Arbitration date set for Penguins winger Zach-Aston Reese |

Arbitration date set for Penguins winger Zach-Aston Reese

Jonathan Bombulie
The Penguins’ Zach Aston-Reese had 17 points in 43 games last season.

The arbitration hearing for Pittsburgh Penguins winger Zach Aston-Reese is set for July 22 in Toronto.

Aston-Reese, 24, recorded eight goals and 17 points in 43 games with the Penguins last season while making $925,000. Evolving Wild’s contract projections suggest he is in line for a two-year deal worth about $1.27 million annually.

There is a good chance Aston-Reese and the Penguins will hammer out a contract before the arbitration hearing takes place.

In Jim Rutherford’s five-year tenure as Penguins general manager, four players have had arbitration hearings scheduled. All were avoided.

In 2014, just after he was acquired from Nashville, forward Nick Spaling signed a two-year, $4.4 million contract the morning of his scheduled hearing.

In 2017, Rutherford worked out contracts with Brian Dumoulin and Conor Sheary before their hearings. Dumoulin signed a six-year, $24.6 million contract the day of his hearing, and Sheary signed a three-year, $9 million deal five days earlier.

Last summer, Jamie Oleksiak signed hours after his arbitration hearing was announced, agreeing to a three-year, $6.4 million contract two weeks before the scheduled date.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review assistant sports editor. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.