Why doesn't Goodenow try this...

[BLONG7]

37.5 M per team, but let the teams if they so desire have one player outside the cap??? If teams want to go to the roof of 37.5 and then have their star player at 5-6-7M whatever...would the NHL go for that? Just curious, what do you guys think?

Click to read more...

 

[loudi94]

37.5 M per team, but let the teams if they so desire have one player outside the cap??? If teams want to go to the roof of 37.5 and then have their star player at 5-6-7M whatever...would the NHL go for that? Just curious, what do you guys think?

He'd probably do it at 42.5 as that would get him his 49 million cap. I doubt the NHL would go for either plan. That's not to say it isn't a great idea to have a designated "franchise" player outside of the cap. It's the number that can't be agreed upon.

 

[wazee]

I would rather have a higher cap than a franchise player exemption. The fewer exceptions to the cap, the better, IMO.

That said, it might be a way of getting things done and give both sides something they could brag about winning so it could happen.

 

[Bulldog fan]

Isn't any kind of exemption just a loophole waiting to be opened?

 

[loudi94]

I understand the NFL has it. How does it work there? I think if you add a franchise option, you also have to look realistically at eliminating guaranteed contracts.

 

[Wisent]

Isn't any kind of exemption just a loophole waiting to be opened?

Depends on how restricted the exemptiom is. I can't see how a one player exemption can be be used as a hole. But hey, perhaps I'm not imaginative enough.

 

[19nazzy]

It would be an interesting tactic. Goodenow could bring it about by saying that if we're going to agree to a 37 million cap, we're giving up an awful lot that we are willing to do unless we bring this one player expemtion into the fray.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I understand the NFL has it. How does it work there? I think if you add a franchise option, you also have to look realistically at eliminating guaranteed contracts.

Franchisng a player in football doesn't exempt their salary. More or less, its a way to make an UFA a RFA.

 

[loudi94]

Franchisng a player in football doesn't exempt their salary. More or less, its a way to make an UFA a RFA.

I'm curious, could you be more specific? Does it work?

 

[Bulldog fan]

Depends on how restricted the exemptiom is. I can't see how a one plaer exemption can be be used as a hole. But hey, perhaps I'm not imaginative enough.

If I remember correctly Barry Sanders of the Detroit Lions has a clause in his contract where all his linemen got a $10,000 bonus when Barry reached 1,000 yards in a season. For Barry this was a forgone conclusion.
Now lets say the Toronto Maple Leafs have Mats Sundin as their franchise player. They add a clause in his contract that says if Mats scores 2 goals in a season every player who has played 40 games or more receives a $100,000 bonus. Lets say 20 guys have played more than 40 games, thus the Leafs pay out 2mil. This is an extra 2mil that can be paid to the team but not counted under the cap since it would officially be written into the exempted players contract. This plan would basically put the team 2mil over the cap.
This is just one idea from a non lawyer type that might be a legal loophole. If I can think of something to circumvent the rules imagine what the legal people can do.

 

[Epsilon]

I'm curious, could you be more specific? Does it work?

When you apply the franchise tag to a player, you get to retain their rights, but are forced to offer them a contract worth the average of the top 5 salaries paid to players at that position.

 

[Wisent]

If I remember correctly Barry Sanders of the Detroit Lions has a clause in his contract where all his linemen got a $10,000 bonus when Barry reached 1,000 yards in a season. For Barry this was a forgone conclusion.
Now lets say the Toronto Maple Leafs have Mats Sundin as their franchise player. They add a clause in his contract that says if Mats scores 2 goals in a season every player who has played 40 games or more receives a $100,000 bonus. Lets say 20 guys have played more than 40 games, thus the Leafs pay out 2mil. This is an extra 2mil that can be paid to the team but not counted under the cap since it would officially be written into the exempted players contract. This plan would basically put the team 2mil over the cap.
This is just one idea from a non lawyer type that might be a legal loophole. If I can think of something to circumvent the rules imagine what the legal people can do.

Uncanny, haven't thought a contract could be shaped that way.

 

[futurcorerock]

I thought this was what entailed the "Franchise" player in the CBA frameworks the NHL has proposed to the NHLPA?

 

[hockeytown9321]

I'm curious, could you be more specific? Does it work?

Basically, the original team can make an offer based on an average of what the top players make at whatever position the FA plays. The original team then has the right to match any offer the FA might get.

This might explain it better:
http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a/franchisetransi.htm

 

[Bulldog fan]

Uncanny, haven't thought a contract could be shaped that way.

I'm not saying this would work exactly as stated. The point I'm trying to make is that if I can come up with something like that, the experts will turn it into a legal loophole that you could drive a truck through.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Basically, the original team can make an offer based on an average of what the top players make at whatever position the FA plays. The original team then has the right to match any offer the FA might get.

This might explain it better:
http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a/franchisetransi.htm

And, I think, the franchise tag is an offer to the player of a one year contract at that average salary of the top 5 at his position. The player has the option to accept the 1 year deal and try free agency again next year or to reject it and continue to try for a long term deal as an rfa. I also think there is a max on how many times a team can franchise a player, 3 or 4 maybe? Not really sure about that part of it.

But, it's much different than what the NHL is talking about. It's no a cap exemption and actually if the player in the NFL accepting the franchise offer, it would be worse for the team's cap than a long term contract. The NFL's franchise player is completely different.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

I'm curious, could you be more specific? Does it work?

Here are some of the basics about it. Someone in the sports forum asked about it a month ago. http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=2507693#post2507693

 

[Thornton97]

No max in the NFL franchise rule. A team can "franchise" a player however many times they want.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

No max in the NFL franchise rule. A team can "franchise" a player however many times they want.

They can, but each time the contract goes up. The first time its the average of the top 5 position players. Each time after that it's an increase of 10% of the current average if I remember right. So the first time it's 100% of the average of the top 5 players at that position, the next year it's 110%, then 120%, etc.

 

[FLYLine27*]

I thought this was what entailed the "Franchise" player in the CBA frameworks the NHL has proposed to the NHLPA?

The NHL has never proposed this idea of letting one player not count within the Cap. I think there was Rumors about the NHLPA proposing this (or did they?)

 

[Russian Fan]

37.5 M per team, but let the teams if they so desire have one player outside the cap??? If teams want to go to the roof of 37.5 and then have their star player at 5-6-7M whatever...would the NHL go for that? Just curious, what do you guys think?

Why does Bettman doesn't try 49M$ & said to their GM's to stick to their budget ? If teans want to go to the roof of 49M$ then they have the team they want......would the NHL go for that ? Just curious, what do you guys think ?

 

[txpd]

It would be an interesting tactic. Goodenow could bring it about by saying that if we're going to agree to a 37 million cap, we're giving up an awful lot that we are willing to do unless we bring this one player expemtion into the fray.

put a $10m Pronger or Sakic or Lidstrom on a roster already at the $37m max and you have nearly the $49m that the owners wouldn't touch before the season was cancelled.

what makes you think that they would consider that now that they know their revenues will drop further with the cancelled season?

I don't see it.

 

[19nazzy]

put a $10m Pronger or Sakic or Lidstrom on a roster already at the $37m max and you have nearly the $49m that the owners wouldn't touch before the season was cancelled.

what makes you think that they would consider that now that they know their revenues will drop further with the cancelled season?

I don't see it.

Then why should the NHLPA accept any of the crap offers coming from the NHL if they're not going to be getting anything good in return?

 

[PecaFan]

Now lets say the Toronto Maple Leafs have Mats Sundin as their franchise player. They add a clause in his contract that says if Mats scores 2 goals in a season every player who has played 40 games or more receives a $100,000 bonus. Lets say 20 guys have played more than 40 games, thus the Leafs pay out 2mil. This is an extra 2mil that can be paid to the team but not counted under the cap since it would officially be written into the exempted players contract. This plan would basically put the team 2mil over the cap.

Which is why we need a simple rule. If it's money that goes from owner to player, it's counted in a cap. Period.

 

[Weary]

Which is why we need a simple rule. If it's money that goes from owner to player, it's counted in a cap. Period.

Since you are in favor of simple rules, why even advocate a cap. No cap is definitely much simpler.