View Full Version : Carolina Hurricanes 2006-07+ Salary Chart Completed
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 01:03 PM
Hey guys,
I've been working on this for all NHL teams and I just completed the Carolina Hurricanes 2006-07 and on salary chart.
http://www.dtowneastbasketball.com/carolina.htm
Let me know what you think and if anything is wrong just let me know.
Grant
gdovey@flyersphans.com
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 01:03 PM
Hey guys,
I've been working on this for all NHL teams and I just completed the Carolina Hurricanes 2006-07 and on salary chart.
http://www.dtowneastbasketball.com/carolina.htm
Let me know what you think and if anything is wrong just let me know.
Grant
gdovey@flyersphans.com
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:19 PM
love it. TSN has some data as well, although it seems at least some of it is wrong (Recchi for example):
http://tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=7994&hubname=
Most of the rest of the teams are up on TSN as well. But the charts, NICE that's how I want to see it.
Looks like you're missing Babchuk (if TSN is to be believed).
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:19 PM
love it. TSN has some data as well, although it seems at least some of it is wrong (Recchi for example):
http://tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=7994&hubname=
Most of the rest of the teams are up on TSN as well. But the charts, NICE that's how I want to see it.
Looks like you're missing Babchuk (if TSN is to be believed).
Cool Hand Luke
06-21-2006, 01:31 PM
I love this stuff. I read in USA today that next year's cap will be 44 million and the minimum will be 28. Seems like that was about where we were last year, 28? I bet we will be closer to the max this year after we sign Staal, Williams, and Cole.
Cool Hand Luke
06-21-2006, 01:31 PM
I love this stuff. I read in USA today that next year's cap will be 44 million and the minimum will be 28. Seems like that was about where we were last year, 28? I bet we will be closer to the max this year after we sign Staal, Williams, and Cole.
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:32 PM
More good "official" information:
http://www.nhlpa.com/WebStats/PlayerSearchV2.asp?OIDTeam=8362
Guys like Aucoin, Gove, LaRose... where are they on the chart, are they not signed for next year?
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:32 PM
More good "official" information:
http://www.nhlpa.com/WebStats/PlayerSearchV2.asp?OIDTeam=8362
Guys like Aucoin, Gove, LaRose... where are they on the chart, are they not signed for next year?
From what I am reading the cap ceiling will be $44 mill next year. The Canes should be in good shape! :spin:
From what I am reading the cap ceiling will be $44 mill next year. The Canes should be in good shape! :spin:
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:57 PM
LaRose:
http://www.carolinahurricanes.com/custom/rad71DC4.asp
Signed a 3-year deal on Aug. 6, 2003. I'm pretty sure the "lockout year" doesn't count as a year in the deal, so we should have Chad for the 3rd year of that deal in 2006-2007.
What about Hutch, Commodore, and Walser (Europe)? Hajt (minors)?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2006/columns/story?id=2492130
Unless that article intentionally and silently omits them, Hutch and Commodore are I think signed for next year. Or maybe part of the ridiculously large crop of RFAs?
http://www.geocities.com/floridapanthers2000/free2006.html
Unofficial compilation of 2006 free agents.
CAROLINA
Craig Adams, (III)
Matt Cullen, (III)
Martin Gerber, (III)
Frantisek Kaberle, (III)
Mark Recchi, (III)*
Niclas Wallin, (III)
Aaron Ward, (III)
Glen Wesley, (III)
Doug Weight, (III)
Keith Aucoin, (VI)
Gordie Dwyer, (VI)
David Gove, (VI)
Chris Hajt, (VI)
Andrew Hutchinson, (VI)
Anton Babchuk, (II)
Erik Cole, (II)
Mike Commodore, (II)
Craig Kowalski, (II)
Chad Larose, (II)
Stephen Peat, (II)
Eric Staal, (II)
Derrick Walser, (II)
Justin Williams, (II)
- Group II (restricted; original team has right to match or accept draft-pick compensation);
- Group III (unrestricted; original team has no right to match)
- Group IV (restricted; players who have never signed a contract and are considered defected players)
- Group V (unrestricted; a player who has played in 11 professional games in each of the last 10 years, and makes less than the average salary of $1.312 million can declare for unrestricted free agency once in his career)
- Group VI (unrestricted; a player who is 25 years or older, has completed three or more professional seasons and in the case of a player other than a goaltender has played fewer than 80 NHL games, or in the case of a goaltender has played fewer than 28 NHL games).
* - Option held on Contract (Player/Team)
So it looks like Aucoin, Dwyer, Gove, Hutch, and Hajt can all walk away from the Canes franchise (in addition to the regular group III guys we've been talking about). If Hutch doesn't get hurt, maybe he gets to 80 games but as it is he's well short of that mark.
caveman
06-21-2006, 01:57 PM
LaRose:
http://www.carolinahurricanes.com/custom/rad71DC4.asp
Signed a 3-year deal on Aug. 6, 2003. I'm pretty sure the "lockout year" doesn't count as a year in the deal, so we should have Chad for the 3rd year of that deal in 2006-2007.
What about Hutch, Commodore, and Walser (Europe)? Hajt (minors)?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2006/columns/story?id=2492130
Unless that article intentionally and silently omits them, Hutch and Commodore are I think signed for next year. Or maybe part of the ridiculously large crop of RFAs?
http://www.geocities.com/floridapanthers2000/free2006.html
Unofficial compilation of 2006 free agents.
CAROLINA
Craig Adams, (III)
Matt Cullen, (III)
Martin Gerber, (III)
Frantisek Kaberle, (III)
Mark Recchi, (III)*
Niclas Wallin, (III)
Aaron Ward, (III)
Glen Wesley, (III)
Doug Weight, (III)
Keith Aucoin, (VI)
Gordie Dwyer, (VI)
David Gove, (VI)
Chris Hajt, (VI)
Andrew Hutchinson, (VI)
Anton Babchuk, (II)
Erik Cole, (II)
Mike Commodore, (II)
Craig Kowalski, (II)
Chad Larose, (II)
Stephen Peat, (II)
Eric Staal, (II)
Derrick Walser, (II)
Justin Williams, (II)
- Group II (restricted; original team has right to match or accept draft-pick compensation);
- Group III (unrestricted; original team has no right to match)
- Group IV (restricted; players who have never signed a contract and are considered defected players)
- Group V (unrestricted; a player who has played in 11 professional games in each of the last 10 years, and makes less than the average salary of $1.312 million can declare for unrestricted free agency once in his career)
- Group VI (unrestricted; a player who is 25 years or older, has completed three or more professional seasons and in the case of a player other than a goaltender has played fewer than 80 NHL games, or in the case of a goaltender has played fewer than 28 NHL games).
* - Option held on Contract (Player/Team)
So it looks like Aucoin, Dwyer, Gove, Hutch, and Hajt can all walk away from the Canes franchise (in addition to the regular group III guys we've been talking about). If Hutch doesn't get hurt, maybe he gets to 80 games but as it is he's well short of that mark.
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 02:11 PM
love it. TSN has some data as well, although it seems at least some of it is wrong (Recchi for example):
http://tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=7994&hubname=
Most of the rest of the teams are up on TSN as well. But the charts, NICE that's how I want to see it.
Looks like you're missing Babchuk (if TSN is to be believed).
TSN is pretty accurate. I have some more accurate information about Ladd and Recchi however. TSN goes by the players cap hit, not his salary for the year. I put the players yearly salary but use his cap hit for the cap committed number.
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 02:11 PM
love it. TSN has some data as well, although it seems at least some of it is wrong (Recchi for example):
http://tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=7994&hubname=
Most of the rest of the teams are up on TSN as well. But the charts, NICE that's how I want to see it.
Looks like you're missing Babchuk (if TSN is to be believed).
TSN is pretty accurate. I have some more accurate information about Ladd and Recchi however. TSN goes by the players cap hit, not his salary for the year. I put the players yearly salary but use his cap hit for the cap committed number.
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 02:19 PM
1. I do not have any information on Babchuk besides the fact he was traded from Chicago.
2. I did not include any UFA's and RFA's.
3. The lockout year does count in contracts. LaRose is a Group II guy.[/quote]
GrantDovey
06-21-2006, 02:19 PM
1. I do not have any information on Babchuk besides the fact he was traded from Chicago.
2. I did not include any UFA's and RFA's.
3. The lockout year does count in contracts. LaRose is a Group II guy.[/quote]
caveman
06-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Unrestricted (III, V, VI, and UFA) guys maybe to look at or be interested in what happens to 'em:
Anaheim:
Friesen
Salei
Wright
Bruno!
Atlanta:
Savard
Dunham (veteran backup goalie for Cam? or does he still want starter money?)
Abid
Boston:
Uh... maybe this is a sign of their problems but: Nobody
Buffalo:
Nobody
Calgary:
C-Mac!
Chicago:
Meloche
Colorado:
Laaksonen
Columbus:
Suchy
Dallas:
Nobody
Detroit:
Lidstrom (sure, yeah, right!)
Edmonton:
Samsonov? Nah.
Peca
Pisani
LA:
V. Bure? Parrish? Nah.
Minnesota:
Choinard
Giroux
Kuba
Nazarov
Zyuzin
Montreal:
Nobody
Nashville:
Perrault
Danny Markov
New Jersey:
Elia$?
Islanders:
Jonsson
Allan Rourke (hooray, minor league depth!)
Rangers:
...?
Ottawa:
Nobody we'd wish to afford. Redden is getting the $$ this year.
Jeff Heerema (minor league depth!)
Philly:
??
Phoenix:
Devereaux
(Brendl signed in Sweden.)
Pittsburgh:
Mario!! (I kid, I kid.)
St. Louis:
Cajanek
San Jose:
McCauley?
Tampa Bay:
Shane Willis!
Toronto:
McCabe is getting the $$
Vancouver:
Richard Park
Jarkko Ruutu
Another $$ D-man on the market: Jovanovski
Washington:
??
Don't get me wrong, I hope our free agents all come back, but I think there is a good chance a couple guys will have contracts thrown at them (e.g. Gelinas, Hill, and Roberts from years past) and a couple just don't plan on staying due to family or situation (Gerber deserves a starting gig, Recchi, Weight, etc). Wesley retirement talks. Jack Johnson staying in Michigan, etc.
caveman
06-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Unrestricted (III, V, VI, and UFA) guys maybe to look at or be interested in what happens to 'em:
Anaheim:
Friesen
Salei
Wright
Bruno!
Atlanta:
Savard
Dunham (veteran backup goalie for Cam? or does he still want starter money?)
Abid
Boston:
Uh... maybe this is a sign of their problems but: Nobody
Buffalo:
Nobody
Calgary:
C-Mac!
Chicago:
Meloche
Colorado:
Laaksonen
Columbus:
Suchy
Dallas:
Nobody
Detroit:
Lidstrom (sure, yeah, right!)
Edmonton:
Samsonov? Nah.
Peca
Pisani
LA:
V. Bure? Parrish? Nah.
Minnesota:
Choinard
Giroux
Kuba
Nazarov
Zyuzin
Montreal:
Nobody
Nashville:
Perrault
Danny Markov
New Jersey:
Elia$?
Islanders:
Jonsson
Allan Rourke (hooray, minor league depth!)
Rangers:
...?
Ottawa:
Nobody we'd wish to afford. Redden is getting the $$ this year.
Jeff Heerema (minor league depth!)
Philly:
??
Phoenix:
Devereaux
(Brendl signed in Sweden.)
Pittsburgh:
Mario!! (I kid, I kid.)
St. Louis:
Cajanek
San Jose:
McCauley?
Tampa Bay:
Shane Willis!
Toronto:
McCabe is getting the $$
Vancouver:
Richard Park
Jarkko Ruutu
Another $$ D-man on the market: Jovanovski
Washington:
??
Don't get me wrong, I hope our free agents all come back, but I think there is a good chance a couple guys will have contracts thrown at them (e.g. Gelinas, Hill, and Roberts from years past) and a couple just don't plan on staying due to family or situation (Gerber deserves a starting gig, Recchi, Weight, etc). Wesley retirement talks. Jack Johnson staying in Michigan, etc.
Bonbonsgrrl
06-21-2006, 03:23 PM
Shane Willis is playing overseas in Switzerland or Sweden. I'm not sure how long is contract is but I know as much as he and his wife and baby, and mother in law, would LOVE for them to come back to Carolina, i just don't see it happeneing. I love his wife's family and his mother in law, and him, but i really don't think the Canes would want him back.
Bonbonsgrrl
06-21-2006, 03:23 PM
Shane Willis is playing overseas in Switzerland or Sweden. I'm not sure how long is contract is but I know as much as he and his wife and baby, and mother in law, would LOVE for them to come back to Carolina, i just don't see it happeneing. I love his wife's family and his mother in law, and him, but i really don't think the Canes would want him back.
caveman
06-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Oh, I don't either, just saying he is someone that people on here might be interested in watching this off-season.
caveman
06-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Oh, I don't either, just saying he is someone that people on here might be interested in watching this off-season.
CajunCaniac
06-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Not sure where I heard it (probably some talk radio show) but word is that the Canes target for next year is going to be around $39 million. Actually the way it was stated was that they were going to try to stay at this year's cap level after it got increased to $44 mil.
Should be enough to get the guys they want back.
As for Jack Johnston, my boss was talking to Rutherford outside the arena after Game 5 (I think) and the topic of Jack staying in Michigan was brought up. To paraphrase, Rutherford's words were "That was the most idiotic decision I've ever seen." Maybe there's more than I thought to the rumored trade to Pittsburgh for their 1st rounder...
CajunCaniac
06-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Not sure where I heard it (probably some talk radio show) but word is that the Canes target for next year is going to be around $39 million. Actually the way it was stated was that they were going to try to stay at this year's cap level after it got increased to $44 mil.
Should be enough to get the guys they want back.
As for Jack Johnston, my boss was talking to Rutherford outside the arena after Game 5 (I think) and the topic of Jack staying in Michigan was brought up. To paraphrase, Rutherford's words were "That was the most idiotic decision I've ever seen." Maybe there's more than I thought to the rumored trade to Pittsburgh for their 1st rounder...
puckin_A
06-21-2006, 04:06 PM
just because he thought it was a dumb decision doesn't mean he is ready to get rid of him.
quote from a poster on fanhome
When Lavi was interviewed on WFAN this afternoon, he mentioned the team's youth core as a major reason why staying here is attractive. For what it's worth, he described that core as "22-year-old Cam Ward, 21-year-old Eric Stall, 20-year-old Andrew Ladd and 19-year-old Jack Johnson on the way."
puckin_A
06-21-2006, 04:06 PM
just because he thought it was a dumb decision doesn't mean he is ready to get rid of him.
quote from a poster on fanhome
When Lavi was interviewed on WFAN this afternoon, he mentioned the team's youth core as a major reason why staying here is attractive. For what it's worth, he described that core as "22-year-old Cam Ward, 21-year-old Eric Stall, 20-year-old Andrew Ladd and 19-year-old Jack Johnson on the way."
Is this going to keep getting updated as players sign?
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
GrantDovey
07-01-2006, 05:26 PM
This page has been updated guys. I still need to add contract notes for the guys who signed in the past week.
The numbers are accurate though.
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:48 PM
what about ladd's, nhlpa gives different #
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:49 PM
punctuation is your friend.
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
puck_it
07-01-2006, 11:52 PM
punctuation is your friend.
i hate you :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
now was that so hard? :p :kiss:
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
puck_it
07-02-2006, 12:16 AM
ABSOLUTELY
whats with women and trying to change a mans ways
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
ONeillsNo1Fan
07-02-2006, 12:25 AM
its for the better and you know it! all (well, almost) men need a change or two
(its the smirnoff talking...forgive me)
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
CaniacKak
07-02-2006, 07:55 AM
I still don't see Anton Babchuk. :sad: Is he there and for some reason I can't see him? :eek2:
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
cdhawkin
07-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe somone can help me out with this:
1. Why do some players go from undercontract straight to unrestricted without going to restricted first?
2. Why do some players go to restricted on the last year of their contract but never unrestricted?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.