• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BottleOfSmoke

Smith files for arbitration

Rate this topic

97 posts in this topic

will smith get better? yes. he can't possibly play any worse than he did last year.

the bigger question is how much better he will get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't allude to the fact that Smith "sucked doorknobs", I explicitly said it lol. Just like I've explicitly said over and over and over that he'll eventually get better, but that he wasn't very good last year. The problem that I have with your first post is that you constructed a straw man, and then responded to that. "Hopeless" seems to suggest that Smith's detractors think he'll never get better. Pretty much everybody that calls him out for his play last season also admits that he's only going to get better.

I'm beyond debating with you about Smith's performance. We've talked about it enough. But it genuinely hampers discussion when you can't say a single negative thing about him without someone (in this case you and a lot of others) suggesting that you think he's hopeless, or want him traded, or hate him, etc. etc. etc.. Nobody thinks any of that. However I do think that a guy who was as heavily hyped as he was should probably have been better than 0 goals and 8 assists in the regular season (in addition to his obviously poor defense though I don't really hold that against him since he was an offensive defenseman to begin with). Furthermore, when he didn't give a better performance than that, I don't think it's a faux pas to say that he wasn't very good without immediately being rejected by those intent on putting words in your mouth.

Edit: Or more simply, just answer these two questions...

Given what was expected, did Brendan Smith have a good season? (I answer no).

Will he get better? (I answer yes).

If you answered the first one differently than I did, then we've reached the root of the problem.

I think u guys are thinking similarly, but not verbalizing it. Everyone wants to see Smith turn into Leech. But its gonna take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't allude to the fact that Smith "sucked doorknobs", I explicitly said it lol. Just like I've explicitly said over and over and over that he'll eventually get better, but that he wasn't very good last year. The problem that I have with your first post is that you constructed a straw man, and then responded to that. "Hopeless" seems to suggest that Smith's detractors think he'll never get better. Pretty much everybody that calls him out for his play last season also admits that he's only going to get better.

I'm beyond debating with you about Smith's performance. We've talked about it enough. But it genuinely hampers discussion when you can't say a single negative thing about him without someone (in this case you and a lot of others) suggesting that you think he's hopeless, or want him traded, or hate him, etc. etc. etc.. Nobody thinks any of that. However I do think that a guy who was as heavily hyped as he was should probably have been better than 0 goals and 8 assists in the regular season (in addition to his obviously poor defense though I don't really hold that against him since he was an offensive defenseman to begin with). Furthermore, when he didn't give a better performance than that, I don't think it's a faux pas to say that he wasn't very good without immediately being rejected by those intent on putting words in your mouth.

Edit: Or more simply, just answer these two questions...

Given what was expected, did Brendan Smith have a good season? (I answer no).

Will he get better? (I answer yes).

If you answered the first one differently than I did, then we've reached the root of the problem.

I don't think our views are that different. And I'm not really one to quash criticism of a player here. Though sometimes it starts to snowball and goes beyond what a player actually does on the ice (see Cleary. before that Ericsson)

I don't really know how much he was hyped other than here because I don't follow prospects that closely. But frankly most of them seem overly hyped here. They're awesome before they ever wear the winged wheel, then if they don't set the world on fire it doesn't take much for the goodwill to turn.

So I'd answer your questions this way:

Did Smith have a good season? Not really

Did he suck doorknobs? Not really.

People have been wanting the rookies to play (myself included). The thing is, sometimes when they do they look like rookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith played half a season in the league and gets already written off, give him time. The guy never had the benefit of learning from an all-time-top 5 defenseman and like someone mentioned had to play on the worst Wings edition since almost two and a half decade.

I hope he gets around 1,2 - 1,5 very managable cap hit and enough time to prove his worth.

I dont think anyone was "writing him off." A lot of us found ourselves yelling "dammit, Smith" more often than any other player this season. He simply made a consistent amount of poor choices when other options were available. The good news is that he will improve with experience, and I think a lot of us who are critical of his play hope that he does. I was expecting him to stumble a bit, just as I expect any rookie to struggle.

My general allowance is as follows:

1) Wingers: you get 2 full NHL seasons to show results (offensive numbers or defensive ability)

2) Centers: Tough job here. You get an additional season [3 total] to show results (faceoffs are scrutinized more and more each season)

3) Defense: Learning how to handle NHL forwards is formidable. I give 4 complete NHL seasons prior to ultimate critiquage. In Smith's case, he gets 3 more to show what he can do before I start calling for an inquiry.

4) Goalies: you have a screw loose. 5 seasons just because you control the least amount of the game, and may have a lackluster squad in front of you. Also- you are the craziest people on the roster and I usually cant figure you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone was "writing him off." A lot of us found ourselves yelling "dammit, Smith" more often than any other player this season. He simply made a consistent amount of poor choices when other options were available. The good news is that he will improve with experience, and I think a lot of us who are critical of his play hope that he does. I was expecting him to stumble a bit, just as I expect any rookie to struggle.

My general allowance is as follows:

1) Wingers: you get 2 full NHL seasons to show results (offensive numbers or defensive ability)

2) Centers: Tough job here. You get an additional season [3 total] to show results (faceoffs are scrutinized more and more each season)

3) Defense: Learning how to handle NHL forwards is formidable. I give 4 complete NHL seasons prior to ultimate critiquage. In Smith's case, he gets 3 more to show what he can do before I start calling for an inquiry.

4) Goalies: you have a screw loose. 5 seasons just because you control the least amount of the game, and may have a lackluster squad in front of you. Also- you are the craziest people on the roster and I usually cant figure you out.

Standard LGW protocol = 1-5 GAMES. What's this "year" unit of time you speak of? ;-)

Im with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still been going over a bunch of the CBA stuff, (seriously, do they purposely make it more difficult than it has to be?) and I've noticed that in the language, they mention the team can only qualify if they have more than one player in arbitration. That specific arbitration is found in section 12.3(a), which is actually club-elected arbitration... so not what Smith is currently going through, as he elected to go to arbitration. As far as I can see, there's nothing about player-elected arbitration. It also reads:

(a) Club-Elected Salary Arbitration For Players With Paragraph 1 NHL Salaries plus
Signing, Roster, and Reporting Bonuses Greater Than $1,750,000 In The Prior League Year.

So none of the RFA's in our system seem to apply here. Clearly, I really want to find a way to get rid of Samuelsson. Smith's arbitration does not seem to be the answer, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still been going over a bunch of the CBA stuff, (seriously, do they purposely make it more difficult than it has to be?) and I've noticed that in the language, they mention the team can only qualify if they have more than one player in arbitration. That specific arbitration is found in section 12.3(a), which is actually club-elected arbitration... so not what Smith is currently going through, as he elected to go to arbitration. As far as I can see, there's nothing about player-elected arbitration. It also reads:

(a) Club-Elected Salary Arbitration For Players With Paragraph 1 NHL Salaries plus

Signing, Roster, and Reporting Bonuses Greater Than $1,750,000 In The Prior League Year.

So none of the RFA's in our system seem to apply here. Clearly, I really want to find a way to get rid of Samuelsson. Smith's arbitration does not seem to be the answer, though.

So it wouldn't matter if the club elected to go to arbitration with Andy and Goose because their salaries don't meet the requirements or...?

Makes my head spin, but I hope the Wings stand in their heads to get rid of Sammy lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it wouldn't matter if the club elected to go to arbitration with Andy and Goose because their salaries don't meet the requirements or...?

Makes my head spin, but I hope the Wings stand in their heads to get rid of Sammy lol.

It would appear that way. It's a bit odd, since I would think it would make more sense that the club should be awarded a buyout IF it were player-elected, not club-elected. In that case, they may be getting blindsided by the players, and not vice versa.

Unless of course, it's saying that a team only needs one player-elected arbitration, but an extra one if it's club-elected. But there's no real clear mention of player-elected arbitration as it pertains to ordinary course buy-outs. At least not explicitly from what I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake Muzzin of the Kings got 2-years at $1 million per year. Can't see Smith expecting anything more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you guys be happy if the Wings went big on Smith right now?

8 years, 20 million?

Something between 2-2.5 mil per for as long a term as possible?

I'd be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you guys be happy if the Wings went big on Smith right now?

8 years, 20 million?

Something between 2-2.5 mil per for as long a term as possible?

I'd be happy.

From what I've seen, I'm one of the bigger Smith supporters here.

And at that, if Smith was signed to that deal I would probably throw my laptop out the fourth-storey window currently in front of me.

Euro_Twins likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, I'm one of the bigger Smith supporters here.

And at that, if Smith was signed to that deal I would probably throw my laptop out the fourth-storey window currently in front of me.

I dont know man. I remember how much grief everyone gave Holland for Rig at 3 mil per. That contract is looking very good right now EXCEPT that its about to be over. Rig could end up getting 5 per next year. Wish he was signed at 3 mil per for another 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, I'm one of the bigger Smith supporters here.

And at that, if Smith was signed to that deal I would probably throw my laptop out the fourth-storey window currently in front of me.

You'd probly be upset for 2-3 seasons at most then thrilled that we had (what I think will be) a very good top 4 guy at least on such a small cap hit for 5 years..

That said, it won't happen. It wouldn't be smart of smith to sign that deal.. he'll make more than that at some point over the next 8 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd probly be upset for 2-3 seasons at most then thrilled that we had (what I think will be) a very good top 4 guy at least on such a small cap hit for 5 years..

That said, it won't happen. It wouldn't be smart of smith to sign that deal.. he'll make more than that at some point over the next 8 years

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, I'm one of the bigger Smith supporters here.

And at that, if Smith was signed to that deal I would probably throw my laptop out the fourth-storey window currently in front of me.

That's a deal. Even if he doesn't live up to top pairing hype on the second pairing at 2.5m per is a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I've seen, I'm one of the bigger Smith supporters here.

And at that, if Smith was signed to that deal I would probably throw my laptop out the fourth-storey window currently in front of me.

That's a deal. Even if he doesn't live up to top pairing hype on the second pairing at 2.5m per is a deal.

If his agent let him sign that deal he'd never get another client. $2.5 isn't bad to pay a #5 and the assumption is Smith will be a good second pair guy at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a deal. Even if he doesn't live up to top pairing hype on the second pairing at 2.5m per is a deal.

Realistically, my expectation (or hope, I suppose), is that he'll become a solid second pairing dman (and be worth somewhere around 4.5M/yr). So in my eyes, you maybe save 2M towards the end of the deal, while paying him about 1M too much for the first couple of years. It's not that much of a savings.

But you're saddled with him for the league maximum of 8 years. What if he doesn't pan out at all? This is someone who has yet to play in an 82 game season. And it would yet again be dead roster space if he doesn't work out. I mean, it would be just like Samuelsson, Bertuzzi and Tootoo, but on our back end. For. Eight. Years.

8 year deals are for stars, not trying to save a few bucks on an unproven young player. It's a ridiculous risk for a potential net gain of a fairly small magnitude.

I mean, would you be happy if we were currently "saving money" with Jiri Hudler, paying him 2.5M/yr for 8 years when he's really a 4M/yr player (or so his contract would tell us). There are other considerations than saving a bit on the cap.

Edited by Zetts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he just wants to expedite the process of getting a contract completed. There's nothing to indicate he's asking for a ridiculous amount. I really don't see the "ego" angle to this.

It's looking like this may be a real possibility. It doesn't seem like Holland has much urgency in getting our RFAs signed. He hasn't started negotiating with either Nyquist or Andersson apparently.

Mlive

"I haven't really begun" negotiating, Holland said Friday night after the Development Camp scrimmage at Centre Ice Arena. "I talked with Nyguist's agent Monday or Tuesday. We haven't talked since. I played telephone tag with Andersson's agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking like this may be a real possibility. It doesn't seem like Holland has much urgency in getting our RFAs signed. He hasn't started negotiating with either Nyquist or Andersson apparently.

Mlive

Holland is probably working on Bert's extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking like this may be a real possibility. It doesn't seem like Holland has much urgency in getting our RFAs signed. He hasn't started negotiating with either Nyquist or Andersson apparently.

Mlive

Holland's just playing mind games with them. Makin em think they're after thoughts and not that important so theyll sign for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he just wants to expedite the process of getting a contract completed. There's nothing to indicate he's asking for a ridiculous amount. I really don't see the "ego" angle to this.

It's looking like this may be a real possibility. It doesn't seem like Holland has much urgency in getting our RFAs signed. He hasn't started negotiating with either Nyquist or Andersson apparently.

Mlive

"I haven't really begun" negotiating, Holland said Friday night after the Development Camp scrimmage at Centre Ice Arena. "I talked with Nyguist's agent Monday or Tuesday. We haven't talked since. I played telephone tag with Andersson's agent.

UFAs come first. There's no rush to get the RFA guys signed immediately, and a GM can only do so many things at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0