Franchise Tag Player Vote

[Columbus Blue Jackets]

Dec 30, 2015 14:37:51 GMT -5 Florida Panthers said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:33:22 GMT -5 @nashvillepredators said:

Yeah, I can't help but feel we are over complicating this. I don't think the franchise tag is necessary which is why I have abstained from voting. We took away some free re-signs under the new free agency rules, but this addition of franchise tags would only undo that step towards a more exciting free agency period, no?

No because you only get to use it ONCE over 3 years. Think of it as once every 3 years you can get an extra re-sign, but only on that one player. The reason for the Franchise Player Tag is If a player such as Mike Hoffman who just signed a 1 year deal, signs another 1 year deal, and then signs a long term contract, you are Re-Signing that player as 1 of your re-signs for 3 seasons in a row, whereas the Franchise Player Tag covers Hoffman so you don't have to keep re-signing him as he plays out his bridge contracts under his RFA. Once you place the tag on any player it can't be moved for 3 seasons off that player.

Or you can just increase the total amount of resigns since it's pretty fucking redundant to have said player have a "Franchise player tag" when he's A) Clearly not a franchise player if he continues to be given bridge contracts and  B) you're pretty much saying it's an extra resign anyway. A "Franchise player" is someone who is usually NOT given a bridge contract and if they do it's a one and done. Mike Hoffman is 26, going into a 1yr 2 million dollar deal.You really think it's an intelligent idea to waste a "franchise player tag" on someone who is 26 and is realistically not a franchise player and won't be an RFA under both OG and NHL rules for the next 3 seasons? Yeah. Right.

Franchise players aren't given bridge contracts, if they are it's when they're 21 to 23 years old and are still RFAs (duh). Mikkel Boedker, Nazem Kadri, Derek Stepan (if we were 2 yrs ago) are the potential "Franchise players" who should be given that status just looking at this seasons Free Agency quickly. Not a 26 year old 5th round pick who went from 25GP 5pts as a 25 year old "rookie" to a 78gp 28g-48pts. To prove my point, Stepan was given a 2yr 3.whatever million bridge contract at 23, pretty typical for what you would advertise as a "franchise player", gets out of his ELC & signs a short bridge deal to prove he's worth long-term money. Then, signs a 6yr 39m contract. In reality, having that franchise player tag is totally redundant because Stepan, the Franchise player, already went through his bridge deal and is now locked into a long term deal, effectively nullifying the need for this. Kadri, exact same thing. Bridge contracts of more than 3+ million dollars whilst he's age 22-25. Do you think he's going to get franchise player money beyond this deal? Fuuuuck no. He's had a bridge deal for 3 seasons. So again - is it intelligent to waste a 3 yr clause on someone who will NOT be a franchise player as well as being 2 yrs over OG RFA limit? Fuuuuck no.

How about we just keep things simple. Lowering the RFA by 3 years is already a pretty big hit. I don't see this helping our league pretty much at all with how you have pitched this idea since it really never made sense to me at the introduction of this. Raise the number of resigns by one since frankly, that's what I see you trying to do "just once every 3 seasons". Don't need all this crazy shit that just leads to more confusion.

[Carolina Hurricanes]

Dec 30, 2015 18:33:57 GMT -5 Columbus Blue Jackets said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:37:51 GMT -5 Florida Panthers said:

No because you only get to use it ONCE over 3 years. Think of it as once every 3 years you can get an extra re-sign, but only on that one player. The reason for the Franchise Player Tag is If a player such as Mike Hoffman who just signed a 1 year deal, signs another 1 year deal, and then signs a long term contract, you are Re-Signing that player as 1 of your re-signs for 3 seasons in a row, whereas the Franchise Player Tag covers Hoffman so you don't have to keep re-signing him as he plays out his bridge contracts under his RFA. Once you place the tag on any player it can't be moved for 3 seasons off that player.

Or you can just increase the total amount of resigns since it's pretty fucking redundant to have said player have a "Franchise player tag" when he's A) Clearly not a franchise player if he continues to be given bridge contracts and  B) you're pretty much saying it's an extra resign anyway. A "Franchise player" is someone who is usually NOT given a bridge contract and if they do it's a one and done. Mike Hoffman is 26, going into a 1yr 2 million dollar deal.You really think it's an intelligent idea to waste a "franchise player tag" on someone who is 26 and is realistically not a franchise player and won't be an RFA under both OG and NHL rules for the next 3 seasons? Yeah. Right.

Franchise players aren't given bridge contracts, if they are it's when they're 21 to 23 years old and are still RFAs (duh). Mikkel Boedker, Nazem Kadri, Derek Stepan (if we were 2 yrs ago) are the potential "Franchise players" who should be given that status just looking at this seasons Free Agency quickly. Not a 26 year old 5th round pick who went from 25GP 5pts as a 25 year old "rookie" to a 78gp 28g-48pts. To prove my point, Stepan was given a 2yr 3.whatever million bridge contract at 23, pretty typical for what you would advertise as a "franchise player", gets out of his ELC & signs a short bridge deal to prove he's worth long-term money. Then, signs a 6yr 39m contract. In reality, having that franchise player tag is totally redundant because Stepan, the Franchise player, already went through his bridge deal and is now locked into a long term deal, effectively nullifying the need for this. Kadri, exact same thing. Bridge contracts of more than 3+ million dollars whilst he's age 22-25. Do you think he's going to get franchise player money beyond this deal? Fuuuuck no. He's had a bridge deal for 3 seasons. So again - is it intelligent to waste a 3 yr clause on someone who will NOT be a franchise player as well as being 2 yrs over OG RFA limit? Fuuuuck no.

How about we just keep things simple. Lowering the RFA by 3 years is already a pretty big hit. I don't see this helping our league pretty much at all with how you have pitched this idea since it really never made sense to me at the introduction of this. Raise the number of resigns by one since frankly, that's what I see you trying to do "just once every 3 seasons". Don't need all this crazy shit that just leads to more confusion.

How come every time you post something it is always negative and you always curse making yourself seem unintelligent and quite frankly childish? I rarely ever post on here but sheesh man come on, everyone else is an adult here but you. 

I think he used Hoffman as an example of a current player there are other players like this as well, some players don't even start their ELC until they are 20, so it is entirely possible most people sign short deals until they are 27 in the NHL or when they play their 7 seasons and then sign their longterm contract.  

I like the tag because it keeps the hard number of resigns and lets us keep an extra player once every 3 seasons.  I think if you actually raise it then it becomes redundant whereas having this once every 3 seasons kind of helps a GM out when needed.  Just because it is called a "Franchise" player tag doesn't mean you need to use it on a player such as Crosby XD.  If you were going to lose a player like Stepan and you know in advance he signed a 1 year deal because we are a year behind and your other core players are signed long term, obviously I would use it on him.  That's why this is a fun dynamic to the league because you may not use it on a player like Stepan whereas another GM might because of the way his contracts are laid out.  

Raising the resigns by 1 is the easy way out, this is a more fun and appealing way.  If you're going to lose an extra person and you happen to be losing 5 premier players and you only have 4 resigns then this tag can become completely useful, although it may hurt not having it within 3 seasons, you at least secured a player you would have lost.  Just my two cents though XD

[Columbus Blue Jackets]

Dec 30, 2015 19:04:03 GMT -5 Carolina Hurricanes said:

How come every time you post something it is always negative and you always curse making yourself seem unintelligent and quite frankly childish? I rarely ever post on here but sheesh man come on, everyone else is an adult here but you. 

I think he used Hoffman as an example of a current player there are other players like this as well, some players don't even start their ELC until they are 20, so it is entirely possible most people sign short deals until they are 27 in the NHL or when they play their 7 seasons and then sign their longterm contract.  

I like the tag because it keeps the hard number of resigns and lets us keep an extra player once every 3 seasons.  I think if you actually raise it then it becomes redundant whereas having this once every 3 seasons kind of helps a GM out when needed.  Just because it is called a "Franchise" player tag doesn't mean you need to use it on a player such as Crosby XD.  If you were going to lose a player like Stepan and you know in advance he signed a 1 year deal because we are a year behind and your other core players are signed long term, obviously I would use it on him.  That's why this is a fun dynamic to the league because you may not use it on a player like Stepan whereas another GM might because of the way his contracts are laid out.  

Raising the resigns by 1 is the easy way out, this is a more fun and appealing way.  If you're going to lose an extra person and you happen to be losing 5 premier players and you only have 4 resigns then this tag can become completely useful, although it may hurt not having it within 3 seasons, you at least secured a player you would have lost.  Just my two cents though XD

Lol because I can type how ever I choose. Not everything I say is negative, I just don't understand the need to implement this change. I've actually been pretty supportive of a lot of changes or have suggested additional reasonable options in order to make things even more effective. Just because I put "fucking" in my statement I am childish? Sorry, maybe you're the childish person for taking offense to a simple petty word. I am very much an adult and am able to type my opinions to Kyle and Joe without them rudely shooting me down. That being said, you can hop off my dick, go back to your lane now and stop taking shot at my integrity .

Yes, there are a lot of other players like Hoffman, that's precisely why he is, although an example, a reason why using him in this discussion is redundant. You're going to waste a 3-year clause on a player who isn't a franchise player. Can you please explain to me how raising the resigns to 5-6-7 from 4-5-6 is getting rid of the "hard number" of resigns. For something as valuable as a 3-year clause to keep a player without any league repercussions is not something you waste on a 26 year old top 6 forward just because he's getting bridge deals. Besides which, like I said, majority of these "franchise players" which would fall under this "franchise tag" are already signed to long term deals before or the year they're eligible for OGSHL Free Agency which makes this clause redundant as it doesn't protect players like Stepan from being lost to Free Agency due to getting multiple bridge contracts from age 24-27 like it's supposed too lol. It just protects the top 9 to top 6 forwards who are inconsistent through age 24-27 like Alex Chiasson who isn't going to get more than 3 million per season anyway.

Name me 5 players who got their first-ever substantial long-term deals (4yrs+) age 27 or beyond. I would be flabbergasted if you find anyone of considerable calibre other than a star KHL player such as Radulov, Jagr or Panarin (Although 23 and on a 2yr deal) coming back/to NA and getting substantial deals.

Raising the resigns by one is the easy way out? Nah bro, I think locking a player up for 3 seasons or more without anyone being able to even sniff him in Free Agency is taking the easy way out - the whole point of limiting resigns is to put considerable talent into Free Agency yet this "Tag" going 100% in the opposite direction. You're not going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that there are 1st line, "franchise" players at risk to being lost to Free Agency. I'll laugh straight in your face. Here is my mock list of projected Free Agents once all teams have submitted their UFA signings (non-cap impacting). Let me know if you see someone worthy of a "Franchise player tag" in this first season of modified Free Agency as well as the season before this rule is planned to be introduced. I think you'll find some pretty similar results to last seasons Free Agency, there's just a lot more 4th line-3rd line reachers, a couple of top 6 - exactly like last seasons draft only with someone like Brandon Dubinsky atop of the overall charts if he isn't moved and resigned or old fuckers like Brad Richards, Francois Beauchemin and Mike Ribeiro. Notice I didn't even use all of a teams resigns in order to keep it a little more legitimate. *DISCLAIMER* Amount of resigns based of standings on 12/30/2015


Anaheim: Shawn Mattias, Scott Gomez, Joakim Andersson, Michael Frolik, Jonas Enroth, Brian Flynn. 4 of 6 resigns used.
Arizona: Brad Richardson, Torrey Mitchell, Ryan White, Gabriel Bourque, Richard Backman. 5 of 5 resigns used
Boston: Gregory Campell, Francois Beauchemin, Mitch Callahan. 3 of 4 resigns used
Buffalo: Erik Condra, Danny Kristo, Ryan Stanton, Adam Pardy, Brendan Shinnimin, Matt Fraser, Peter Budaj. 5 of 6 resigns used.
Calgary: Craig Cunningham, Seth Helgeson. 3 of 4 resigns used.
Carolina: Ronald Kenins, Mike Santorelli, Eric O'Dell, Landon Ferraro, Andre Benoit, Steve Olesky 5 of 5 resigns used
Chicago: resigned all
Colorado: Mike Riberio, Brad Richards, Corban Knight, Nick Holden, Michal Rozsival, Louis Leblanc, Michal Jordan, Josh Jooris, Brandon Dubinsky. 4 of 4 resigns used
Columbus: Steve Bernier, Korbinian Holzer, Tim Erixon, T.J. Brennan. 4 of 5 resigns used
Dallas: Lance Bouma, Marek Zidlickly, Philip Varone, Richard Panik, Michael Keranen, Brandon Manning. 4 of 4 resigns used.
Detroit: Jonathan Bernier, Andy Miele, Chris Porter, Taylor Beck, Brendan Smith. 5 of 5 resigns used.
Edmonton: Blake Comeau, Patrick Maroon, Troy Grosenick, Robert Bortuzzo. 3 of 5 resigns used.
Florida: Shawn Horcoff, Nate Schmidt. 2 of 6 resigns used.
LA: Paul Byron, Rob Klinkhammer, Nick Schultz, Matt Bartkowski, Raphael Diaz, Mark Borowiecki. 4 of 4 resigns used.
Minnesota: Steven Kampfer, Curtis McElhinney, Patrice Cormier, Jordan Caron. 3 of 4 resigns used.
Montreal: Matt Calvert, Scottie Upshall, Marek Mazanec, David Warsofsky. 4 of 5 resigns used
Nasville: 4 of 4 resigns used.
New Jersey: Pierre Edouard Bellemare, Justin Braun, Tom McCollum, Anton Lander, Dennis Rasmussen, Mark Arcobello. 4 of 4 resigns used
New York Isles: 4 of 4 resigns used.
New York Rangers: Patrick Eaves, Peter Harrold, Tye McGinn, Dan Ellis. 5 of 6 resigns used.
Ottawa: Tim Schaller, Philip Grubauer, Ryan Carter, Matt Halischuk, Paul Postma. 5 of 5 resigns used
Philedelphia: Brad Boyes, Keith Kinkaid, Zac Dalpe. 4 of 5 resigns used.
Pittsburgh: all resigned
San Jose: Jonas Gustavsson. 4 of 6 resigns used
St. Louis: Jack Skille, Drew Shore , Ben Chiarot, Anders Lindback, Kevin Poulin. 4 of 4 resigns used
Tampa: Jarret Stoll, Joey Hishon, Daniel Winnik, Jonathan Marchessault, Taylor Fedun. 4 of 4 resigns used.
Toronto: Alex Semin 2 of 6 resigns used.
Vancouver: Nic Dowd, Cody Goloubef, David Rundblad, Philip Samuelsson. 4 of 5 resigns used.
Washington:  Steve Downie, Matt Donovan, Matt Hackett 4 of 6 resigns used.
Winnipeg: Chris Stewart, Andy Andreoff, Chris Brown, Alexandre Grenier, Mark Barberio 3 of 6 resigns used


By the way, I never wanted these tags to begin with. I only voted yesterday and it was for 2 tags. When the poll comes up tomorrow, I will be voting for none.

[Florida Panthers]

Thread locked, making the secondary poll now.