[strombad]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

In this thread, I have been hammered for saying that just because the Oilers are doing something doesn't mean it's right.

Yet, you are able to make the exact same argument. Isn't it possible that Edmonton misevaluated Smid in the first place and gave him a contract he didn't deserve. You can't have it both ways.

Scrolling through NHL numbers, each of the following guys are currently making a cap hit of about $3.5M or more, and IMO, each could be argued to be more of a #5/6 than a top 4 guy (if you disagree, then you probably believe that most teams have 5-6 calibre top 4 players which makes no sense:

1. Bryan Allen
2. Nick Schultz
3. Andrew Ference
4. Henrik Tallinder
5. Tim Gleason
6. Mike Komisarek pre buyout
7. James Wisniewski
8. Trevor Daley
9. Kyle Quincey
10. Tom Gilbert (before new contract)
11. Ed Jovanovski
12. Anton Volchankov
13. Andrej Meszaros
14. Luke Schenn
15. Nicklas Grossman (seriously what is Paul Holmgren doing?)
16. Rob Scuderi
17. Brad Stuart
18. Sami Salo
19. JM liles
20. Arguably Mike Green - Caps fans say he is pure garbage ES right now


Most teams have a defensemen that they have overpaid despite them being miscast in a top 4 role, and are probably better suited to be on a third pairing somewhere.

Every team is always looking to improve their top 6, because it is a very difficult position to develop internally. That forces teams to give defensemen with a pulse contracts to either keep them once they get to their RFA years, or to spend unwisely on the free agent market.

It happens all the time. Just because a team has signed the contract it does not automatically mean that the evaluation and decision is a smart one. In some cases like Schenn the team is paying for potential they may never get. In others, like Edmonton, the team is so bad they have to overpay players to convince them to stay. I'm not saying that happened in Smid's case, because it actually seems he loves Alberta, but stuff like that happens.

Smid is too pathetic offensively to be a true #4 guy. Good teams have at minimum 5 guys better than a guy of Smid's calibre. The Blackhawks for example inarguably have 6 when Roszival is healthy enough to be in the line-up, and use a less talented version of Smid as their #7/8 guy. Smid wouldn't make Boston, LA's, Anaheim's, Vancouver's, The Blues, Coyotes, Montreal's, Ranger's, Sharks, etc. top 4's when healthy.

Smid is a guy that on good teams is a clear cut #5/6 guy. On poor teams he would be miscast in a top 4 role, even if they are forced to use him that way, and trick themselves into believing he can handle those duties because he was the best man available for the job.

When the Flames start becoming competitive over the next few years, I will be very dissapointed if we don't have 4 defensemen better than him. He makes a great penalty killer, and average 5/6 in even strength situations, and as long as he's used in that role, he'll probably be worth his contract, and be a good fit on the team, but anything more, and he's going to be overexposed like he was in Edmonton.

You can write all the novel length posts you want about the subject, but you said two things:

Smid is probably worth is contract, but I don't think he's worth a whole lot more than 3.5M...Ideally you don't have to pay guys like Smid 3.5M, but many teams have to when they dip their toes in the free agent market

He's a role player, spare part, fairly run of the mill 5-6 guy...Smid is a medicore bottom pairing guy getting paid at market rates...Smid I have said is adequate on the third pairing.

Those two contradict each other. I was never the one who said Edmonton paid him correctly, YOU did. YOU said many teams would have to pay him 3.5 (which would dictate 3.5 as his 'market value'). YOU also said he's a mediocre third pairing player. As I said before, both of those things cannot be true, only one can be true.

You can pay a great third pairing guy 3.5, or a mediocre second pairing guy 3.5, but (unlike what you claimed) 3.5 is not market value for a mediocre, replaceable third pairing defenceman.

What I'm saying is that you are either wrong on about his contract (which you said he was worth) or wrong about his quality of play (which you said was mediocre).

Decide and get back to me, seems pretty straightforward. You can't go back now and say Edmonton overpaid him when you previously said he was paid "market value" and was "worth his contract".