Zack Smith extension?? Yay or nay??

[MarkZackKarl]

Hell yes. I've been on the Zack train for years. He's gold!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Well if we can't afford to keep a player like Smith then there isn't much hope for this team long term.

Somehow the Sens can afford $1.8M for Neil who is the definition of a 4th grinder that is near the end, but not players that are multi-faceted and can play up and down the line-up.

Something wrong with this picture?

You have to admit, this is a bit melodramatic.

All of a sudden, if we don't pay Smith whatever he wants, the franchise is doomed? This is our GM's pivotal moment? Smith or bust?

I know you don't actually mean this, but your narrative was starting to lean in this direction, so just providing a bit of a cold water wake up to the angle of your argument.

Paying Neil what we chose to several years ago has little to do with the decision to keep Smith in 2017. If the team were to have just signed Neil, or worse, chose to sign him over Smith in the months ahead, that's one thing. But they really have nothing to do with each other.

If Smith wants $2M per year over a multi-year deal, I would think Dorion would likely jump at it from a value perspective. But most believe he'll want more - perhaps a lot more - which is why many are suggested we pass.

Smith has been a good solid soldier, but never the type of guy who defined our franchise. If he is healthy and playing smart he is a solid player, but I've seen too many bad penalties and nagging injuries to think we need to overpay him coming off an extremely higher than average career year.

 

[Xspyrit]

wow I decided to read this thread (got knee surgery monday so I have more time than usual) but didn't expect to have so many things to quote...

IMO, Sens have a tough decision on their hands. Anyway, wait after the expansion for a decision but like it has been discussed, try to know what are Smith demandes right away.

Personally, I would find a way to keep Smith but then trade another expensive contract, depending on young players progression of course (Brown, White, Perron, Dahlen, Chlapik...). We NEED players who play like Smith

Naw I wouldn't, think he can be replaced. Would rather see $$$ allocated elsewhere.

Use the $$$ where realistically? Ottawa is far from a top UFA destination...

Trade him for prospect/picks and use the money to buy a similar dime a dozen bottom sixer

Dime a dozen bottom sixers can score 25 goals?

Zack Smith is the poster boy of exactly how the Sens need to play to become a contender. Hard on the puck, good positionnally, offering puck support at all times.

He makes 2.35 this season... 20G and someone's offering him 4x4

Great, probably means his raise on the budget could be around just a million more per season

We really can't afford to get burned again on an extension. I would be flexible on dollars but we need to max term out at 2 years

That's the game though... EVERY team has to gamble and sometimes they lose. You have to be financially solid enough to deal with it, that's all.

I'll just stick to the facts to make it short

Bobby Ryan :

First 2 years with Ottawa : $5,562,500 salary, production pace of 57 pts per 82 games played. Good production in relation to his UFA salary

Last year : $6,500,000 salary, production pace of 57 pts per 82 games played. Decent production in relation to his UFA salary

Now Ryan will make 7 to 7.5 per season for the next 6 years (including this season). His contract was designated to be on par with the salary cap increase, which hasn't been much the case.

Let's wait that Ryan under-produce before calling him overpaid and "returning close to the investment"

Dion Phaneuf :

He is owed $33,000,000 to play 5 seasons with Ottawa : $6,600,000 on average

However, his acquisition allowed the team to dump $11,700,000 of undesired salary, which brings Phaneuf real cost just above $4,000,000 per season when context is taken in consideration.

This is what is frustrating me with this organization to the extent I dropped my STHs this year.[/QUOTE]

Exactly why this franchise will always be a second fodder to Montreal and Toronto, real hockey markets where the fans support their team no matter what. You have the right to spend your money where you want, I'm not arguing this. I am just stating the unfortunate truth though.

I'm of the opinion it's stupid to spend significant money on your 3,4,5,6 wingers long term.

You sign Smith 4x4
Now your spending 16 million dollars on Ryan, MacArthur, and Smith the next three years.

Then you are not made to manage a team in the real world. Good players cost money, even more when they are proven.

Ottawa drafts around 15th on average. They don't suck for decades like Kings, Hawks, Pens, Oilers, etc to be able to draft top-5 regularly. That is why they don't have the luxury of having 2 PPG forwards and a bunch of depth players and rookies. Instead they have to rely on a deep offense and great #3-4-5-6 wingers (after guys like Hoffman and Stone, they have guys like Ryan, MacArthur, Smith and now Dzingel.)

I'm not explaining something that is really hard to understand right here, just the reality of this team.

You could buy 60 goals 150Pts for 10million and use the left over coin to improve the blueline.

The 3,4,5,6 winger positions are the easiest to fill with cheap talent in hockey

Rest of your stuff is a bit unrealistic as usual Fuhr stuff, unless absolute best case scenario when the grass is greener on the other side.

Actually, the Sens have in their top-9 :

Mark Stone : 3.5 cap hit
Kyle Turris : 3.5 cap hit
Zack Smith : 1.89 cap hit
Ryan Dzingel : 0.75 cap hit
JG Pageau : 0.9 cap hit
Tom Pyatt : 0.8 cap hit

Pyatt is replacing Curtis Lazar : 0.89 cap hit

Even Derrick Brassard who will cost the team 10.0 for the next 3 years (3.33 per year)

How is that NOT a CHEAP TOP-9?

I'd rather pass on paying Smith anything more than $2M+.

I'm surprised to see you post that. I understand the part where you wouldn't re-sign him but if you expect anything less than 2.0, it's heavily unrealistic. Heck, Smith makes 2.35 this season.

Not in my book, not yet.

Stone definitely could become a core player, but until he shows he is a game changer on a consistent basis he isn't there yet IMO.

Turris has been a solid player for the Sens, no question. However I don't see him as a core piece, more of a solid support player.

It's cool when a fan has his own "definitions" but it's really not in line with reality. You can be SURE the Sens brass see Turris and Stone as core players... Turris is now in his 6th season with the Sens and has a 54 pts pace per 82 games with the team... Stone is the best forward on the team, young and homegrown

Heck, if your definition of core player was realistic, then no team would have more than 1 or 2 core player. A core player is among the players a team is trying to build around, part of the "core".

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I'm surprised to see you post that. I understand the part where you wouldn't re-sign him but if you expect anything less than 2.0, it's heavily unrealistic. Heck, Smith makes 2.35 this season.

Smith's cap is actually $1.87M, as his deal is backloaded. He was paid less in previous years as part of the same deal, so a $2M deal would be a career high for him. But I get it - he'll pass on an offer in that range pretty quickly.

Anyway, you get the idea where I'm coming from, although I might increase the offer presuming Neil is retiring and moving on. But not by much and here is my rationale.

In general, I see team forward groups organized as follows:

1/ 5-6 key contracts for core players who play, for the most part, in your top 6, but obviously can include an elite 3rd line player. These are typically bigger contracts that eat up a lot of cap. So Stone, Brassard, Turris, Hoffman, Ryan. MacArthur was also in this group, but his deals slides to the 2nd tier given his uncertainty of fulfilling this deal going forward.

2/ 2-3 middle tier veteran contracts who general play in your top 9, but could play a more support role depending on leadership etc. Right now we have MacArthur, Smith, Neil,

3/ 2-3 rookie deals where players have established themselves as bonafide everyday NHLers within teh first 3 years of turning pro. Right now we have Pageau, Dzingel, Lazar and Puempel in the last year of their rookie deals.

4/ 2-3 bargain veterans you sign for peanuts given teh state of free agency. Kelly and Pyatt are two contracts of this ilk.

So if MacArthur and Neil retire, I'd be more inclined to pay Smith a bit more for longer term continuity and leadership. But if one of them is back, we'd have some issues fitting him in at $3M longer term.

The issue is that Pageau, Lazar and Dzingel at the very least will move to the middle tier contracts next years. Puempel will likely just be qualified and kept a 1 year rookie +10% deal. We might lose one to expansion of course, but at least two will be back.

Meanwhile, players like Paul, White, Brown and Perron will start taking on the rookie deals in the years ahead, and roster spots.

So signing Smith to a $3.5M deal, basically limits us to a degree with the likes of Pageau, Lazar and Dzingel long-term, and I for one would rather have that be our 3rd line, with a 4th line of Pyatt, Kelly and a rookie or another cheap vet, than give valuable cap space to a 3rd/ 4th line forward.

If it's $2.5 or so knowing Neil is walking and MacArthur is unlikely to return, I'm ok with that. He does give us some flexibility. But the term if just as important. If it's a 5 year deal, I'm much less inclined to pay "market" rate, especially when you see what guys like Kelly and Pyatt can produce in the bottom 6 at a fraction of the price.

 

[tony d]

Yay but only for a yr. or 2.

 

[SixthSens]

Smith's cap is actually $1.87M, as his deal is backloaded. He was paid less in previous years as part of the same deal, so a $2M deal would be a career high for him. But I get it - he'll pass on an offer in that range pretty quickly.

Anyway, you get the idea where I'm coming from, although I might increase the offer presuming Neil is retiring and moving on. But not by much and here is my rationale.

In general, I see team forward groups organized as follows:

1/ 5-6 key contracts for core players who play, for the most part, in your top 6, but obviously can include an elite 3rd line player. These are typically bigger contracts that eat up a lot of cap. So Stone, Brassard, Turris, Hoffman, Ryan. MacArthur was also in this group, but his deals slides to the 2nd tier given his uncertainty of fulfilling this deal going forward.

2/ 2-3 middle tier veteran contracts who general play in your top 9, but could play a more support role depending on leadership etc. Right now we have MacArthur, Smith, Neil,

3/ 2-3 rookie deals where players have established themselves as bonafide everyday NHLers within teh first 3 years of turning pro. Right now we have Pageau, Dzingel, Lazar and Puempel in the last year of their rookie deals.

4/ 2-3 bargain veterans you sign for peanuts given teh state of free agency. Kelly and Pyatt are two contracts of this ilk.

So if MacArthur and Neil retire, I'd be more inclined to pay Smith a bit more for longer term continuity and leadership. But if one of them is back, we'd have some issues fitting him in at $3M longer term.

The issue is that Pageau, Lazar and Dzingel at the very least will move to the middle tier contracts next years. Puempel will likely just be qualified and kept a 1 year rookie +10% deal. We might lose one to expansion of course, but at least two will be back.

Meanwhile, players like Paul, White, Brown and Perron will start taking on the rookie deals in the years ahead, and roster spots.

So signing Smith to a $3.5M deal, basically limits us to a degree with the likes of Pageau, Lazar and Dzingel long-term, and I for one would rather have that be our 3rd line, with a 4th line of Pyatt, Kelly and a rookie or another cheap vet, than give valuable cap space to a 3rd/ 4th line forward.

If it's $2.5 or so knowing Neil is walking and MacArthur is unlikely to return, I'm ok with that. He does give us some flexibility. But the term if just as important. If it's a 5 year deal, I'm much less inclined to pay "market" rate, especially when you see what guys like Kelly and Pyatt can produce in the bottom 6 at a fraction of the price.

Very well laid out post, as usual.

If we extend Smith for anything longer than 2 years I will be disappointed. Bottom six players should not be getting long-term contracts IMO. Always keep injecting fresh blood if the old blood becomes too complacent with their spot on the team.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

If it's less than 3M AAV, might as well.

 

[playasRus]

I'm game for anything under 3 mil long term, under 4 mil short term. Can't justify paying Smith 4mil if Turris is making 3.5 million. I know the time of signing is a huge part of it but makes it hard to swallow. Don't need Bollands holding this tight budget team down, and to be fair, Bolland's typical production was Smith's outlying career high.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Bump

http://thesportsdaily.com/the-6th-sens/are-we-looking-at-a-4-million-aav-contract-extension-for-zack-smith/

4 million might be close to what Smith would be looking for. Term would be a significant factor as well.

 

[saskriders]

Yes.

Something like 3.25 for 5 maybe

 

[FlyingJ]

Given that his offense this season and last seems dependent on playing with Mark Stone (the team's best forward), I'd say $3 million or thereabouts for no more than 3 seasons. He's not some young up and comer.

 

[ChelFan31]

with Smitty I'd like to go 2 years preferably , 3 years at the most.

At a salary range of $2.2 million - to max of $3.3 million. Anything more would not be good value, but skeptical value.

 

[aragorn]

Bump

http://thesportsdaily.com/the-6th-sens/are-we-looking-at-a-4-million-aav-contract-extension-for-zack-smith/

4 million might be close to what Smith would be looking for. Term would be a significant factor as well.

And deservedly so. He can play centre or LW, the PP or the PK, he is pretty good at faceoffs, he's tough, he fights, he plays a very gritty defensive game & is one of the best two way players on this team. He had 25 goals last yr & has 9 goals this yr & has consistently been a very good player game in & game out for the past few yrs. I wish a number of players on this team would play with the grit & tenacity of Smith. What this team needs is a couple more players like him & less small soft perimeter players.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

And deservedly so. He can play centre or LW, the PP or the PK, he is pretty good at faceoffs, he's tough, he fights, he plays a very gritty defensive game & is one of the best two way players on this team. He had 25 goals last yr & has 9 goals this yr & has consistently been a very good player game in & game out for the past few yrs. I wish a number of players on this team would play with the grit & tenacity of Smith. What this team needs is a couple more players like him & less small soft perimeter players.

Plus he shows up. He comes to play very consistently. Sure his numbers are better with Stone, but ... the two of them have some excellent chemistry.

It seems like everyone is better with Stone.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Given that his offense this season and last seems dependent on playing with Mark Stone (the team's best forward), I'd say $3 million or thereabouts for no more than 3 seasons. He's not some young up and comer.

Good numbers and term. I'd have a hard time going beyond that as well.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Give Neils salary as a pay increase if Smith wants more move on no one should complain. If management chooses to keep neil and smith walks and we find neils salary could have been the difference oh my....

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

Give Neils salary as a pay increase if Smith wants more move on no one should complain. If management chooses to keep neil and smith walks and we find neils salary could have been the difference oh my....

Yep that would be a disaster.

Smith is one of my favourite players on the Sens. He has reportedly (by Mendes IIRC, or at least on 1200) said that he is just looking for fair money, and doesn't want to be burdened by a massive contract to live up to (maybe some Ryan-situation influence there? haha). I think something around 3-3.5 x 3-4 years will be good. He's the kind of guy that you can get to sign a lower dollar figure by giving more term.

I have no issue with management wanting to see how the season plays out before committing the money. Although it seems like he is heating up playing with Stone...shocker!

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Yay, obviously.

 

[otown]

Extremely versatile player. The kind of guy who will raise his game even more in the playoffs. He will want term though and market value isn't going down anytime soon.
If the Sens don't give it to him, there will be others lurking in the weeds.

 

[Stylizer1]

Theres no way we can afford Smith long term.

Definitely not if we are giving out contracts like these.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Smith is going to be looking for something like 4 per for 5.

I'd do it.

 

[DrEasy]

Whenever someone wants to sign or re-signs with the Sens you just do it and count your blessings, no questions asked.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

A Zack Smith extension will be tricky.

Beleskey got a 5 year 3.8M contract off of one season where he had 22 goals in 65 games (28 goal/40 point pace over 82 games). Smith's breakout year last season was a 25 goal/36 point year in 81 games. Beleskey's numbers were a bit higher, but he is being given the benefit of assuming he'd maintain that pace for another 17 games. For arguments sake, I would consider the seasons pretty similar.

There are two things working in the Sens favour when looking at the Beleskey contract. One, Beleskey had a massive playoffs that year which put an exclamation point on his season very close to July 1st where he scored 8 goals in only 16 games. Smith isn't likely to score like a 40 goal regular season guy in the playoffs. Second, Beleskey's contract hasn't worked out well for the Bruins. He didn't have a bad first year with Boston but he wasn't anywhere near the goal scorer he was signed on to be. This season in his second year with the Bruins he has only 5 points in 24 games. If the narrative becomes that Smith is this year's Beleskey, looking back at that contract recently working out poorly might sober teams up a bit when it comes to offering Smith the world.

Does that mean that Smith won't still get huge offers? Probably not. But there might be a chance for Ottawa to get creative and keep him.

If they decide to cut bait on Ryan, or if MacArthur hangs up the boots and becomes an insured LTIR contract, it simplifies extending Smith as there is money for it to get done, it is just a matter of the Sens and Smith agreeing on a price.

If there isn't room in the budget, a creative solution might be giving Smith considerable term in order to convince him to take a hometown discount on the AAV. How considerable? 6 years? SEVEN YEARS? EIGHT YEARS? I have no idea. 7 or 8 years seems insane but if guys are willing to give him Beleskey money and term off the bat it might be the only way to get him down from the 4 million per season starting point. With Smith apparently being character guy off the ice who works and skates hard I could see them trying to make it work with him. The Sens seem to put a great emphasis on retaining character guys who Dorion would want to "go into battle with". Yes, all teams like to say they put a priority on character, but with the Sens they may have put their money where their mouth is as far as emphasizing character if you believe that was part of the reason they swapped a young promising guy like Zibanejad for Brassard.

 

[Stylizer1]

Smith is going to be looking for something like 4 per for 5.

I'd do it.

and in 2 seasons will be wanting to lynch him.

3.2 x 4

 

[Hutz]

Definitely not if we are giving out contracts like these.

Pageau at 4.333 x 6.... Yikes... I mean I like the guy, but yikes.

That said, these estimates were done at the start of the season with an assumption that he would improve. Can't see that being his next contract at the moment.