David Clarkson

[mc]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

Something like that. I know I posted something along the lines of offering $3M for 3 years and being willing to settle on $3.5M for 4. Even 5 years looked like too much to me. I think just about everyone knew that, wherever he signed, he'd get a contract that was way out of line with what he'd actually earn on the ice. I don't think too many people expected him to get 7 years, though.

 

[Bullfrog]

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.

There was a fair share of interest in him, but no one would have said 7 years at $5.25M was a good move.

 

[Champ Kind]

...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.

I know arguing a memory or perception is futile, but this comment got me thinking about Clarkson.  I really didn't have much of an opinion on him last summer, to be honest.  I tried remembering him when the Leafs played the Devils and really had little memory.  I clearly remembered some of the Devil's Top 9 guys like Parise, Elias, Sykora, and Langenbrunner.  Heck, I even have clear memories of Jay Pandolfo and Colin White.  Clarkson?  Not so much.

Although there is one thing in Clarkson's past that sticks out.  Remember the Ranegrs-Devils playoff series from a few years ago.  New York was on a 4-3 power play (if memory serves) and Steve Avery was screening Brodeur by facing him and waving his stick like a traffic control officer.  Brodeur, if I remember, refused to shake Avery's hand at the end of the series.  The next year, I believe Clarkson chased Avery around, ragdolled him, and generally abused him. 

I know believe that this was the very moment - not July 2013 - when he was awarded the $36M contract.

I was ambivalent at the time of the signing, but I did get caught up in the hype machine and really wanted him to do well.  Now, like most here, I just hope he can play at a third line, $3M level next year.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

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]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

It's really not. He was one of if not the most sought after free agents and while he may have preferred Toronto they clearly had to be competitive with their offer to land him.

 

[mc]

If a Clarkson falls on the ice, does anyone hear it?

 

[Mike1]

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....

 

[freer]

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....

No your right it is a terrible contract. He will never be a 5m dollar player. We are stuck with him. All we can do now is hope he can score 20 goals next season. Maybe take some skating lessons too.

 

[Kin]

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]

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.

I don't think Clarkson would be eligible for a compliance buyout anyways, since his contract was signed after the lockout...

 

[bustaheims]

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.

It's kind of a moot point, as no team can use a compliance buyout on Clarkson. Only contracts signed under the previous CBA can be terminated with a compliance buyout.

 

[Kin]

I don't think Clarkson would be eligible for a compliance buyout anyways, since his contract was signed after the lockout...

You also can't trade them. It's a hypothetical.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Basically, what would you trade to make Clarkson disappear. Like Nik, I'd probably say any prospect right now, maybe even a top-10 protected 1st rounder.

 

[bustaheims]

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]

You also can't trade them. It's a hypothetical.

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.

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

I suppose I meant it more as "what would you be willing to give up" rather than "what do you think it would cost". Basically, as CtB said, how much is getting rid of Clarkson worth to the Leafs.

 

[L K]

Link

He's in a very distinguished group.  And perfectly primed for a bounce back...right?

 

[Kin]

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.

Nah, they're just Leafs at this point.

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.

I think we'll see more get used than we think.  Even if it's just a way for a team to save a couple thousand bucks.