I think the NHL should implement a franchise tag so teams do not get punished for drafting and developing well, especially if the cap does not increase that much. Whether the tag removes the whole cap hit or half of the cap hit that could really help teams. The only rule is the franchise tag can only be used on a player that team drafted and developed so teams cannot just go out and sign a big name FA because they have the franchise tag protection. Thoughts on something like this coming to the NHL?

Interesting idea, but I would prefer to wait a couple years to see if the cap rises or stagnates. I'd also be concerned that this would only help bigger market teams circumvent the cap. Say the Rangers tag Alexis. They'd stilll be able to use the money they'd save to sign a big time UFA that they'd otherwise not be able to afford. But, I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea, especially if the cap stays relatively flat. Maybe a compliance buyout would be another option.

players union would have negate shares of this. only the elite fa's would get tagged and those are the ones that would contribute the most to the nhlpa funds... football has the weakest player union and the franchise tag is one of the reasons why. It prevents players from getting paid what they are due by giving out 1 year prove it deals during their prime years. I personally think the way hockey does rfa/ufa is perfect. ufa might actually happen too late in a players career.

I think if this happens, team like the Wings or Kings will tag Seider or Turcotte when they sign their big RFA contract, so they can sign big fish UFAs and smaller market teams will suffer because they’ll struggle to lure those same UFAs

NHLPA would never allow this with the current financial structure.

What if the cap hit of drafted and developed players was calculated differently. So Price's cap hit ends up lower than Bobrovsky's? It still ends up helping bigger maket clubs tho. Pretty much any change would really.

it doesnt hurt the PA or players at all, players still get their money, in fact you could argue it would be beneficial for the PA because teams would have more $ to spend on players

it absolutely hurts both players, players association, and teams. Players: lets use a jeff skinner for example... if buffalo was afforded the franchise tag instead of having to sign him before he hit ufa do you think he gets remotely close to what he got the year after? for purposes of this discussion: 40-23-63 in 82 games. vs 14-9-23 in 59. This in turn hurts the PA because thats less guaranteed money yearly into the benefit pools. You say teams would have more $ to spend on players... teams dont all spend towards the limit to begin with. what makes you think having star players at sub market contracts would make them spend more? you think ottawa would spend more if they franchised brady tkachuk? This would help the large market teams only: pittsburgh, NY teams, boston, LA, toronto, montreal, chicago.

well Skinner doesn't work because he wasn't drafted by and developed by Sabres

but based on the OP, who said "the tag removes the whole cap hit or half of the cap hit" I think you are confusing what they mean by franchise tag, its not a tag in the way of you keep their rights... lets look at the Pens, who had a disappointing year, based on what the OP said, it would be more like Pens can tag someone (lets say Malkin cause hes the biggest cap hit) he still gets his money, but the tag takes it off the cap hit (either whole or half) which gives Pens more room under the cap to either pay more to a RFA (like say Murray or Jarry) or lets them bring in another player completely

it is kind of the same idea of having a luxury tax (which the NHL needs) it benefits the teams that are all constantly handcuffing themselves, and the players because there is more money to spend

teams should simply not handcuff themselves

I whole-heartedly disagree. Why does the NHL need a luxury tax? they have a hard cap.. its not a soft cap like the nba, and its not a number like the mlb. the hard cap is there to keep small market teams viable. Why should a team like the penguins be able to cash in on malkin for 15 years and then around the end of his tenure be like nah we can just erase that cap hit? This would kill any small market teams viability in the league. If a gm is bad at his job and cant effectively see their players potential he either shouldnt be in charge of giving out contracts/making trades, or he should hire someone that can do that analysis for him. Pretty simple, teams come in with a set number, players come in with their number. if you think the player lives up to their number sign them at that, usually you meet in the middle for these things but ill use the leafs as an example.

Why should they be able to just erase marner or matthews cap hits because they mismanaged the contracts? if this happens you arent getting any more discounted deals and youll just get more bad contracts being given out. franchise tag makes absolutely no sense for the nhl.

I way I understand the Franchise Tag is that it prevents a player from going UFA by giving them a 1 year contract based on existing salaries in their position or 120% of their current salary. So Pittsburgh (and toronto i guess) couldn't use it in that way, only player Pittsburgh could tag is Schultz by giving him 9.55 million (average of the top 5 defenseman contracts).

Even this falls apart because hockey doesn't have a wide variety of positions that american football does, and it restricts players from being able to decide their own destinations, which the PA would not be in favor of.

luxury tax literally helps everyone, it allows big market teams to use their resources, it allows players to earn more, and it helps small market teams because the luxury tax money spent (say $2 for every $1 of capspace spent) goes to the small market teams which gives them more money to compete with going forward. AND it makes things like the trade deadline much more entertaining for fans

I honestly have no idea where the tax goes for MLB currently. but i can tell you this from looking at the "small market teams", they arent spending to the tax. Outside of maybe 6 or 7 teams they really arent even close. on one hand you have the yankees spending 267M this year vs the pittsburgh pirates spending 79.4m. league average is 160M yet the luxury tax threshold is 210m... youre going to tell me teams are going to spend to the luxury tax threshold? redsox just trade 2 of their best 3 players this year to avoid paying a luxury tax. one of those players was top 5 in baseball right now... no it wont be more entertaining for fans. hard caps are more entertaining for fans because it forces the talent to spread out.

Regarding the MLB Luxury Tax:

The luxury tax is separate from revenue sharing, which is a system to balance out the income distribution between large and small market teams by dividing money from merchandise sales and media contracts. The money generated from the luxury tax is not distributed to the rest of the league, as is the case with the NBA, but rather is used for other purposes. The first $2,375,400 and 50% of the remaining total are used to fund player benefits, 25% goes to the Industry Growth Fund, and the remaining 25% is used to defray teams' funding obligations from player benefits.

Essentially it's paying for players benefits and to gRoW tHe GaMe

mlb tax is irrelevant, nhl can set its own guidelines for luxury tax

you let teams like Pens, Hawks, Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, Habs, Jets pay more to go over the cap, put that money into equalization pay, and that puts more money into the smaller market teams allowing them to spend more as well

this is simple stuff that makes logical sense

and also as i said before, opens the league to more player movement which adds to the entertainment for fans

Pretty sure this will just incentivize mediocrity. You're rewarding owners (not the teams) for not spending to improve the team. They don't go "Well goggly gee, I made money because other guys decided to go over the cap, better spend more on my franchise!", they pocket that money and do it again because suddenly their books will balance regardless of the product on the ice.

ok so lets not do something that has tons of benefits for all sides because SOME people on ONE side might not take advantage of it

and this is the mindset that is making hockey movement boring

Only people who benefit are the owners.

and the players, and the fans

but hey I already explained this earlier and since you don't wanna read i wont bother with this anymore

not logically since the owners are the ones paying everyone. look at baseball who has a luxury tax. LOOK AT THE TEAMS THAT ARE AND ARENT SPENDING. there would be 6-8 teams that would spend to the tax every year. there would be 6-8 teams that wouldnt spend nearly enough. and there would be a bunch of middlers that dont get anywhere because their market isnt big enough. It doesnt make sense, your theory in practice wont work because of greed. Everything is about money.