those contracts not count towards our overall upper limit.

In my thinking, capping the Franchise tag at 15% of the upper limit just protects the small market teams from having to worry about Toronto and NYR offering someone 20M a year without any worry about cap hit.

I mean, I'm pretty sure I don't completely understand the entire economics of whole thing (I'm not even sure if it's the micro or macro that I'm not getting lol). I'm just thinking top-tier salaries are escalating to a point where... I mean...

The league already has 8 players making 11M or more (Marner is very close to being a 12th player, at 10.9). With an 83.5M upper limit, paying someone even 10M only leaves an average of 3.31M per player for the other 22 roster spots. Even if you're somehow able to cap your 4th line at 5M (~1.6 per player) and 3rd line at 7.5M (~2.5 per), that's now 22.5M just for one player and your bottom 6 (which is impossible, since every team has a bad contract or two in the bottom 6).

So... 83.5 - 22.5 is 61M for two first line players, three second line players, top D pair, middle D pair, bottom D pair, starting goalie, backup goalie, and a couple spares.

With everything outside the top 3 in the draft every year being a crap shoot, I just can't see a way to viably build a team that can win a Cup without getting a lottery pick (or two) along the way.

I would argue that it's more probable for a team to win a draft lottery and get a Matthews, McDavid, Stamkos, Kane, Crosby, Ovechkin, MAF, etc, than it would be to be able to trade for a Tkachuk. That was just looking at 1st overalls, there are plenty more that were second and third overall picks.

The last team to win a Cup without a player that was drafted in the top 3 was Detroit in 2008, and even then the team they beat in the Finals was Pittsburgh - a team with two #1s and a #2 - and they won the Cup the next year. Even this season, every team in the final 4 has a player that was drafted in the top 3.

So, I guess the point I'm making is that we're competing in a league that requires building through the draft, but also has teams in cities with vast differences in quality of lifestyle, forcing certain markets to pay higher salaries than others in order to retain their drafted players... A 24 year old Tkachuk will play in Florida for 8x9.5, while we have to pay a 29 year old Huberdeau 8x10.5.

My argument is that if every team was allowed to float one contract away from the cap, but that contract in and of itself was still tied numerically to the cap, then it's more of a benefit to small market teams that have to overpay than it is to the teams that players will take a cut to play for.

Again though, I completely accept that I don't fully understand the economics behind everything I'm suggesting. Also, as it stands right now, the current CBA has a 20% cap how much an individual player's annual salary can be (at the time of signing the contract). I don't know if that impacts this idea or not... like it seems to me the 15% Franchise tag wouldn't be used for a McDavid if he can get 20% without that tag.

[FanIn80]

Although, after typing all that out, it just occured to me that even if that one salary isn't counted toward the overall cap hit, it still has to either be paid out of revenue or out of pocket by the owners (who will figure out some other way of clawing back that salary - not every NHL owner can afford to just kick in 10M out of their own pocket).

So at the end of the day, it's probably not much different than just arbitrarily raising the overall cap by 15% - which would be bad without the revnue to support it.

[DSIM420]

If you put conditions on it so GM's would only use it if they absolutely had to then it might work. The GM's would probably get exploited by the star players to use this as a bargaining chip for contract negotiations.

1. Player must be under contract with your team the previous season.
2. Player can only be placed on the list for 1 season on a 1 year contract.
3. Player becomes a UFA at the end of that season. Not eligible to be resigned until July 1st.
4. If player is put on LTIR, there is no cap relief for the contract.
5. Player can't be traded.
6. Player must be kept on roster the entire season.
7. Franchise tag must be applied by June 30th for the next season.
8. Franchise tag contract is a 1 year deal with a salary of 10% of salary cap for next season.
9. Player must play in 30 regular season games to be eligible to play in the playoffs.

I am sure there are other limits that could be put on it.

[The Cobra]

This will help the large market teams, as it's effectively increasing the cap.

Plus, the teams won't go for it as it effectively gives the players a larger share of the revenue.

Now, if this amount comes out of the cap, what difference is it really making? It's simply allowing one player to make more than others. Which happens anyway.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

This will help the large market teams, as it's effectively increasing the cap.

Plus, the teams won't go for it as it effectively gives the players a larger share of the revenue.

Now, if this amount comes out of the cap, what difference is it really making? It's simply allowing one player to make more than others. Which happens anyway.

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.

[ForeverFlameFan]

It's not the worst idea, but still an idea I can't get behind. Manage your cap wisely. I feel like this only helps those that mismanage their cap poorly like Edmonton and Toronto.

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The idea of an exemption for a franchise player is completely counter-productive to the goal of parity. Your franchise is fortunate enough to get a great player, and then you're allowed to have that player not count against the cap? Ridiculous.

Fortunate? The proposed idea rewards teams for drafting well. If your scouting/drafting/development staff does the work, takes the risk and if it pans out, the team should absolutely be rewarded for it. IE The Flames hit a home run and draft Gaudreau in the 4th round and can then be rewarded by not having that players cap count - they 100% deserve it.
This incentivizes draft capital and player development over free agency, which I think would net out to being deflationary to player salaries. Both of these things IMPROVES parity by having more star players stick with their drafting team and not leave via UFA.
In theory, this idea isn't dissimilar from the UFA 8yr / 7yr contract length issue. They are both incentivizing the player to stay with their drafted team and not go to market.

Had this been around the last few years, you put the franchise tag on Gaudreau and pay him his $11M and use that cap savings to sign Tkachuk to a massive deal. This allows a small market team to be highly competitive for another 5-8 years. Everyone involved - Bettman, Edwards, Tre, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, agents, the Flames roster, fans all benefit from this one rule change. I'm all for it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No. This would just widen the gap with how hard it is for Canadian teams to get star players.

That and do you really want a team like the Oilers being able to hide a contract like McDavid's? Talk about making the winning of a draft lottery even more lopsided.

[NegativeSpace]

I think a lot of the Canadian concerns get addressed if the next CBA does away with no-trade and no movement clauses. It is the no trade clauses that really impact Canadian franchises. The players would fight hard against that, but I think those clauses are what makes it hard for Canadian franchises. No only do you have to convince a team to trade with you but you have to find good players who do not have protection against playing in your city.

Exempting one player does not strike me as helpful because of the revenue sharing agreements. It just artificially raises the cap for one player, which is the same for all teams. I've heard this idea in the past from agents who have been floating it around because they can get more money on individual deals.

I think the difference in no-trade and no-movement between the NHL and the rest of professional sports is the impact.
Perhaps as a trade off you make it harder for teams to buy out players so they get more guaranteed revenue.

[FanIn80]

I'd rather not lose another year of hockey over no trade clauses. In fact, I like having them... I'd rather a player not waive their clause to come here, than have no say over it and just try to play themselves outta here.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No. This would just widen the gap with how hard it is for Canadian teams to get star players.

Not really as you can only tag 1 player and it must be a player you drafted not used in free agency

[sureLoss]

Yeah officially removing NMC/NTC won't really solve anything. Players can still in effect have them.

See Jeff Carter. When he was traded to Columbus he made sure to get himself traded to LA after a few months. When his time in LA was coming to an end, rumors started circulating that he would retire if he didn't like where he was traded to.

Players and their agents will manipulate to get out of places they don't want to be.

[The Cobra]

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.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by rhino

Not really as you can only tag 1 player and it must be a player you drafted not used in free agency

That stipulation would never fly.

[ComixZone]

What about this:

Each team owns one “Franchise Tag”. That tag gives the player a bonus (call it $5M a year) that is outside of the salary cap.

It would create a market where teams that can’t keep players (like us), do get the opportunity to give a specific player something that not everyone else is capable of doing.

Tkachuk wouldn’t want to go to Florida, because Barkov is already their tagged player. Calgary could then have offered the $10.5M AAV + $5M/year tag. In negotiations, say you can lock that tag in for a period of time and it’s locked to that player unless the player waives it. Meaning they can be traded with the tag so long as they become the tagged player at the other end of the trade. If the receiving team already has a tagged player, they’d need to request that player waive their tag otherwise the deal can’t go through.

…I’m sure the idea falls apart at some point, but it at least gives each time the opportunity to keep special players.

So each team gets $83.5M in salary cap next year + $5M bonus for one tagged player.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

What about this:

Each team owns one “Franchise Tag”. That tag gives the player a bonus (call it $5M a year) that is outside of the salary cap.

It would create a market where teams that can’t keep players (like us), do get the opportunity to give a specific player something that not everyone else is capable of doing.

Tkachuk wouldn’t want to go to Florida, because Barkov is already their tagged player. Calgary could then have offered the $10.5M AAV + $5M/year tag. In negotiations, say you can lock that tag in for a period of time and it’s locked to that player unless the player waives it. Meaning they can be traded with the tag so long as they become the tagged player at the other end of the trade. If the receiving team already has a tagged player, they’d need to request that player waive their tag otherwise the deal can’t go through.

…I’m sure the idea falls apart at some point, but it at least gives each time the opportunity to keep special players.

So each team gets $83.5M in salary cap next year + $5M bonus for one tagged player.

Except Johnny was already tagged the year before.