Brendan Smith Placed on Waivers

Phil Kocher
@ me

Phil Kocher

Managing Editor at Cleared for Contact
I believe in Nate Silver, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Christopher Hitchens, and hockey analytics.
Blogging between diaper changes.
Phil Kocher
@ me

It could be a busy morning in Rangers Town.

Not only did the Rangers re-call defenseman Neal Pionk earlier today, but according to Larry Brooks of the New York Post, veteran defenseman Brendan Smith, who has struggled mightily all season since signing his long-term extension this summer, has been placed on waivers:

Smith, 29, is in the first year of a four-year, $17.4M extension but has routinely been a healthy scratch throughout this tumultous season.

We’ll have more on this as it’s available.

Discussion





  1. Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia
    View Post

    That remark about fighting is likely true. Brooks mentioned it as well:



    https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/the-pr...ain-vigneault/



    This just fucking boils my blood. I was at the LA game. That was the most excitement I've seen at a Rangers game in three years. Of course the Rangers folded like a cheap lawn chair after that. You need to play with fucking emotion to win games. You just do.
    That remark about fighting is likely true. Brooks mentioned it as well:





    Plus, there must be an inspection of whether Vigneault’s undying belief in whistle-to-whistle, turn-the-other-cheek hockey has created a passive mentality among the Rangers. When Chris Kreider stood up for McDonagh after the captain was run from behind by Steven Stamkos in Tampa Bay in Game 6 of the 2015 conference finals, No. 20 was rebuked by the coach for picking up an additional two minutes. When Brendan Smith stood up for Tony DeAngelo in an imbroglio in L.A. with Trevor Lewis on Jan. 21, he was chastised for picking up a bad penalty.


    https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/the-pr...ain-vigneault/





    Quote Originally Posted by paddynyc
    View Post

    Really no surprise on this and yes is he staying up or going down. Sending him down would be a kick in the balls



    The reality check is no one claimed him, thus going down to Hartford to fix his game is the only way he gets back up.

    Obviously coming into Camp out of shape was a huge mistake. Beyond that, the only credible rumors I heard about Smith in the locker room was that he spoke out about the coach discouraging fighting. However the coaches have also been preaching to him about dumb penalties and dumb decisions and bluntly don't feel he has improved those things. Besides the penalties the dumb defensive decsions like not knowing when to NOT go deep offensively, puck decisions and positioning in our zone and defending entry.

    He has a bunch of things to improve. Might as well join the Pack, they'll need the help. Until we hear more, it seems the staff wasn't seeing the improvement requested and once the rebuild was determined the possibility of his contract getting picked-up and the chance to evaluate a younger player likely sealed his fate.





    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin
    View Post

    I think I'll be okay with this. I'm not sure I'm ready to write him totally off yet. Maybe this is the wake-up call that he desperately needs?



    I was really happy with the contract when we re-signed him. He must've been too happy with the contract though cuz it seems like he said 'Fuck it I'm paid'

    liked watching him fight Shaw last playoffs and thought he was a solid addition at the time. But he's regressed. Hopefully just a down year.





    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything
    View Post

    we'll need to call him back up to get to the cap floor when we're done tearing down this barn!



    I think I'll be okay with this. I'm not sure I'm ready to write him totally off yet. Maybe this is the wake-up call that he desperately needs?
    @SteveZipay: As anticipated, Brendan Smith has cleared waivers and will be assigned to Hartford...

    @SteveZipay: Smith clearing waivers allows NYR to bury $1.025 million of his cap charge in the minors. And certainly makes a trade a possibility at some point.





    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything
    View Post

    Elliotte Friedman‏Verified account
    @FriedgeHNIC
    Follow Follow @FriedgeHNIC
    More
    Smith, Kruger and Jooris all clear

    9:01 AM - 9 Feb 2018


    He's officially cleared. I guess we'll see if he gets sent down or not?

    Maybe teams aren't willing to take him straight up but would take him for a contract they can dump and/or retaining some of his salary?



    Really no surprise on this and yes is he staying up or going down. Sending him down would be a kick in the balls
    Elliotte Friedman‏Verified account
    @FriedgeHNIC
    Follow Follow @FriedgeHNIC
    More
    Smith, Kruger and Jooris all clear

    9:01 AM - 9 Feb 2018


    He's officially cleared. I guess we'll see if he gets sent down or not?

    Maybe teams aren't willing to take him straight up but would take him for a contract they can dump and/or retaining some of his salary?





    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin
    View Post

    There is an inclination to let our imagination create a rationale. Reading AV's statement and note from mgmt, maybe this is simply part of a rebuild/retool/whateverthefuckyawannacallit.

    The clue is in the first word, "Money"

    My money says this is about the money (and rebuild). Now if a team wants to pick up the contract, put in a claim. The Rangers will use that money (3 years worth) to bring back Grabs instead. Or whatever their plan is for the cap space.

    If he is not claimed he goes to the Pack and tries to improve. He/everybody gets the message. Either way it frees up a slot for a youngster to get some burn and mgmt to evaluate guys who should be near ready.



    OK. Time will tell.





    Quote Originally Posted by LONG TIME FAN
    View Post

    Smith placed on waivers by Rangers
    Defenseman has eight points in 44 games after signing four-year, $17.4 million contract with New York




    "Everybody that's followed him since he's been here, there's no doubt that he has played better for us in the past and this year got off to a slow start," coach Alain Vigneault said. "We worked with him a number of different ways.

    "At the end of the day this might be a little bit drastic here, but management and the coaches felt that this was the way to go for our team right now."


    https://www.nhl.com/news/new-york-pl...rs/c-295741638


    Money says there's more to this than meets the eye, notwithstanding the coach's comments.



    Ugghh. I agree with you.

    I don't feel good.





    Quote Originally Posted by LONG TIME FAN
    View Post

    Money says there's more to this than meets the eye, notwithstanding the coach's comments.



    There is an inclination to let our imagination create a rationale. Reading AV's statement and note from mgmt, maybe this is simply part of a rebuild/retool/whateverthefuckyawannacallit.

    The clue is in the first word, "Money"

    My money says this is about the money (and rebuild). Now if a team wants to pick up the contract, put in a claim. The Rangers will use that money (3 years worth) to bring back Grabs instead. Or whatever their plan is for the cap space.

    If he is not claimed he goes to the Pack and tries to improve. He/everybody gets the message. Either way it frees up a slot for a youngster to get some burn and mgmt to evaluate guys who should be near ready.
    Smith placed on waivers by Rangers
    Defenseman has eight points in 44 games after signing four-year, $17.4 million contract with New York




    "Everybody that's followed him since he's been here, there's no doubt that he has played better for us in the past and this year got off to a slow start," coach Alain Vigneault said. "We worked with him a number of different ways.

    "At the end of the day this might be a little bit drastic here, but management and the coaches felt that this was the way to go for our team right now."


    https://www.nhl.com/news/new-york-pl...rs/c-295741638


    Money says there's more to this than meets the eye, notwithstanding the coach's comments.
    I copied this for you Josh:

    The Difference Between No-Trade And No-Movement Clauses And The NHL Players That Have Them


    No-Movement Clause (NMC) and No-Trade Clause (NTC) Eligibility:

    Once a National Hockey League player has played seven years or reached twenty-seven years of age (Group 3 Free Agent Status) he is eligible to qualify for the NMC or NTC in his contract. These clauses can start mid-contract once the player reaches his Group 3 status. (example: in the fourth year of a seven-year deal)

    There are basically two types of movement clauses NHL GMs need to pay attention to and/or work around with some players.

    The No-Movement Clause:

    A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say. Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.

    The No-Trade Clause:

    A No-Trade Clause is much less restrictive. It only places restrictions on movement by trade. A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent. A limited (partial or modified) No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a full No-Trade Clause and depends on the conditions negotiated in the player’s contracts. Often with these No-Trade Clauses, the player is asked to provide a list of teams to which he would be willing to be traded or NOT traded to. This list can change or fluctuate from season to season.


    and this:

    What is a Limited, or Modified No-Trade Clause (M-NTC)?
    A limited, or modified no-trade clause (M-NTC) is less restrictive than a full no-trade clause (NTC), and can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:

    The player's contract includes specific terms in respect to being traded without their consent where the player must:
    In a specified timeframe or window:
    Specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would be willing to be traded to, or:
    Specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would not be willing to be traded to
    Consent is not required to be placed on waivers
    Consent is not required for assignment to the minors
    Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
    The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
    This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
    If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
    If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

    Example: Modified No-Trade Clause: Within 48 hours of request, the player must submit a list of 18 teams they are willing to be traded to without consent. If the list is not received within 48 hours, the player can be traded to any team without consent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *