Franchise player

[bwforever]

Just a thought, and maybe this is somewhat leaf related given MAthews, but someting I ahve wondered about in the past, since cap inception. 
Would it not make sense for the NHL to adopt a franchise player tag, similar to that used int he NFL? 
As I understand it in the NFL, a team can tag a single player as a franchise player. The idea is that this player helps the franchise drive revenue, promote the business, and so is mroe valuable than his standard player contract.  
As such his contract is outside of the salary cap. 

It would allow teams to pay the Croseby's, Toews, Ovechkin, McDavid's of the world without screwing up their competitive balance due to cap issues.

  

[capncrunch44]

I was reading the Nylander post and thinking the same thing before I saw this...
When the cap was first implemented there was a rumour that the owners were talking about that but the NHLPA shot it down.
That may be something that shows up on the next CBA when it comes to the cap.
The only problem is that it will only really benefit the rich teams that can afford to remain above the cap floor while still paying a player 10 million or so outside of the cap framework.

I recall hearing about luxury taxes but I don't know where they went ... so if the Leafs decided they were going to ignore the salary cap and go over by 5 million or so they would have paid a penalty of 1.5x that or 7.5million directly into the pool of $$$ that props up the weaker teams ... for the rich teams that would have been a way to just ignore the cap, pay the penalty and keep your players.

[Barilko]

Jul 29, 2017 9:35:35 GMT -5 bwforever said:

Just a thought, and maybe this is somewhat leaf related given MAthews, but someting I ahve wondered about in the past, since cap inception. 
Would it not make sense for the NHL to adopt a franchise player tag, similar to that used int he NFL? 
As I understand it in the NFL, a team can tag a single player as a franchise player. The idea is that this player helps the franchise drive revenue, promote the business, and so is mroe valuable than his standard player contract.  
As such his contract is outside of the salary cap. 

It would allow teams to pay the Croseby's, Toews, Ovechkin, McDavid's of the world without screwing up their competitive balance due to cap issues.

  

A couple of things to remember about the NFL's franchise tag:

1. The franchise tag is NOT exempt from the salary cap.

2. The franchise tag is good for one year only, and guarantees the player the greater of either the average of the five highest salaries at his position, or 120% of his previous salary. They can tag the same person year after year, but the same rules apply, which means that the player is guaranteed at least a 20% pay hike each year. Here's how that would apply to Auston Matthews: After McDavid's signing, the average of the top five salaries for centers in the NHL is approximately $10 mil. Which might seem reasonable for Auston this year, but next year, if you decide to tag him again, you're guaranteeing him a minimum of $12 mil (even more if the average of the "top five" goes up).

3. The player being tagged does not have to accept the franchise tag. And if Matthews determines that he should be paid more than the average of the top five salaries, he could walk away from the franchise tender and hit the open market.

4. The franchise tag is generally not well liked in the NFL by either the owners (because of the cap hit it creates) or the player (because of the lack of long-term security).

5. Only one player per team can be tagged. So you couldn't apply the tag to Matthews, and then also apply it to Nylander and/or Marner.

A good, brief article that explains the mechanics of the franchise tag can be found here: www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/2/14/14584232/how-does-the-nfl-franchise-tag-work-players-paid

Based on all of that, I believe the NHL is better off not trying to implement a franchise tag mechanism.