View Single Post
04-11-2013, 06:15 PM
Registered User
hockeydoug's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 2,221
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Yeah, the Hawks had a weak payroll coming out of the lockout. That's why I never understood Dollar Bill being such an advocate for the cap because it forced him to spend more on the team.
I missed this before. The Hawks were well above the cap floor coming out of the lockout. The cap in 2006 was 39 million if I recall and the cap floor was set at 21.5 million for the 2006 season. It then moved to a fixed +/- with contingencies of the established revenue midpoint. The Hawks spent over 30 million in 2006. You could take LaPointe and Khabibulin off the books in 2006 and they were still running well above the daily minimum before they dumped players.

The only year Chicago was relatively close to the cap floor was 2008 because of all the ELCs and initial extensions. They dumped salary in 2008 (after WWW passed, spending was no longer an issue) which is why their year-end number was so low for 2008. Samsonov, Ruutu (more expensive than Ladd), and Lapointe's departure lowered total year end payroll considerably in 2008.

The Hawks daily number before sell offs had them in the middle of the pack in daily payroll the two years coming out of the lockout. Even during most of the dark years before the lockout, the Hawks weren't as cheap as they were made out to be on player spending, they just spent the money terribly and almost always refused to sign long contracts. Of course they were cheap in plenty of other ways.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote