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

[FanIn80]

Quoting this from another thread:

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?

[dino7c]

Edit, I just noticed the "drafted" part

I may be in favor but only with that stipulation

[FanIn80]

I mean, techincally it would still be tied to revenue though.

[dissentowner]

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

[Badgers Nose]

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)

[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?

[Badgers Nose]

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.

[dissentowner]

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.

[FireGilbert]

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?

[getbak]

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.

[Stillman16]

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)

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?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Just bring in term limits and abolish the NTC and you have pretty much fixed the contract issues in the league.

[Stillman16]

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…

[Badgers Nose]

nvm might be insensitive to god fearing people

[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.

[midniteowl]

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

[Jacks]

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.

[FlamesAddiction]

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.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Agree that if revenue and the cap are tied, this doesn’t really make a difference

Agree with those saying that GMs need to manage the cap

That’s the challenge