I know that tagging is a controversial subject in the league, but I would fully throw my support behind Steve's idea of using NHL salaries as the benchmark for tagging rather than BRHL2 salaries.

Using the example of Dennis Wideman, he's a top 4 dman but is paid less than 800k. However his salary in the NHL is just under 4 million. Though Wideman would keep his great salary, the tags would be used on players that are in the proper category.

The only problem I see with George's idea of a sliding loyalty dependent upon the number of games played with the team is that it creates more work for the commishes in order to monitor movement.

A compromise though for tagging, is currently we have two options. Either tagging for another year or renegotiating the contract. However, as the player has all the power, I think every tag has been to extend the contract by the year. If we had to alternate our tags, first one you use is to extend the contract, next you have to renegotiate.

Unfortunately, we're in a vicious cycle. By giving players huge salaries in ufa, players who could be tagged and renegotiated will demand high salaries, in response to that, gms will only choose to extend the contracts by a year which limits the ufa pool and starts the cycle all over again.