Curious on what people think about perhaps teams being able to designate a franchise player whose salary then would only count a certain percentage against the cap. Franchise player would have to be a player that was drafted, not traded or signed by that team. This is to be done so that teams that draft well aren't penalized because of the cap. Maybe another rule would be that a certain percentage of your team would have to be drafted by that team in order to be eligible to designate a franchise player. What do you think?

Lots of rules around it would have to be dealt with to model it out and see how/where it can be used and abused by NHL GM's.

What is the goal of doing this? To increase player salaries? To allow big market teams to use their financial power over small market teams?

Does the Franchise Player salary still count towards the 50% of Hockey Related Revenue between the NHL and the NHLPA?

Does it count towards the Cap Floor, but not the Ceiling?

What would happen if the player went on IR or LTIR?

Can you trade Franchise players? If not, then this basically makes them untradeable (maybe that's the point?)

Would Franchise Players be exempt from expansion protection?

How often can a team make changes to the Franchise Player designation?

Does a team gain any benefit by not using it?

Yes, they are free to sign RFA'S and no restrictions on UFA's. I also believe a franchise player couldnt be just anyone, here are some stipulations:
1 Like I mentioned they would have to be a drafted player by that team
2 Length of contract would have to be at least 6 years in length and minimum of 9 million per year(changes with salary cap). No trade clause for first 3 years, player gives a list of at least 8 teams willing to be traded to starting year 4.
3 Franchise designation can be terminated at end of any hockey season up until July 1. Trade clause stays in effect.
This definitely needs work but again trying to save teams that draft well which I think helps smaller market teams

And how do they plan to maintain balance and competition in the league? If you want your team to be stronger, you need to be able to manage your resources, not ask for special conditions. Otherwise, it's gonna be like in soccer, where Real and Barca have no restrictions, and the other teams are getting the short end of the stick. You wouldn't want that in hockey, eh?

I think the current salary cap structure is fine... But I think they should move up the contract slots up to 60... Allows for more feel good stories to break through...

Guess who's winning the league this year? Not a great example this year lol. I'm well aware how dominant they've been over the last decade +

I rather just get rid of the cap all together all the cap rules are more trouble then they worth...

Then the Rich teams would consistently be the best. Teams like Arizona/Carolina would default because who wants to play there for 1/10th the money.

Nah when was the last time the team that spent the most won it all in any sport...? Besides if teams go bankrupt trying to keep up with the Joneses that's their own problem not anyone elses the faster they go bankrupt the faster someone more responsible can take over those franchises...

Hyman 3rd hatty of the season and 25th goal, he literally can't stop scoring

Vegas. Tampa. Both significantly over the cap when they won championships. Almost every cup winner has been at, over, or barely under the cap since it came into effect.

Yeah but that's a team not following cap rules when every other team IS following the cap rules...are there any examples before salary caps were indicted that you can find?

No cap would be the same. The cap separation would just be more extreme with internal budgets in place of a hard cap.

But in all the pro leagues before salary caps were injected none of the top spending teams ever win it all that's my point it proves that the top spending teams are not guaranteed to win championships...

TheGx sports betting forum copy and paste machines reporting:

5 takeaways from Nylander's extension with Leafs

The Toronto Maple Leafs signed winger William Nylander to a franchise-record eight-year, $92-million extension Monday. Several ramifications from the deal affect the Leafs and the rest of the league. Let's dive in.

Leafs pay top-end value for another star player

Mark Blinch / National Hockey League / Getty
Nylander is amid his best season, tallying 21 goals and 33 assists through 37 games, tying him with Connor McDavid for the fifth-most points in the league. Leafs fans should be ecstatic that a homegrown star wants to spend his entire career in Toronto.

But the Leafs aren't exactly getting any hometown discount here.

Nylander entered this season having never finished higher than 20th in league scoring. Since his emergence in 2021-22, he ranks 14th in points. Still, Nylander's $11.5-million cap hit will tie him for the fifth-highest-paid player in the league.

The most recent comparable is David Pastrnak - he and Nylander are the same age and play the same position. Signed 10 months ago, Pastrnak's deal with the Boston Bruins was also for eight years but with an $11.25-million cap hit. However, Pastrnak already had a 48-goal, 95-point campaign under his belt and was amid a season in which he finished as the Hart Trophy runner-up.

Pastrnak's pact was worth 13.64% of the cap ceiling when he signed the contract (13.5% of 2023-24's cap). Nylander's deal is worth 13.77% of this season's cap ceiling and 13.1% of 2024-25's projected cap. In a nutshell, the contracts are mighty close despite Pastrnak's longer track record of elite production.

Perhaps the Leafs could've saved about a million dollars per year had they reached an agreement with Nylander in the offseason. But this has been a consistent theme for an organization that hasn't been able to win negotiations with Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner, either, relative to other superstars around the league.

Getting Nylander signed is still far better than the alternative of trading him or letting him walk, and it shouldn't be a poor contract by any stretch. However, Nylander's camp clearly didn't do the Leafs any favors given that the deal also contains a full no-movement clause and bonus-heavy structure. No one should blame Nylander considering Marner and Matthews did the same thing, though. Why should he be the one to cave? Toronto just doesn't have the cap culture other teams do in which stars are open to taking slightly less for the group's betterment.

What does this mean for Marner?

Claus Andersen / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Speaking of Marner, he's up next for the Leafs. Marner and John Tavares will be eligible to sign extensions on July 1 before becoming unrestricted free agents in 2025. Tavares will be in his mid-30s and likely sign for far cheaper than his current $11-millon cap hit if he stays in Toronto. The same can't be said for Marner.

Marner took the Leafs for every dollar on his current contract, receiving a $10.9-million cap hit over six years. His next deal may not be much higher considering the cap has barely increased since then.

If Nylander continues at his current pace for the rest of the season and finishes with around 120 points, it'll be tough for Marner to justify exceeding Nylander's cap-hit percentage. Marner has never recorded 100 points in a campaign.

Marner is a better defensive player than Nylander, but contracts are often based on production. Marner could go off in the second half or have a torrid start to 2024-25, but if he doesn't, his next contract should come with a cap hit far closer to Nylander's than to Matthews' $13.25M AAV. Reports indicated that Marner wanted his current deal to be paid closer to Matthews' previous contract. That's difficult to imagine this time around, with Nylander pulling himself ahead of Marner this season.

Pettersson seeing dollar signs

Derek Cain / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Vancouver Canucks superstar Elias Pettersson is likely next in line to cash in. Pettersson won't be a UFA until 2025, but he's a pending restricted free agent eligible to sign an extension at any time. Nylander's deal should be music to the ears of Pettersson's camp.

Pettersson is coming off a 102-point season and is on pace for triple-digit points again. Not only is Pettersson two years younger than Nylander, but he also plays the much more valuable position of center. And Pettersson has a strong two-way game that resulted in a seventh-place finish in Selke Trophy voting last year.

If Pettersson signs for the maximum eight-year term on his next deal, the cap hit should start with a 12. He deserves it.

2024 UFA class gets weaker

Megan Briggs / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Nylander was the cream of the crop among the 2024 UFA class. There are some intriguing names after him, but Nylander was the one star player who could've single-handedly transformed a franchise.

While nobody else in the class deserves to reach Nylander's $11.5-million cap hit, his contract should help other pending UFAs maximize their full earning potential.

Players like Sam Reinhart and Jake Guentzel, both in their primes, should see handsome paydays. The same goes for productive veterans Steven Stamkos, Matt Duchene, and Jonathan Marchessault on shorter-term deals if they test the market.

👉Hard salary cap remains bad for hockey👈

Jeff Bottari / National Hockey League / Getty
Fans and media members are guilty of analyzing and debating the salary when a contract like Nylander's is signed. But it's a fair thing to want to do in a league with a hard cap where every $100,000 is mightily important.

It shouldn't be that way, though. Fans, in particular, should be able to enjoy a player committing to their favorite team instead of nitpicking over the details.

The NHL is the only major sports league with a hard salary cap, and it lags significantly behind the NFL, NBA, and MLB when it comes to player salaries. Poor marketing is partly to blame, but there are other reasons. For example, the aforementioned notion that star players should take slightly less for the group's betterment wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for the hard cap.

Although highly unlikely under current commissioner Gary Bettman, adding a luxury tax system would be a great starting point to allow stars to get their full worth, reward successful franchises, and allow teams greater cap flexibility. Greater cap flexibility could lead to more player movement and, thus, more fan engagement.


Sports gambling forum www.thegx.ca/forum copied and pasted this from the web🍻

Copied above article that talks about hard salary cap being bad for hockey☝️

TBH, they should do what the NBA does with luxury tax... And make it so that the luxury tax end up going to the smaller market teams to balance things out while still keeping the player maximum money rule

Obviously, not a small market team fan but think that will prevent the issues the NBA faces while still getting rid of cap circumvention...

Yeah pretty much anything else is better than what the NHL has now...

I'd say no cap at all is worse...

Otherwise, you'd have teams like Toronto vs LAK every year bc they'd get all the good free agents

But never happened before the salary cap was introduced so why would it ever happen if it never happened before...?

??? You said "pretty much anything else is better than what the NHL has now" and I responded with a worse solution and you said no bc it's not happened before?

And the MLB doesn't have a salary cap and look at the Dodgers and Yankees

Regarding MLB not having a salary cap I think that's just more proof that even in non salary cap leagues like the MLB spending like the Yankees and Dodgers doesn't win them more championships than the other teams...

As for what I quoted you...I said anything would be better than what the NHL has now and you said having no salary cap would be worse...so I guess we disagree on that since you rather have a cap whereas I don't want a cap...well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that then...

Yep. Up to 10% over the soft cap for a 2:1 dollar tax. So if you spend $6M over the cap, you can do that. Just send $12 million into the revenue sharing pot. This year it would give big markets up to $8.35 million extra space to play with if they were willing to pay the tax. Enough to make a big difference, but not enough to dominate, and those rich teams will screw themselves right up against the hard cap again and again. But it gives them more room to play with and/or bury contracts. Small teams get the extra revenue sharing so they can spend more, too. If six teams spend to the new hard cap, it's just over $100 million in cash straight to the revenue sharing pool (on top of whatever else is in there).

NHLPA is happy: higher cap, more money toward salaries yearly. Big markets or deep pockets are happy: higher cap, more flexibility, they can flex their advantage. Smaller teams might grumble, but get a respectable amount of cash, so I doubt they would nix it.

I think having no cap ensures a team like the A's have no chance of winning

That's the issue... How is AZ supposed to win when their payroll is 1/10 of Toronto's?

Like the idea, but considering how much that idea would benefit smaller market teams... I'd have brackets... Over 1- 15% of the cap does the 2:1, 15-25% is 3.5:1 and anything above 25% is 6:1 and a loss of your upcoming 3rd and 4rth round picks

That way smaller market teams are more likely to get the extra bit of money while still holding a more competitive team... And the bigger market teams/building teams can benefit from being big markets...