how are we in cap trouble??

are big players are feds and scott and we are in cap trouble but teams like toronto and pens still have money to spend? how does this work out?

Ummm..because they had lots of guys with expiriing contracts and we didn't have many.

Cap trouble happens when you end up spending 43% of your cap space on three players. I think that the Ducks are over the cap right now. Here's what I have for a 22 man Roster. There are four unknow salaries which I have put into bold. For three of them I put the minimum. For Salei's I entered his qualifying offer salary.

Forwards: (all salaries expressed in millions of $)
6.010 Fedorov
3.116 Sykora
2.261 Rucchin
2.000 R. Nidermayer
1.140 Leclerc
1.000 Selanne
0.901 Lupul
0.627 McDonald
0.512 Hedstrom
0.462 Kunitz
0.460 Pahlsson
0.450 Fedoruk
Defense
6.750 S. Nidermayer
2.750 Ozolinsh
2.052 Carney
1.824 Salei (qualifying offer minimum)
1.140 Vishnevski
0.450 Marshall
Goal
3.990 Giguere
0.456 Bryzgalov
Bench
0.450 Popovic (league minimum
0.450 Moen
(This list excludes: Chistov and Perry)

Grand Total = 39.471

The only way I can see the Duck not being over the cap is if a player has a front loaded contract. For the cap purposes you only count the average value of the contract, so if their salary is less next year the cap hit is the average of this year and next year.

If any Ducks fans see a mistake on this please let me know.

replace Getzlaf with Hedstrom, his cap hit is 512.5k

Popovic is at 600k
Marshall is at 450k
Pahlsson QO is around 460k

replace Getzlaf with Hedstrom, his cap hit is 512.5k

Popovic is at 600k
Marshall is at 450k
Pahlsson QO is around 460k

Thanks for the corrections. I changed the post above to reflect them.

Thanks for the corrections. I changed the post above to reflect them.


Based upon the salary analysis by Matt Gunning, there is no doubt in my mind that the only player to be traded is Sykora. (This assumes we are not trading Feds, Nieds or Giggy).

Remember once a player is traded we have to replace him with another one. We have to figure that player's salary in the total. The salaries of all the other players (Salei & Ozo) will not free up sufficent cap space to create a cushion if we have to call up replacements.

I asked this before, but I didn't hear a response, and no one told me if it was against the CBA. But can't we sign some guys to extensions with a lower future cap number? And although the bad thing is that in the future the cap hit is higher than the average salary, as long as we're responsible, it won't be a big problem?

Couldn't we take Rucchin's current 2.61 salary, offer him a 2 year extension at 2.2 million per, and take a cap hit of 2.34 for each season? That .27 mil savings doesn't seem like much. But do the same with Carney at around 1.5 per (I think Matvichuk has 1.4 signing as a UFA) for 2 more years, that's a cap hit of 1.7 per year for those three years. That's another .3 mil saved. That's saving more than half a mil, and extending the contract of some solid veterans. It's a start. Try to get rid of andy mac for a league min guy, that's another .17. and .74 mil saved, and puts us below 39 mil by like .3 mil. I don't know how the CBA works though, but if this is allowable, I don't see why this can't be an option.

As I recall the new CBA bans contract extensions. Check the FAQ on nhl.com if you doubt me, but I'm fairly certain I read it there.

I asked this before, but I didn't hear a response, and no one told me if it was against the CBA. But can't we sign some guys to extensions with a lower future cap number? And although the bad thing is that in the future the cap hit is higher than the average salary, as long as we're responsible, it won't be a big problem?

Couldn't we take Rucchin's current 2.61 salary, offer him a 2 year extension at 2.2 million per, and take a cap hit of 2.34 for each season? That .27 mil savings doesn't seem like much. But do the same with Carney at around 1.5 per (I think Matvichuk has 1.4 signing as a UFA) for 2 more years, that's a cap hit of 1.7 per year for those three years. That's another .3 mil saved. That's saving more than half a mil, and extending the contract of some solid veterans. It's a start. Try to get rid of andy mac for a league min guy, that's another .17. and .74 mil saved, and puts us below 39 mil by like .3 mil. I don't know how the CBA works though, but if this is allowable, I don't see why this can't be an option.


I believe we can do what you suggest under the CBA. However, the Ducks may not be interested in extending salaries into the future, Further you must convincer the player to agree with the extension at a future reduced salary. I don't think this is a good idea. You end up mortgaging the future by creating a future cap problem. I doubt Burke would even consider it. The cap has to be reduced below 39 million as the salaries of players that are called up to replace injured players count towards the cap. I believe the cap applies, except where an injured player is out more than 10 days. Therefore you have to leave cap room for injuries.

Further, it would be stupid, in my opinion, to get rid of Andy Mac. He is very versatile and can play center and wing and work on the PK. I for one like his play and would be dissapointed if Burke trades him. He is the most underrated player on the team.

The CBA allows contract extensions for players only in the last year of their contract but I think there were certain dates they had to be signed by.

In theory if Rucchin and Carney are in the final years of their contracts then yes, Burke could try to work out extensions with them to try and save $300,000 here and there. But that's assuming Burke wants to extend them. He might want to change the face of the team and make it his own.

One more thing. They take the average salary and you can't re-negotiate an existing year, just more years.