A Potential Nylander Move to the KHL: Questions Answered
by David M. Getz on Jun 15, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
69 comments
When we first noted that Michael Nylander might be headed to the Continental Hockey League for the 2009-10 season we more or less dismissed it as speculation by a less-than-reputable Russia media source and hence a possibility that, while appealing, wasn’t particularly likely.
A week later the Nylander-to-Russia rumors haven’t died down. Rather, they’ve gained speed, having been reported on by ESPN and brought up as a subject in Dmitry Chesnokov's recent chat with NHLPA director Paul Kelly, who had this to say:
Q: [...] This brings the following question: in the absence of the transfer agreement between the NHL and the Russians, how can a player, like Nylander, with an NHL contract go and play it Russia?
KELLY: Technically, he can't. Unless the Capitals take certain steps to end his contract by buying him out or something like that. And this is one of the issues we have had with the KHL. We should be respecting each other's contracts. The NHL shouldn't be signing any players under contract in Russia, and vice versa, they shouldn't be signing guys who have NHL obligations. We will watch that very carefully, but they should not permit players, who have contractual obligations elsewhere, to sign.
Q: Even if the Capitals, for example, don't mind him signing in the KHL?
KELLY: Again, if it gets cleared by the club and the league approves then it is a different story. I am not aware that that's happened with respect to Michael Nylander.
What Kelly may have been getting at in his response to the follow-up question was the possibility of Nylander being loaned to a Russian team something that is permissible under the current collective bargaining agreement, a concept with which Capitals fans who followed Michal Neuvirth’s early season trip around the globe will be familiar. Why exactly Kelly never spells it out as such is unclear, especially given that the rules surrounding loans are among some of the simpler ones in the current collective bargaining agreement:
13.2 The "Playing Season Waiver Period" shall begin on the twelfth (12th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the rights to the services of a Player may be Loaned to a club of another league, upon fulfillment of the following conditions, except when elsewhere expressly prohibited:
(a) Regular Waivers were requested and cleared during the Playing Season Waiver Period; and
(b) the Player has not played in ten (10) or more NHL Games cumulative since Regular Waivers on him were last cleared, and more than thirty (30) days cumulative on an NHL roster have not passed since Regular Waivers on him were last cleared.
But what exactly is a loan? What would the ramifications be for the Capitals? That’s where things get a little trickier. Due of the numbers of questions we’re seeing about the topic, we’ve decided to put together a little Q & A about what could happen and what it could mean for the Caps.
Q: So what exactly are we talking here?
A: In loaning a player an organization gives him the opportunity to play for another team under his existing contract. The practice is common in soccer (though it usually arises from different circumstances than the ones we're seeing with Nylander) and not completely foreign to the NHL - in addition to fairly well known players like Darius Kasparaitis and David Aebischer having been loaned abroad in recent years, players are considered to be on loan when they're assigned to AHL or ECHL teams.
Q: How does the process work?
A: Because of Nylander's veteran status, he would have to be waived before he could be sent out on loan. If Nylander cleared waivers, he would become eligible to be loaned to an overseas team. At that point the Capitals and the team Nylander was to go on loan to would have to work out an agreement that was satisfactory to both parties in terms of finances and duration. Once that deal was finalized, Nylander could begin playing for the team to which he was loaned.
Q: Does the team need Nylander's consent to loan him?
A: Yes. Nylander's no-movement clause applies in this situation, not least of all because he would have to consent to being waived and let all 30 NHL teams decide whether or not to claim him before he could be sent on loan, which is somewhat unlikely. But even if Nylander didn't have that NMC, the Capitals would still need his permission to loan him to a team overseas.
Q: Would Nylander's contract with the Capitals be terminated? Would he have to agree to new terms with whatever team he went to?
A: No. Nylander would still remain under contract with the Capitals who would still have the authority to release him, trade him, or potentially call him back from his loan, depending on how the loan agreement is structured. They would also be the ones who are ultimetly reponsible for Nylander's salary.
Q: Who would be paying Nylander's salary?
A: At the end of the day Nylander would still be contracted to the Capitals and the team would still be financially responsible for him. However it's possible that whatever team he might be loaned to would pick up some of the wage bill as part of the loan agreement, though perhaps it's unlikely they would need to in order to convince the Capitals to send Nylander overseas.
Q: Would Nylander's hit still count against the NHL's salary cap?
A: No. Just like the salaries of players who are loaned to the AHL or ECHL don't count against the NHL salary cap, Nylander's loan status would mean his hit would come off the books for the Capitals.
Q: So what's the catch for the Capitals?
A: The catch is the Capitals would (most likely) still be responsible for paying Nylander's salary which means that $5.5 million dollars would still be coming out of Ted's pocket. Other than that, he would cease to be a problem for the team... until next year, that is.
Q: Is this just a way for the Capitals to circumvent the salary cap?
A: No. If Nylander were to move overseas it would be because he, the Capitals, and whatever team he had agreed to go on loan to were all in agreement that the move was in their best interest in a decision making process analogous to what would happen if Nylander were to be moved to another NHL team.
Q: Is this an Alexander Radulov type situation?
A: No. When Radulov left to play in Russia (for Salavat Yulaev Ufa) he was still under contract to the Predators and went overseas without the team's permission, breaking his contract. If Nylander, the Capitals, and another team all entered in to the agreement, everyone would be "respecting each other's contracts" as Kelly put it - no one would be in breach.
Q: Isn't the player's union likely to object to this?
A: Maybe, maybe not. If the move is perceived as a last resort method of forcing out a veteran with a no-movement clause, the union is likely to be pretty upset about it. However it's unlikely that it would come to that point since Nylander would have to waive his NMC in order to be placed on waivers as a precursor his going on loan. In addition Nylander's certain financial future is better is he goes on loan: if Nylander plays out his contract abroad he'd received the full $8.5 million dollars in salary he's due over the course of the next two seasons, whereas keeping Nylander for 2009-10 and buying him out over the following summer would earn him $7.5 million and buying him out this summer would net the center "just" $5.67 million.
Further questions? Lay 'em on us in the comments!
9 recs |
69 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Well done sir. I hate to wonder if there’s anything left in your system now.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 15, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent info. This is actually a lot simpler than I (or proabably anyone) originally thought.
On a note about waiving him. If he was picked up by another team off waivers, his entire salary would be picked up by his new team, correct? While it wouldn’t fit the plan we would have had to get him to agree to, it would get rid of his contract and cap hit as well. Either way is a win-win for the Caps.
by HateOffSeason on Jun 15, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he was picked up by another team off waivers, his entire salary would be picked up by his new team, correct?
Correct. It would be a huge win for the Caps, but… it’s perhaps the main reason this whole scenario is so unlikely – Nyls bargained for a No Movement Clause in his contract so that he could control if and to where he was moved, and waiving the NMC surrenders that control entirely.
Put another way, if he waives his NMC, he’s accepting the possibility that, say, Don Waddell could claim him.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, the one scenario that wasn’t covered was retirement. If he has a deal in place in the KHL, where he doesn’t lose money vs. his existing contract, or makes more, does his salary still come off the cap? In this scenario, he officially announces his retirement, so doesn’t have to go through waivers and take the chance that Atlanta or Phoenix will pick him up.
by HateOffSeason on Jun 15, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But isnt the CBA written so when a vertan retires over 35 his salary still counts towards the cap? I can’t remember specifficly though since this weekend was spent forgetting Friday.
by MetalCap on Jun 15, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Close. If he was to retire, the Caps wouldn’t take any cap hit going forward (since Nyls was not yet 35 when he signed his current contract).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the retirement strategy could work for everyone in this situation. But would the players union or the NHL have a kitten over that?
by HateOffSeason on Jun 15, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think so. Players have retired from the NHL to then go on to play in different leagues before.
Hasek in the Czech comes to mind.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But (if I’m not mistaken) Hasek didn’t have an NHL contract that he broke by retiring. Not saying that anyone would pitch a fit if Nyls did retire (who would and at whom?), just saying it’s a difference.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which retirement are we talking about? Didn’t he play the Czech version of the local beer league during his first retirement?
by RedBirdie on Jun 15, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He joined back up with the Czech Extraliga in April. That league is no joke…I’ve played with some of those guys over here and a lot of them are very talented.
I don’t think he retired twice. Maybe you’re thinking of him playing roller hockey?
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe its roller hockey. But he retired after the Wings won the Cup in 2002 and was living in Prague during the 2002-2003 season.
by RedBirdie on Jun 15, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahh, you’re right – I forgot about that. I don’t think he played anywhere real after the first retirement.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll make it my personal mission to find the Hasek plays in local beer league story, because its actually a fairly amusing thought. “Hello, yes, my name is Dominic Hasek. I have a Stanley Cup and two Hart trophies, but now I am looking for a slightly less intense hockey league to play in. Would any of the Prague Senior Beer League teams be interested in me joining?”
by RedBirdie on Jun 15, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a favorite of mine:
Under the pseudonym Jay Goppingen, [Jürgen] Klinsmann made a comeback as a player in 2003 for Orange County Blue Star in the American Premier Development League. The 39-year-old was able to score five goals in eight appearances, helping his team to reach the playoffs. The name is taken from the town of Göppingen, where Klinsmann was born.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 15, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes you’re correct on that. He kept signing (very cheaply) for 1 year at a time after rejoining Detroit.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only see the union getting upset if they felt that the Caps were trying to force Nyls’ hand to get him off our books. If the Caps threatened him with no ice time if he didn’t retire, for instance. But if Nyls is being offered equal or more money in the KHL then I don’t think it will be an issue since ultimately the union only exists to fight so that players can do whatever they want.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jun 15, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The union only exists to fight so that NHL players can do whatever they want. Nylander leaving the NHL does nothing for the union, so don’t expect them to support the move even if everyone else is happy with it.
by brs03 on Jun 15, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nyls leaving the NHL because GMGM tells him that he’s going to be benched and treated like a pariah if he doesn’t waive his NMC hurts the union if they don’t challenge it. The union does not want GMs to be able to pressure a player to take less money or waive their NMC, which is why they won’t allow players to negotiate to take less money while they are still under contract. If a player can get a better offer elsewhere, and wants to go take that money and enjoy playing hockey again, then it doesn’t hurt the union at all. The league would be upset if the player left against the team’s will but since GMGM would be happy to have that cap space there won’t be a fight.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jun 15, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed there. If it came out that “coercion” (if you will) came into play, the union would be up in arms. But, all things considered, Nylander staying in the NHL and paying NHLPA dues is better for the union than him going to the KHL. Best thing for them, probably, is to have him refusing to leave and rotting on the NHL roster or consenting to a trade/waivers and remaining in the NHL with another team.
by brs03 on Jun 15, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I’d expect them to resist (at least not strenuously). Just to point out that its an NHL union and its interests are in this league.
by brs03 on Jun 15, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d have to think the number of desirable assets that would exercise that option wouldn’t be all that big (especially in the new financial world) for the union/league to freak out over.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 15, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the difference between waiving and releasing?
by DrinkingPartner on Jun 15, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Waivers puts a player out there for teams to pick up under his current contract in (for the summer) the reverse order of the previous season’s standings. So if the Capitals waive someone what (more or less) happens is the Islanders are asked “Hey, do you want Nylander?” If they say yes, he’s on the Isles; if he says no it goes to “Hey, Tampa, want Nylander?”, and so on.
Releasing a guy makes him a free agent. He no longer has a contract and pursue one with any team in (or outside of) the NHL. It also means the Capitals would have dead salary cap space as a result of the buyout.
by David M. Getz on Jun 15, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“dead salary cap space” meaning that it’d still be on their books?
by DrinkingPartner on Jun 15, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no “release” in the NHL like there is in, say, the NFL because the NHL has guaranteed contracts (in the NFL, players can be flat out cut with cap but not salary implications, which is why signing bonuses are such a big deal there). The only way teams get out of contracts (other than expiration, retirement or trade) is by waiving a player and having another team pick him and some or all of that contract up or by buying a player out, the latter of which does have significant cap and salary implications.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of it. The way the NHL buyout rules work is that 2/3 of the remaining value of the contract is spread out over twice the remaining length. Nylander’s due to make 5.5 million this season and 3 million in 10-11. So a buyout this summer would be 8.5M*(2/3) = 5.67 million. The cap implications depends on salary in each year; not too long ago we have a Fan Post about it that you can find here.
by David M. Getz on Jun 15, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post. In addition to the points in your last answer, there may be tax-related benefits to Nylander leaving North America, right?
by TylerG on Jun 15, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure how that would work. I know he wouldn’t have to pay state taxes for sure. I guess the rest would depend on where he claims residency, who is paying him what, etc.
I think he might be exempt from paying into escrow too. That could be huge because this upcoming season could be financially hard for the NHL.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest, that goes beyond my realm over expertise – Nylander would be working in Russia but he would be getting paid by an American company. Perhaps someone who has lived and worked overseas can help with this one?
by David M. Getz on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he retires and resigns with the KHL I think his salary is his take home. I seem to remember that being a major factor to consider the salaries that Jagirl and Radulov were making. If it is a loan then it is probably more complicated but I’m not sure what the answer to that is.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jun 15, 2009 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing he doesn’t want to be doing is paying taxes to Sweden. They have I think the 2nd highest tax rate in the world, it’s close to 50% of income. .
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DMG – great review of the issues.
I don’t think he stays if there is a reasonable option elsewhere for him and his family. He’s a competitor and sitting in the press box isn’t where he wants to be I’m sure. Caps obviously would be quite happy to be relieved of the cap space and get someone who fits BB’s system better.
I say odds are 80/20 that he’s in another uni, most likely Omsk, by September.
by CP2Devil on Jun 15, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So when is the “playing season waiver period”? Is that the one that starts right before the season, or would waivers during the buyout period count as well?
Because if we have to wait until September or so to know if this is going to happen, it doesn’t really do us much good in terms of cap flexibility.
As for the waiver claim issue, at this point I don’t think that’s a huge deal. First, I imagine most GMs would know the details of the situation and would probably respect them (especially given Nylander’s low value/high cost). Even if the didn’t, though, you have to figure Nylander would probably be ok with it. If he’s willing to go to Omsk, why should he balk at getting another chance in the NHL? The only x-factor is Jagr, that may be the only reason he’s willing to try it out I guess.
by brs03 on Jun 15, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Because if we have to wait until September or so to know if this is going to happen, it doesn’t really do us much good in terms of cap flexibility.
That’s not necessarily the case. Teams are allowed to go over the cap during the offseason – they just have to get back under before the season starts. The Caps could conceivably test the waters with Nyls over the summer, then sign people accordingly before loaning him to a KHL franchise in September.
by D'ohboy on Jun 15, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, to a degree...
From July 1 to the last day of training camp, teams may exceed the Upper Cap Limit by no more than 10%
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they’d have to be 100% certain that it’s going to work out on his end. That’s a huge gamble.
by brs03 on Jun 15, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but the Flyers and Sharks have both managed to walk this tightrope a couple of times and don’t seem any worse for it. The difference this time is Nyls’ NMC.
Memo to McPhee: No more NMCs for players in their mid-30s.
by D'ohboy on Jun 15, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Memo to McPhee: No more NMCs for players in their mid-30s.
The problem with that, of course, is that NMCs are bargained for, i.e. cost something. So when you’re up against the cap and can’t offer any more dollars (or when you’re competing with another team to land a player), this is what you do. But I do agree with the overall sentiment.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, I imagine most GMs would know the details of the situation and would probably respect them
Like when the Isles tried to bring Dublewicz back to the NHL? If a GM thinks Nyls can help the team he’ll pick him up. I think we’re safe because no GM is going to think Nyls can add as much to their team as his cap space takes away, not because of any notion of honor among (a handfull of) idiots.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jun 15, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
During the lockout Nylander played for the Ak Bars Kazan in Russian League.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That pic was actually a hell of a lot harder to find than you’d think. Go ahead – try to track it down.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a little tough. I had to do a search in google for his name in Russian: Микаэль Нюландер. That led me to this 2004 team roster page http://www.ak-bars.ru/team/2004-01.html. Then click on his name in there led me to http://www.ak-bars.ru/player/97.html
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pretty much went to the ak-bars page and searched Нюландер (after first figuring out what his name was in Russian, since I’m not a Russian speaker/writer).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a cool pic. Looks good for the article. I’m surprised they even had a shot of him though — didn’t he only play like 5 games for them?
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep – five for them, eight for SKA St. Pete (photos of which I could not find).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
golf clap
kudos to both of you. i’m learning new tricks.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 15, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m almost certain that there isn’t a digital photo in existence of Nylander in a SKA jersey but I did find this piece of hilarity.
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the helmet is what really makes the picture one of those “WTF?!” things
by RedBirdie on Jun 15, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow. That’s just… wow.
Rockin' the Red in Section 412
by boutros23 on Jun 15, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again DMG job well done.
This should fall the section titled: THE KNOWLEDGE DROP with DMG.
by vt caps fan on Jun 15, 2009 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
my typing skill = FAIL
should read:
This should fall under the section titled: THE KNOWLEDGE DROP with DMG.
by vt caps fan on Jun 15, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
his NMC eliminates the possibility of waivers, correct.
by KWclevpark on Jun 15, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Correct – unless he voluntarily waives his NMC he cannot be placed on waivers.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely done. Nylander and his long, stupid contract. I doubt the guy, or his family, want to live in a Russian winter. They should try to get a Swedish team to take him (and pay that much)!
by Hunky Dory on Jun 15, 2009 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So this deal with Kasparaitis was sort of similar. Kasparaitis to SKA
by zephyr on Jun 15, 2009 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Similar, with the major difference of course being that the Rags could waive Kaspar without his consent (which is how he got to the AHL), as he had no NMC.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ted’s a great owner, but is he great enough to pick up $5.5 mil of salary for a player his team is loaning to another team? That seems like a hard number to swallow for just about anyone…
by Direction 87 on Jun 15, 2009 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Incredibly hard, though I’d suggest that if he was willing to pay a guy $5.5. to not play for him, paying a few guys a collective, say, $1m to blog for him and his team would seem to be a bargain.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 15, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isnt that still one of the things left on his list of 100 things to do in his life?
by Direction 87 on Jun 15, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ted’s a great owner, but is he great enough to pick up $5.5 mil of salary for a player his team is loaning to another team? That seems like a hard number to swallow for just about anyone…
Hard to swallow, no doubt. But Nylander’s getting that money no matter what so all the Capitals can do now is go forward from the position they’re in now.
by David M. Getz on Jun 15, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DMG, this post is marinated, battered and deep fried in awesome sauce. and served with a side of awesome dipping sauce.
And the picture ain’t bad either, JP!
"I tried to capture the spirit of the thing"
by tuvanhillbilly on Jun 15, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
An interesting point on this is that Omsk has only two foreign-born players, both of whom are former Capitals (Jaromir Jagr and Jakub Klepiš).
The problems I see with Nylander going to Russia are only that he is a family man, with six children, five of whom are in school in the Washington, DC area. I just cannot see him pulling them all up in the middle of the school year and moving them across the globe to a country where nobody speaks their language. That no-movement clause is no accident. He will keep the boring, sit-in-the-press-box job for the stability of his family. That is why it’s there.
Yes, it’s true that Nylander’s brother Peter plays in the KHL – but his team is 2500 miles away from Omsk! Not a good reason to move to Russia, even if Uncle Peter is the kids’ favorite uncle… :-p
by IRockTheRed on Jul 2, 2009 11:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 22 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
14 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 15 |
|
Atlanta
|
12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 13 |
|
Florida
|
14 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 11 |
|
Carolina
|
15 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 7 |
(updated 11.7.2009 at 4:04 AM EST)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Friday's WHL Roundup
- Shinnimin has four points as Americans hammer Giants 8-2 to keep West lead
- Eakin scores 20th goal of season in Swift Current's 4-1 win over Cougars
- Gal scores winner to lift Spokane over Thunderbirds 3-1
- Murray's short-handed goal leads Heat to fourth straight win, 4-2 over Ice Hogs
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
