Zack Smith on waivers (clears,resumes role as 2C)

[scallionjj11]

No idea,but it seems like the most logical thing that will likely go on...We take some contract from a richer team looking for some bottom 6 center help,that can be waived...

He'd fit in nicely with Nashville as well

 

[BigCanadian]

Being the longest serving Senator is now the kiss of death. Who is now the longest serving senator after Smith is gone (assuming he is claimed by someone or moved in some way).

 

[topshelf15]

Flyers need a pk forward am guessing they kicked tires on Smith already.

Could be,we have an obvious need for a experienced blueliner....Thinking along the lines of decent but far too expensive defenders that could be out there

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

not including Smith, we are spending 13.775 million this year on players that arent playing for us (Phaneuf, Burrows, Gaborik, MacArthur)

Wow that's like 1 McDavid or a Karlsson!

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

In the context of a good team making the move to get an overpaid blockage for a younger player out of the way, this would be a good move.

In the context of a bad team with known financial issues, it doesn't take much digging to figure out why this is being done. It's embarrassing.

 

[swiftwin]

not including Smith, we are spending 13.775 million this year on players that arent playing for us (Phaneuf, Burrows, Gaborik, MacArthur)

No we aren't. MacArthur and Gaborik are 80% covered by insurance.

I just did the math, we're spending $4.3 on those 4 players this season.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Wow a smart move, who would have known this team was capable of such a thing anymore.

 

[BondraTime]

In the context of a good team making the move to get an overpaid blockage for a younger player out of the way, this would be a good move.

In the context of a bad team with known financial issues, it doesn't take much digging to figure out why this is being done. It's embarrassing.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

If he's claimed, perfect, we don't have to pay for Smith to be out there. He is easily replaced internally for 1/3 of the hit, and we get out of 2 more years. If he's not claimed, he's back up here as we won't be paying him in the AHL.

Losing Smith doesn't make us any worse, at all

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

In the context of a good team making the move to get an overpaid blockage for a younger player out of the way, this would be a good move.

In the context of a bad team with known financial issues, it doesn't take much digging to figure out why this is being done. It's embarrassing.

What am I missing here? Don't we have to pay him the same regardless? It's not like a team would consider claiming him.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Yeah he could be better but was not really a problem on this team's current make up imo...I also found the Nick Paul demotion strange they both kind of stood out to me in their pre-season play.

 

[solidprospect]

Could be,we have an obvious need for a experienced blueliner....Thinking along the lines of decent but far too expensive defenders that could be out there

Dunno, if they wanted him the trade would have happened rather than putting him on waivers.

 

[Tundraman]

I doubt Smith will end up in the AHL either he gets claimed or he will suit up with the Sens if he doesn't. It's a good move if they are trying to clear a spot for a younger forward and dump salary at the same time but if he doesn't get picked up I doubt they'll pay someone else to replace him even if it's only $650k while he gets full pay in the AHL.

 

[topshelf15]

Dunno, if they wanted him the trade would have happened rather than putting him on waivers.

Him being placed on waivers means he doesnt have to clear them again this season,which gives the team getting him more flexability ...Should they want to remove his contract at any time

 

[UnHappyDude]

ITS A TRADE FOR HO SANG maybe

 

[solidprospect]

Him being placed on waivers means he doesnt have to clear them again this season,which gives the team getting him more flexability ...Should they want to remove his contract at any time

Yep that's possible.

 

[topshelf15]

Yep that's possible.

We likely take a contract back ,but maybe with lessor term and maybe cover a more important hole doing it ...I hoping for a defender ,even though he likely isnt anything special...We deperately need something on the right side

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

If he's claimed, perfect, we don't have to pay for Smith to be out there. He is easily replaced internally for 1/3 of the hit, and we get out of 2 more years. If he's not claimed, he's back up here as we won't be paying him in the AHL.

Losing Smith doesn't make us any worse, at all

I agree that losing him doesn't make us any worse, but the fact that the decision to move on is coming NOW reeks of bad optics. Available evidence suggests this was probably not about his performance.

What am I missing here? Don't we have to pay him the same regardless? It's not like a team would consider claiming him.

He probably won't get claimed. But I'd put good money on the fact that he's on waivers in the hopes that someone will scoop him. It's a case where the team's probably hoping to lose an asset for nothing just to get out from the self-imposed cap restrictions. And even if he's not claimed, it sets bad precedent as far as standing by your people AND creates a rift with Smith. Looking at the team from the outside as a player, I'd argue there's less reason to want to come to Ottawa than ever before.

 

[Masked]

Him being placed on waivers means he doesnt have to clear them again this season,which gives the team getting him more flexability ...Should they want to remove his contract at any time

That makes no sense. What flexibility does a team getting him get? To send him down without having to clear waivers? Unless you're looking to win the Calder Cup, if you try to send him down you'd wish someone would take his contract off your hands through waivers.

 

[topshelf15]

That makes no sense. What flexibility does a team getting him get? To send him down without having to clear waivers? Unless you're looking to win the Calder Cup, if you try to send him down you'd wish someone would take his contract off your hands through waivers.

We obviously take some sort of bad contract back in any return ,come on man ....Maybe its for an older RHD rather then spend it on a bottom 6 center....Point being we wouldnt have just waived him to pay him his money in the AHL

 

[BonkTastic]

ITS A TRADE FOR HO SANG maybe

That would be a good move, which means we're probably not doing it.

 

[Samboni]

Delete

 

[BonkTastic]

Him being placed on waivers means he doesnt have to clear them again this season

Incorrect.

It means he doesn't have to clear for 30 days, IIRC.

There is a threshold of games played or time spent on the roster where waivers resets and then you have to clear again.

 

[Masked]

We obviously take some sort of bad contract back in any return ,come on man ....Maybe its for an older RHD rather then spend it on a bottom 6 center....Point being we wouldnt have just waived him to pay him his money in the AHL

What are you talking about? This response has nothing to do with the flexability (sp) you posted about earlier.

 

[Boud]

That would be a good move, which means we're probably not doing it.

I highly doubt they'd make a trade for a player like Ho-Sang if what the team is striving for is character.

 

[Engineer]

Incorrect.

It means he doesn't have to clear for 30 days, IIRC.

There is a threshold of games played or time spent on the roster where waivers resets and then you have to clear again.

10 NHL games or 30 days in the majors, whatever comes first.