Krug and Smith sign extensions
- Thread starter jsinger121
- Start date
That's awful. Krugs number is about right.
But that deal for Smith - with the year he's having, is insanity.
Chia is out of his damn mind.
But that deal for Smith - with the year he's having, is insanity.
Chia is out of his damn mind.
TheShynessClinic said:
Probably gave Smith a NMC as well. Someone needs to take the keys away from him.
What am I missing on the Smith deal? How is he worth 3.4 per? This is the exact kind of contract that has gotten Chiarelli into this cap mess that we can't get out of. It doesn't seem like he's learned a thing.
This is where Harry Sinden was a master. He would have went straight to arbitration with a player like Smith gone on the low end with a figure and then if Smith was giving what he wanted would have walked away from the player. Chia is beyond stupid.
Two million more a year over his current contract, when he's regressed as a player since last season.
I have no idea what the urgency was here, particularly at that cap number for Smith.
edit: To be fair to Chiarelli, if he's planning on moving Smith in the offseason to make room for a Pastrnak/Eriksson/Connolly/Ferlin RW collection, getting him signed now is a great way to do so.
edit: To be fair to Chiarelli, if he's planning on moving Smith in the offseason to make room for a Pastrnak/Eriksson/Connolly/Ferlin RW collection, getting him signed now is a great way to do so.
The Smith deal seems excessive. Granted, he is a sold hockey player,, but this seems like an overpay. I think I would have considered trading Smith or going to arbitration.
I like the Krug deal - wish it was for longer than one year, but that would have pushed the cap number up I'm sure.
I like the Krug deal - wish it was for longer than one year, but that would have pushed the cap number up I'm sure.
Smith's better than Cam Atkinson who just got $3.5 as an RFA. I don't know, doesn't seem that bad to me. I'll have to find other comparables. Smith is a 23-year old 50ish point guy. For all the teeth gritting about him having a bad year, he is 3rd on the team in scoring.
jsinger121 said:
As bad as Chiarelli's been with managing the cap and giving players too much, you don't get to point to Harry Sinden as a master and example of how it's done better. That strategy you point to from Harry Sinden is what killed the franchise in the early to mid 90's.
I'm a little surprised at the consternation here. I was expecting about $3mil for Smith. I was using the Tatar contract as a benchmark. He signed a RFA contract as a 23 year old with 1 year of NHL experience under his belt for $2.75 mil last year. That was coming off a 39 point year.
There are other guys in similar boats as well. Henrique signed a $4 mil deal at the same time, Tommy Wingels is making $2.5 on a similar deal and he had much less success when he signed it. Kilorn had 1 40 pt season under his belt last year and signed a $2.5 mil deal as well. $3 mil seems about right for Smith.
I do agree with PSK, though, in that I don't understand the urgency.
There are other guys in similar boats as well. Henrique signed a $4 mil deal at the same time, Tommy Wingels is making $2.5 on a similar deal and he had much less success when he signed it. Kilorn had 1 40 pt season under his belt last year and signed a $2.5 mil deal as well. $3 mil seems about right for Smith.
I do agree with PSK, though, in that I don't understand the urgency.
Smith over the last two years has 1280 minutes at even strength with Bergeron and 600 without him. His Corsi% with Patrice is 61.2% and 48.8% without him.
He's actually been about the same player this year as last -- At even strength he had 1.9 p/60 last year and 1.8 p/60 this year. He was much better on the power play last year (6.5 p/60 as opposed to 3.8 this year) but that's probably fluky.
He's an OK player but he looks a lot better because of all the time with Bergeron. (edit: and the PP time - Marchand by comparison gets NO PP time but has basically the same # of points)
Krug has good advanced stats but also is rarely challenged with tough matchups so it's tough to judge. Hard to justify a big hit for him but this is probably about right. The Smith deal though is an overpay. Maybe some team will ignore that he's being carried by Patrice and deal for him.
He's actually been about the same player this year as last -- At even strength he had 1.9 p/60 last year and 1.8 p/60 this year. He was much better on the power play last year (6.5 p/60 as opposed to 3.8 this year) but that's probably fluky.
He's an OK player but he looks a lot better because of all the time with Bergeron. (edit: and the PP time - Marchand by comparison gets NO PP time but has basically the same # of points)
Krug has good advanced stats but also is rarely challenged with tough matchups so it's tough to judge. Hard to justify a big hit for him but this is probably about right. The Smith deal though is an overpay. Maybe some team will ignore that he's being carried by Patrice and deal for him.
The timing is surprising to me. Compensation is a 1st rd pick for signing an rfa to a 3.4/yr deal. Why sign them now when it's unlikely a team will give a 1st round pick for either player.
Maybe there was an understanding between players and mgmt before this season began. Its also interesting to think how they plan to sign Soderberg and/or Hamilton based on these contracts.
Maybe there was an understanding between players and mgmt before this season began. Its also interesting to think how they plan to sign Soderberg and/or Hamilton based on these contracts.
I have this putting them at $59.445 committed with no salaries yet for Dougie, Spooner, Connolly and no replacements for McQuaid and Bartkowski. You'd have to assume Dougie gets at least the Roman Josi contract at $4.0 to put them at $63.5. Spooner is another 1.2, same for Connolly. Svedberg or backup goalie is going to cost at least $700K.
That leaves them at $66.545 assuming best case scenario and they need 2 Dmen. Soderberg is a goner unless some salary is moved.
That leaves them at $66.545 assuming best case scenario and they need 2 Dmen. Soderberg is a goner unless some salary is moved.
I miss capgeek in these situations too.
I think they will both remain RFAs at the end of these deals as well, which is something. While the dollars may seem a bit high on Smith, relative to all the other recent RFA deals for forwards its not that out of character (Tatar/Wingels 3 @ 2.75 if you throw in this years Smith deal this works out to about 3 @ 2.83), Having to take the 1 year deal due to cap problems really forced Chia's hand into upping the back end of the deal without getting the cap savings on a 3 year deal.
Just cant see them having Pasta, Connolly, Smith, Loui all tying up RW spots, maybe you shift the deck chairs ad make one a LW, but it seems that something will have to give next year (could be Soderberg or something if someone swaps to the LW to play next to Kelly or something).
Krug was going to get paid as a point scoring D-man, even if he's only going to be playing 3rd pairing minutes, the price for those guys is just high.
I think they will both remain RFAs at the end of these deals as well, which is something. While the dollars may seem a bit high on Smith, relative to all the other recent RFA deals for forwards its not that out of character (Tatar/Wingels 3 @ 2.75 if you throw in this years Smith deal this works out to about 3 @ 2.83), Having to take the 1 year deal due to cap problems really forced Chia's hand into upping the back end of the deal without getting the cap savings on a 3 year deal.
Just cant see them having Pasta, Connolly, Smith, Loui all tying up RW spots, maybe you shift the deck chairs ad make one a LW, but it seems that something will have to give next year (could be Soderberg or something if someone swaps to the LW to play next to Kelly or something).
Krug was going to get paid as a point scoring D-man, even if he's only going to be playing 3rd pairing minutes, the price for those guys is just high.
They must really like Smith with the Bergeron/Marchand combo. Seems like a slight overpay to me.
I do not want to lose Yeti over this.
I do not want to lose Yeti over this.
yeahlunchbox said:
No, what killed Sinden was two things: not adjusting to the new 1 through 8 playoff format (instead of the old divisional one), and not adjusting his team-building to the bigger ice surface of the new Garden when it opened in 1995. His teams were always built to beat divisional opponents and to dominate the smaller ice surface of the Old Garden; when those constants changed, he couldn't keep up, couldn't build a team with the flexibility and speed necessary for being successful under the new format.
The initial point stands: Chia should have played hardball with Smith, because he's been terrible this year and there's absolutely no need to give him a big raise which then squeezes out Yeti. A head-scratching move.
I thought Smith was absolutely awful last night. Weird for a guy who was about to make a good deal of money.
I find it hard to be overly critical of the contract. We got into this place by giving contracts like this to limited players without upside who were going to be too old when the contracts were done. Smith is a younger player who should have value to the Bruins and other teams if he doesn't seem like he's going to make it here. I think you have to see if this is a lost season for him and run him back next year on a short leash. If it looks like more of the same, you should be able to move him on this deal at his age.
I find it hard to be overly critical of the contract. We got into this place by giving contracts like this to limited players without upside who were going to be too old when the contracts were done. Smith is a younger player who should have value to the Bruins and other teams if he doesn't seem like he's going to make it here. I think you have to see if this is a lost season for him and run him back next year on a short leash. If it looks like more of the same, you should be able to move him on this deal at his age.
Let's just hope other teams don't figure out that Smith is much better with Bergy than without him. In vacuum, 3.4 doesn't seem awful based on age, but as someone remoinded me recently, there's a cap. I wouldn't have signed Smith for a penny over $3 prior to a Dougie extension. I don't see what the fascination Chia has with Smith.
Oh and one more comp. Cam Atkinson.
Atkinson - 25 years old - 3 years - 10.5 mil ($3.5 mil cap hit)
25 pts this year, 40 last.
Yeah I'm really surprised at the hand wringing on this one. It's a market value contract.
Atkinson - 25 years old - 3 years - 10.5 mil ($3.5 mil cap hit)
25 pts this year, 40 last.
Yeah I'm really surprised at the hand wringing on this one. It's a market value contract.
I just think it is better to invest in Smith. He's 7-years younger and over 2 years he has producted more than Soderberg. They also have options at center, whereas the wing is a bit more questionable.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Their points per 60 are similar...Smith is 1.79, Soderberg is 1.65. Toe Nash posted Smith's Corsi #'s with and without Bergeron. Soderberg is propped up by Eriksson and Kelly. 53.5% CF with Eriksson, 48% without. 55% with Kelly, 49% without. I think Soderberg is replaceable. Spooner can fill that role at a fraction of the cost.
Problem is, the Bruins don't have the cap space to be offering market value contracts to their role players when they have far more pressing needs. That is the problem with contract comps - because CBJ has the money to hand a similar player that contract, they also don't have any players making over $6M a year - the Bruins have 4, and Krejci is just under.burstnbloom said:
The Four Peters said:
OK, very disappointing, then. I don't care enough about the semantics to argue that point. 12 goals isn't enough after what he showed in his first year here; his goal rate is down from last year when as a young player it was reasonable to expect it to improve. And of course he had that terrible stretch of 1 goal in 19 games.
IMO he hasn't shown quite enough to hand him a raise like this. I sincerely hope this isn't Chia trying to justify the Seguin deal by locking the kid up, because right now he's not producing the way we all hoped.
timlinin8th said:
The Blue Jackets also have a lower than the actual cap budget. They do have one person making over $6 mil a year (Clarkson) and they have FIVE making more than $5mil a year and their best player's cap number is going to shoot through the roof before the Atkinson deal is up. Expecting Smith to take a significant discount for the second year in a row just isn't realistic. This number looks pretty reasonable if not just slightly high given the numbers Atkinson, Wingels, Tatar and Henrique all got in the last couple of years.
Yep, this. They have already signed their core to big deals (with the exception of Hamilton and I guess Lucic) and they need to be saving money elsewhere. You can't sign all your players for market rate and hope to be anywhere close to the cap, so the smart teams sign the best ones and fill in the rest of their spots with cheap guys.timlinin8th said:
Or, they'll be forced to deal a core guy...which may or may not be a bad thing, but still, do you really want Reilly Smith to be the one forcing you into that decision?
cshea said:
I've really soured on Soderberg over the last 20+ games. After watching the way Spooner has been playing since replacing Krejci, I have no issues at all with them moving on from Soderberg to give Spooner the 3rd line Center role. Spending ~$5m on Soderberg when Spooner arguably will out produce him in a full time top 9 role seems like a waste of cap space to me. I know it's secondary to this Smith signing, but still, I am not going to cry if they do not re-sign Yeti because they wanted Smith.
As for the signings, I am fine with it. I like Reilly's game and it's only his 2nd full season. Krug I wonder why they didn't go to two years on his contract. I've heard that a lot of the organization loves Joe Morrow, so could Krug's one year deal be a sign he may not be in the team's future plans?
From a market stand point, what does the Smith signing mean for Connolly? I would assume Connolly and his agent will be looking at a 1 year deal to try to rehab his value next season in a more featured role.
No, that was the exact problem with Harry Sinden. Not paying to retain talent.jsinger121 said:
Agreed the number is too large, though.
EDIT: At second blush, looking at comparable players, this is a fair deal. I have no problem with it.
Connolly won't get much. Probably a 1-year deal a bit north of his QO which I believe will be ~936K (110% of his current contract, unless that changed).
The B's have a lot to sort out up front this offseason. They have options. They've got 4 top 9 right wingers under control- Eriksson, Smith, Connolly and Pastrnak. One could be on the move, or they can shed out a guy like Lucic and move Eriksson/Smith back to their natural wings. We'll have to see how things play out. I don't think the Smith deal is nearly as bad as others think it is.
The B's have a lot to sort out up front this offseason. They have options. They've got 4 top 9 right wingers under control- Eriksson, Smith, Connolly and Pastrnak. One could be on the move, or they can shed out a guy like Lucic and move Eriksson/Smith back to their natural wings. We'll have to see how things play out. I don't think the Smith deal is nearly as bad as others think it is.
I guess I just would have been much more excited to see Krug AND Hamilton locked up instead of Krug and Smith.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Bolded for Truth. I agree with that completely.
I have no feel for the landscape of NHL salaries these days, but one thing that is troubling to me is that Chiarelli tends to make a lot of these moves before he has to. I don't understand that at all. It's as if he doesn't understand the concept of leverage. Sinden certainly did, and while it could be argued that he didn't pay up for established talent, I believe that the bolded was a bigger issue than his stinginess (which possibly came from above)
Reardons Beard said:
There's no doubt they're going to keep Hamilton, that has nothing to do with this.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
His shooting percentage last year was unsustainable, no one expected him to score at that rate again. Looking at goals is not the only way to evaluate players
I think this is a likely scenrio.PedroSpecialK said:
Helps to have his salary locked in for two years, so an acquiring team can already account for his salary in their budget, and still have him be an RFA after the contract expires.
Wouldn't surprise me if they kicked the tires on his value at the trade deadline and might have a player targeted they could get for him this summer.
One year deal is more of Krug's choosing then the Bruins. He wants to be paid as a top 4 and get into the $5m+ AAV range. He's betting on himself that he can take his game up a notch and if necessary use his arb rights next year to drive a better deal. I think the Bruins would have been more than willing to lock him up for 2 or more if the AAV remained under $4M.TheRealness said:
The fact that Chara and Seids aren't getting younger, and his current advanced stats being what they are (iCorsi, iFenwick top-15) , it's a nice bet. He doesn't even have to go up a notch, honestly.RIFan said:
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I can't imagine they are going to lose Lucic to UFA. They are either going to restructure the team this summer and move Lucic, or they are going to restructure the team this summer and commit longterm to Lucic.
I wish they could have gotten Krug for a couple of years. He is such a fun player to have on the team.
re Smith, it seems high. Smith is a funny guy, it does feel like he is having a shit season, but he is that group behind Bergeron in scoring. One point I would add, the comparison to Atkinson is I think mostly fair, but there is one substantial difference. Columbus bought 1 or 2 UFA seasons in the deal. Obviously Smith being much younger is not giving up any UFA seasons