Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CarltonTheBear said:I think the general consensus pre-July 5th was that if he was signing in the $3-4mil range for 4-5 years the contract would have been fine. But everyone knew that wasn't happening.
Joe S. said:I knew absolutely nothing about Clarkson prior to this season, but I do recall that there were rumblings that he would sign with the Leafs.
I also remember (maybe incorrect) that the overall sentiment here was that it would a bad move, I don't recall much support or excitement about the possibility of Clarkson becoming a Leaf.
Highlander said:...Clarkson as a Devil, was a fully funtional, hard hitting, go to the net guy, whom potted the tough goals, he was always noticiable when he was on ice in a very good way. The kind of guy whom one would think would be a valuable addition to their team, hence we went out a got him. I used to enjoy watching the Devils play just to watch him hit people.
Potvin29 said:I just don't get why you would structure the contract that way. You do that sort of stuff for maybe the best players in the league.
CarltonTheBear said:Potvin29 said:I just don't get why you would structure the contract that way. You do that sort of stuff for maybe the best players in the league.
It's weird. It doesn't really benefit the Leafs in any way that I can think of, and it was pretty clear that Toronto was on top of Clarkson's list from the get-go.
mc said:Let's give him one more year. If he stinks it up next year then he has no excuse. Then he gets the Larry Murphy treatment.
Mike1 said:mc said:Let's give him one more year. If he stinks it up next year then he has no excuse. Then he gets the Larry Murphy treatment.
Define what not stinking it up would mean. The guy has usually been a player that produces 20-30 points. If he produces in that range next year, it would be better but still...there is no way he is worth the money he makes.
This contract is a terrible error by this management team. Nothing is going to change that moving forward....
Nik the Trik said:So here's a question that BWB's buy-out/waiver thread brought to mind.
If the rules were different and teams could trade their compliance buy-outs...what do you suppose you'd trade to a team that wasn't likely to use one of theirs for one to use on Clarkson? I don't know if I'd trade a first for it but they could just about have their pick of a prospect at this point.
Nik the Trik said:So here's a question that BWB's buy-out/waiver thread brought to mind.
If the rules were different and teams could trade their compliance buy-outs...what do you suppose you'd trade to a team that wasn't likely to use one of theirs for one to use on Clarkson? I don't know if I'd trade a first for it but they could just about have their pick of a prospect at this point.
louisstamos said:I don't think Clarkson would be eligible for a compliance buyout anyways, since his contract was signed after the lockout...
Nik the Trik said:You also can't trade them. It's a hypothetical.
Nik the Trik said:You also can't trade them. It's a hypothetical.
bustaheims said:Nik the Trik said:You also can't trade them. It's a hypothetical.
Well, as a purely hypothetical exercise . . . it's difficult to gauge, because, while that buyout would have a lot of value to the Leafs, it would have little to no value for a team that has no interest/intent in using it - and, considering that it's an expiring asset, you'd think they'd be happy to get any sort of tangible asset for it. While I would be willing to pay a significant amount for the Leafs to be able to wipe the slate clean on Clarkson, I don't think it would cost all that much to acquire said buyout, since the other team, from their point of view, is basically giving up nothing.
BlueWhiteBlood said:If by prospect, you mean players not playing in the NHL, then yeah, probably any of our prospects. But if that included Riley and Gardiner/ Kadri, then no, but I assumed they don't fall into that category.
BlueWhiteBlood said:The thought had crossed my mind about trading buyout candidates. Not for Clarkson, but if teams with the dough aren't going to use the 2 compliance buyouts, they would certainly be in position to help out another team, while enriching themselves with non-monetary assets for that help.