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

[UKflames]

I thought we already had a franchise tag that teams use to go over the cap, its LTIR (cough Vegas, cough No Goods)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

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.

How is it a “punishment” to level a playing field to account for factors that have nothing to do with the team, if you can do it. Why punish a team for a government decision?

And the difference between income tax and property/sales tax when considering the amount players get in their paycheque is fairly obvious. I guarantee you that players think about income tax a lot more than any other tax when they consider offers. They ask about their take home pay.

[Coach]

I don’t know how you could possibly coordinate some sort of tax Re-balancer, but seems like things getting a little too far up it’s own ass in regards to the cap.

Cap structure is fine as is IMO. GMs hang themselves and then want changes to prevent it. Or just make better decisions.

[Sylvanfan]

I think it's the young UFA age that teams had to give back and teams not really adjusting to it that's causing teams like the Flames to cram the proverbial broomstick up their own backside. Time to adjust is now and not give expensive third contracts to Hanifin and Lindholm with Kadri, Huberdeau, and Weegar already on the books. Until those three deals expire you can't have anymore of those on the roster.

[Ped]

The cap works fine. GMs have yet to adapt. It's all good to pay those leadership guys lots of money when the rest of your team is cheap, but as you get better, those guys get better and you have to pay more, and you're still paying bottom six/pairing guys too much money.


Carolina isn't perfect, but they're pretty ruthless in cutting guys who they don't want to pay more than they feel their worth. Nedeljkovic and DeAngelo being two recent examples, and they were proven right.


Teams need to stop paying money for those lower lineup guys. You may like them, but they tend to be replaceable, or they have one really good season that you end up overpaying for.

[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.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How is it a “punishment” to level a playing field to account for factors that have nothing to do with the team, if you can do it. Why punish a team for a government decision?

And the difference between income tax and property/sales tax when considering the amount players get in their paycheque is fairly obvious. I guarantee you that players think about income tax a lot more than any other tax when they consider offers. They ask about their take home pay.

You kind of answered the question yourself.

A team in Washington or Texas doesn't have anything to do with how their state legislature decides to raise money. I live in California, it's expensive. Does someone else owe me something to level the playing field?

This kind of thing impacts people like Matthews and McDavid way more than the median NHL player, since the marginal tax rate only applies to the highest portion of incomes. I don't think someone like Nikolai Knyzhov, Sam Lafferty, Blake Lizotte, or whoever would really care. Lots of members of the NHLPA wash out during ELC/RFA years.

[Sylvanfan]

Now if you could do like the NFL and place a franchise tag on a pending UFA to try and keep that player an extra year. That could be interesting. Had the Flames been able to Franchise tag Gaudreau...who knows what happens with the franchise. Something like that would help a team like Calgary keep guys.

[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.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ped

The cap works fine. GMs have yet to adapt. It's all good to pay those leadership guys lots of money when the rest of your team is cheap, but as you get better, those guys get better and you have to pay more, and you're still paying bottom six/pairing guys too much money.


Carolina isn't perfect, but they're pretty ruthless in cutting guys who they don't want to pay more than they feel their worth. Nedeljkovic and DeAngelo being two recent examples, and they were proven right.

You can see this by looking at their capfriendly page.

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/hurricanes

Four forwards signed to big deals, several young guys on entry-level contracts, and the rest are pending UFAs. CAR clearly has 8 or 9 players who they consider their core, and they cycle through the depth guys - including goalies. This gives them flexibility in the off-season to make necessary changes; they’re one of the few playoff teams who have the cap to bring in a guy like Lindholm this summer.

Originally Posted by Ped

Teams need to stop paying money for those lower lineup guys. You may like them, but they tend to be replaceable, or they have one really good season that you end up overpaying for.

Some pundits have suggested the NHL will go the way of the NBA, with teams paying a handful of stars big money and rest of the roster getting peanuts - no middle ground. We haven’t seen it yet, because a lot of GMs cut their teeth in the NHL of 15-20 year ago. But if a team has success with that model, it could become the norm.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some pundits have suggested the NHL will go the way of the NBA, with teams paying a handful of stars big money and rest of the roster getting peanuts - no middle ground. We haven’t seen it yet, because a lot of GMs cut their teeth in the NHL of 15-20 year ago. But if a team has success with that model, it could become the norm.

Doubt we'll see it, and doubt it'll be successful if we do. Basketball is largely about your top 3 guys, but hockey teams require a lot more depth in order to make a deep playoff run.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

YSome pundits have suggested the NHL will go the way of the NBA, with teams paying a handful of stars big money and rest of the roster getting peanuts - no middle ground.

Link to these pundits and thoughts? I'd like to read their justification. Basketball is pretty much a 6-7 man game and those guys drive your franchise. Hockey is not like that at all. No one is going to win with a 6-7 man team, not in a league where attrition plays such a huge role in team success. You need 23 guys in hockey to survive a season and more to win the cup. The more top performers you have versus the other team, the better your chances.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some pundits have suggested the NHL will go the way of the NBA, with teams paying a handful of stars big money and rest of the roster getting peanuts - no middle ground. We haven’t seen it yet, because a lot of GMs cut their teeth in the NHL of 15-20 year ago. But if a team has success with that model, it could become the norm.

This will be the Oilers next year. Except the success part.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I’m torn.

In theory, I like the idea but my concern is that it could lead to further inflation of player salaries relative to the cap. I worry that there might be some borderline (good but not exceptional) guys that the teams really don’t want to lose who fit the key criteria to get this designation, and as a result, they overpay using the exemption knowing it doesn’t hit the cap number…and that becomes a benchmark to further drive up salaries across the board.

[Enoch Root]

It literally solves nothing. It doesn't change the amount of money teams have for salaries, it merely gives more of it to the top players. And it tilts the playing field. There is no upside, unless you have one of the top few players in the league on your team.

[Burning Beard]

Every time I see this thread I read it as "Thoughts on having a" Francis" tag"

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You kind of answered the question yourself.

A team in Washington or Texas doesn't have anything to do with how their state legislature decides to raise money. I live in California, it's expensive. Does someone else owe me something to level the playing field?

This kind of thing impacts people like Matthews and McDavid way more than the median NHL player, since the marginal tax rate only applies to the highest portion of incomes. I don't think someone like Nikolai Knyzhov, Sam Lafferty, Blake Lizotte, or whoever would really care. Lots of members of the NHLPA wash out during ELC/RFA years.

No I answered the opposite. The cap shouldn't be dependent on government decisions - each team should have the same financial ability to sign players. And tax adjustment is one of the easiest fixes possible (and no team possibly has a valid complaint).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Doubt we'll see it, and doubt it'll be successful if we do. Basketball is largely about your top 3 guys, but hockey teams require a lot more depth in order to make a deep playoff run.

The idea isn’t that NHL teams will have a ‘big three.’ More like they’ll have 8-9 players who get a lot of money, and 10-12 who get little.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No I answered the opposite. The cap shouldn't be dependent on government decisions - each team should have the same financial ability to sign players. And tax adjustment is one of the easiest fixes possible (and no team possibly has a valid complaint).

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?

[Manhattanboy]

I think its obvious but the idea is to:

1. Try to make Canadian teams more attractive to star players.
2. Keep home grown talent from leaving to other teams.

Sounds good in theory but the difficulty lies in execution - who, when, for how long etc.?