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

[GreenLantern2814]

There needs to be more incentive to stay with a team - one extra year isn’t enough.

8 year max if you resign with your team, drafted or otherwise. 6 if you go to UFA

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

There needs to be more incentive to stay with a team - one extra year isn’t enough.

8 year max if you resign with your team, drafted or otherwise. 6 if you go to UFA

True franchise level players moving is pretty rare already. I don't really see a need to change.

Just because Treliving effed up with Tkachuk doesn't mean there's an overall problem. Gaudreau left the Flames more than a decade after being drafted.

Also agreeing with the people who say this wouldn't actually do anything much. It would however make the cap situation more complicated, which would mean less trades.

[memphusk]

I would like to see 8 years max if you played your whole tenure up until free agency with that team or 500 games by the age of 28. Save the GMs from themselves a little bit.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by memphusk

I would like to see 8 years max if you played your whole tenure up until free agency with that team or 500 games by the age of 28. Save the GMs from themselves a little bit.

And a 6 year max term if not.

[Mindtravellee]

10% discount on drafted (from 18) wouldn't go astray, maybe put a cap on the limit too (like 2 - 3 mill) so it's not all taken by McDavid or future Beard.

Should have a father son rule. Play 750 games or something

[Lanny_McDonald]

Sounds inflationary and an angle to be abused by the big market teams. Hard no. The CBA and system is fine as it is.

[GioforPM]

Paying top players top dollars is not the issue in this league. The advantage for certain teams is taxes (which is addressable via CBA adjustments), city reputation (which is not) and team chances for success (which fluctuates and is within individual team control).

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Sounds inflationary and an angle to be abused by the big market teams. Hard no. The CBA and system is fine as it is.

Actually, if only one player per team can get the tag, and the salaries are still tied to the players share of HRR, it would drive all non-franchise salaries DOWN, as the cap for non-franchise players has to drop to accommodate the franchise players.

But, depending if the franchise salary had a cap or not, there’s where rich teams could have the advantage.

Contract length, or maybe bonus availability tied to tenure with a team might be the better way to keep stars on teams that invested in them.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by 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?

The last thing I want to see is the NHL punishing teams in favorable tax locations and rewarding teams in unfavorable tax locations. Why? What did the Seattle Kraken do to lobby the state of Washington to have no income tax?

Are they going to factor in property tax and sales tax, too? After all, the players need to live somewhere and buy stuff.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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

In theory, it actually does the opposite.
The top 32 players in the league, worthy of the big money would have to spread out to all teams to get paid in this category.
We might be able to poach a Makar because Colorado can't offer him a max contract after Mackinnon for example.

Add in some extra tools for keeping drafted players (longer contracts than others can offer); and you'll have more ability for any team to draft a superstar and keep them, but not multiple.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Actually, if only one player per team can get the tag, and the salaries are still tied to the players share of HRR, it would drive all non-franchise salaries DOWN, as the cap for non-franchise players has to drop to accommodate the franchise players.

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.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

In theory, it actually does the opposite.
The top 32 players in the league, worthy of the big money would have to spread out to all teams to get paid in this category.
We might be able to poach a Makar because Colorado can't offer him a max contract after Mackinnon for example.

Nope, there is no mention of any limit on players under the cap. You could still pay another player up to the 15% of the cap, having two ungodly paid players with only one of them counting to the cap because the other is the "franchise player." Won't spread around the top players any more than the current system does.

[Locke]

With the GMs in this League you may as well be asking if you want them to be contractually obligated to juggle unpinned hand-grenades.

This seems like a terrible idea that is liable to blow up in their faces.

[Ashartus]

I think this defeats the whole intent of splitting the revenue between owners and players, since it substantially increases the player portion (unless they decrease the cap by the amount that franchise players are getting, which negates the value of this proposal).

[Locke]

We seemingly finally have some sort of détente between the players and owners...dont mess with it!

[getbak]

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.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by memphusk

I would like to see 8 years max if you played your whole tenure up until free agency with that team or 500 games by the age of 28. Save the GMs from themselves a little bit.

There should be more of this - ie players can unlock certain lengths of contract by either being there a certain length of time or scoring however many points.

A GM shouldn’t want to be able to give 31-year old James Neal five years. Or 32 year old Nazem Kadri 7.

The PA would never agree to this without something astonishing in return, but what if your contract eligibility was directly tied to points?

Once you’re off ELC, you can’t sign a 3-year contract unless you have a 30-point season. And on and on and on. Blake Coleman should not be allowed to sign a six-year deal having never broken 40 points.

So if you score 110 points, you make yourself eligible for an 11-year contract.

And once you’ve unlocked a tier, it’s unlocked for life.

There’s ways to make this interesting and encourage some player movement without “money outside the system”, and at least this way you could point to a guys record and say “this is why he’s making this much”.

Another thing that should be unlockable - NMCs and NTCs.

Sidney Crosby deserves a NMC. PPG players deserve NMCs.

Most guys don’t. If a NMC is the difference between getting a random UFA and not getting him, I don’t want him.

NTCs should be tiered, and there should be a max of 3 Canadian teams guys are allowed to submit on their NTC list - you can’t blackball a country that gives you all your TV money.

More to follow.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

There should be more of this - ie players can unlock certain lengths of contract by either being there a certain length of time or scoring however many points.

A GM shouldn’t want to be able to give 31-year old James Neal five years. Or 32 year old Nazem Kadri 7.

The PA would never agree to this without something astonishing in return, but what if your contract eligibility was directly tied to points?

Once you’re off ELC, you can’t sign a 3-year contract unless you have a 30-point season. And on and on and on. Blake Coleman should not be allowed to sign a six-year deal having never broken 40 points.

So if you score 110 points, you make yourself eligible for an 11-year contract.

And once you’ve unlocked a tier, it’s unlocked for life.

There’s ways to make this interesting and encourage some player movement without “money outside the system”, and at least this way you could point to a guys record and say “this is why he’s making this much”.

Another thing that should be unlockable - NMCs and NTCs.

Sidney Crosby deserves a NMC. PPG players deserve NMCs.

Most guys don’t. If a NMC is the difference between getting a random UFA and not getting him, I don’t want him.

NTCs should be tiered, and there should be a max of 3 Canadian teams guys are allowed to submit on their NTC list - you can’t blackball a country that gives you all your TV money.

More to follow.

There is more to valuing players than simply points.

[Kipper_3434]

Seems like a really good way to accomplish something very very dumb. The cap need more integrity not less.

[Press Level]

No need for weird cap exemptions to build a contender.



Draft better, develop better. This is the way.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is more to valuing players than simply points.

Those players don’t need term.