I hear these terms thrown around a lot leading to many heated discussions. Would these be the accepted definations:
Generational
A talent that is seen only once or twice every twenty years or see. ie. Howe, Orr, Gretzky
Franchise
At any given time, four or five players in the league who are considered elite and you build a team around. ie. Jagr, Forsberg, Bourque
Generational - agreed.
Franchise - Maybe more than four or five. They have definitely to be elite, but not for 3-4 seasons, for the most of their careers. So a guy like Martin St. Louis, who had one great seasons and a few good ones, can´t be called a franchise player.
He should also be the one who makes the player around him better (Messier - Graves), and I mean ALOT better. He has to lead the team on and off the ice. He don´t have to be the biggest producer on the team (Rod Brind'Amour - I think he developed into a franchise player) if the other criterias are fulfilled. They have to be the face of the franchise - Brian Leetch, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman.
It´s also interesting, that the most/all of the players I mentioned, have got an intelligence that is definitely higher compared to the average player - and I don´t mean hockey sense. Maybe the reason why Eric Lindros failed to be a franchise player. A franchise player wouldn´t leave his franchise as easy as i.e. Paul Kariya, if it would not be his last chance for a cup (Ray Bourque).
It seems that here on HF-boards every top-5 pick is a sure bet to become a franchise player but I wouldn´t care. I´m sure Dany Heatley is considered a franchise player but not yet in my mind. He´s a very good player but he hasn´t fulfilled any other criteria (yet). Kovalchuk is an even better example. He want´s to be the guy with the photo on the first page in an Atlanta newspaper after a win but he doesn´t get it that he needs the other guys to have a photo with the Stanley Cup in his arms to be in EVERY newspaper.