• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jeff48109

Wings 2010-11 cap space reduced

Rate this topic

24 posts in this topic

Nine teams face 2010-11 cap penalties

The Chicago Blackhawks aren't the only team operating with a significant reduction of their 2010-11 cap space courtesy of performance bonuses.

Sources tell capgeek.com nine teams will face a cap reduction this coming season because performance bonuses earned pushed them past the upper limit in 2009-10. The Blackhawks lead the way by a long shot at an estimated $4.15 million, but the Boston Bruins and Toronto Maple Leafs are getting hit hard too.

The Bruins face a penalty in the range of $1.75 million and the Maple Leafs are next at $1.4 million. Other notable penalties include the Edmonton Oilers, at $354,500, and the San Jose Sharks, at $327,500. Four other teams — the Vancouver Canucks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Montreal Canadiens and Detroit Red Wings — face reductions of less than $100,000. Following is a complete list of estimates.

1. Chicago Blackhawks, $4,157,753

2. Boston Bruins, $1,759,795

3. Toronto Maple Leafs, $1,400,000

4. Edmonton Oilers, $354,500

5. San Jose Sharks, $327,500

6. Vancouver Canucks, $90,000

7. Pittsburgh Penguins, $83,979

8. Montreal Canadiens, $68,751

9. Detroit Red Wings, $50,000

All nine teams were pushed against the upper limit in part because of long-term injuries and then past it when performance bonuses were achieved.

The penalty has been applied to all nine teams on all of capgeek.com's features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my first thought after looking at that list, how on earth did Toronto get so many 'performance bonuses' when they finished next to last?

wings1110 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the hell did Abby meet any of his bonuses? I wonder if that $50k will actually cause an issue with our RFA signings?

You never know with some of these lower earning guys $50k is still a lot. $850k or $900k that could be a big difference to some of them.

Edited by dragonballgtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who did we pay a bonus out to, and for what?

Only two people had bonus potential according to cap geek. Abby or Larsson hit something...that something I have not a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all things considered is pocket change in the grand scheme of things, yea it might hurt us barely........but chicago do you want me to take over as GM I can promise you a nice cup drought after last year just as you current GM can. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, is this article saying that chicago's cap will be around $55.2M instead of 59.4?

As I see it. Hurts like hell if you're the Hawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it right I think its great would love to see them struggle this year!

so, is this article saying that chicago's cap will be around $55.2M instead of 59.4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capgeek says Hawks currently have nine contracts left to sign with $4.6 million left in cap room.

The only way they get out of this is by burying Huet. And signing 10 mediocre guys as replacements for the Byfugliens and Versteegs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capgeek says Hawks currently have nine contracts left to sign with $4.6 million left in cap room.

The only way they get out of this is by burying Huet. And signing 10 mediocre guys as replacements for the Byfugliens and Versteegs.

I think they're better off simply buying him out than putting him in the ground. The latter would produce enormous controversy and huge legal fees for the organization.

Z and D for the C likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're better off simply buying him out than putting him in the ground. The latter would produce enormous controversy and huge legal fees for the organization.

Legal fees don't count under the cap. If they work it like the Rangers did when Cherepanov died and get a draft pick out of it, double bonus.

:ripchicagogoaltending.gif:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're better off simply buying him out than putting him in the ground. The latter would produce enormous controversy and huge legal fees for the organization.

It's also possible they could try to loan him out to a KHL team. I'm pretty sure it's been done before. If I'm not mistaken, Chicago was going to do the same thing with Khabibulin.

Edited by Jesusberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also possible they could try to loan him out to a KHL team. I'm pretty sure it's been done before. If I'm not mistaken, Chicago was going to do the same thing with Khabibulin.

Loaning him out is, too, a much better option than is simply killing him to clear his cap hit.

Legal fees don't count under the cap. If they work it like the Rangers did when Cherepanov died and get a draft pick out of it, double bonus.

:ripchicagogoaltending.gif:

Well, they're always bragging about their attendance numbers; I guess that in the event, we'd see if they really did have as much in the way of revenue as they're claiming.

Edited by Crymson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to HAVE to try and get somebody to take on either Campbell or Huet. And with some of the GM's around the league, I won't be the least bit surprised to see either one moved. And then Chicago will kinda be fine again, as far as cap space. But it's not like they didn't see this coming. You'd think they'd do something with Huet or Campbell right off the bat and keep some of their depth that they traded away..... ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also possible they could try to loan him out to a KHL team. I'm pretty sure it's been done before. If I'm not mistaken, Chicago was going to do the same thing with Khabibulin.

KLH also has a salary cap, would his 5.6 count against their cap and none against s***cago's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0