Official Armchair GM Thread 2014-2015 Leafs

[Rebel_1812]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

 

[freer]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

agreed.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

agreed.

Oh please tell me this is all clever sarcasm.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

They were probably pumped they could pad their stats for 10 games without an anchor.

 

[Bender]

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

agreed.

Oh please tell me this is all clever sarcasm.

Sarcasm?

 

[Kin]

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

agreed.

Oh please tell me this is all clever sarcasm.

Sarcasm?

Clever?

 

[bustaheims]

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

agreed.

Oh please tell me this is all clever sarcasm.

Sarcasm?

Clever?

Bueller?

 

[Coco-puffs]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

They were probably pumped they could pad their stats for 10 games without an anchor.

While that joke is funny now.... he had 45 goals in the previous 128 NHL games before that incident.  Nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

They were probably pumped they could pad their stats for 10 games without an anchor.

While that joke is funny now.... he had 45 goals in the previous 128 NHL games before that incident.  Nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup.

He also had 5 goals in his last 34 games with New Jersey, or a 12 goal 82-game pace.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

They were probably pumped they could pad their stats for 10 games without an anchor.

While that joke is funny now.... he had 45 goals in the previous 128 NHL games before that incident.  Nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup.

He also had 5 goals in his last 34 games with New Jersey, or a 12 goal 82-game pace.

LOL... I KNEW that would be your response.  Anyways, my statement still stands... nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup and neither were ANY fans, no matter how much you didn't like the contract.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

We do have incidents when Clarkson should his good character.  I bet the locker room loved him after he left the bench to help kessel.

They were probably pumped they could pad their stats for 10 games without an anchor.

While that joke is funny now.... he had 45 goals in the previous 128 NHL games before that incident.  Nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup.

He also had 5 goals in his last 34 games with New Jersey, or a 12 goal 82-game pace.

LOL... I KNEW that would be your response.  Anyways, my statement still stands... nobody on the team was pumped he wouldn't be in the lineup and neither were ANY fans, no matter how much you didn't like the contract.

Well no, no one was pumped to see the team spend a ton of money on a guy who does something stupid in exhibition and then has to miss 10 games to start the season.

 

[Redleaf]

Can we at least keep the Clarkson jabs funny? Otherwise they just come off as rehashed beans. 

 

[moon111]

Mike Ribeiro and a couple of teammates had lots of internet acquisitions during their time in Montreal.  Nothing that can be proven or published.  Lots of finger pointing though makes you think.

I assume you mean 'accusations'.

Or he had a fondness for chatting with pre-teen girls.

 

[MetalRaven]

Can we at least keep the Clarkson jabs funny? Otherwise they just come off as rehashed beans. 

Sounds great...go ahead gimme an example...stage is yours

 

[freer]

IMO. Other then being a stupid call on Clarkson's decision to jump off the bench to begin with. I imagine that most fans here thought he showed leadership standing up for Kessel. 

 

[Bender]

IMO. Other then being a stupid call on Clarkson's decision to jump off the bench to begin with. I imagine that most fans here thought he showed leadership standing up for Kessel.

But that's exactly why it's not leadership! I thought it was fine until two seconds later Joe Bowen said Clarkson would be suspended. A good leader know when and when not to get involved. You can't take the consequences out of the equation and say it was a showing of leadership. The consequences show it was just dumb.

 

[Redleaf]

IMO. Other then being a stupid call on Clarkson's decision to jump off the bench to begin with. I imagine that most fans here thought he showed leadership standing up for Kessel.

But that's exactly why it's not leadership! I thought it was fine until two seconds later Joe Bowen said Clarkson would be suspended. A good leader know when and when not to get involved. You can't take the consequences out of the equation and say it was a showing of leadership. The consequences show it was just dumb.

I can see why there are differing opinions on this, but being a dumb decision doesn't take away the fact he was willing to stick up for his new team mate.

If it were a schoolyard fight, for instance, and you knew you would get suspended from school for jumping in and sticking up for your friend who was attacked by the schoolyard bully, as a parent, I'd have a hard time telling my kid he was wrong to do it.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

The difference with that incident was that rarely do you see legitimate tough guys in that weight class, going after a star player that is clearly not a fighter. Kessel would have been pounded into oblivion, had he chose to fight instead of flee. Otherwise, Clarkson wouldn't have jumped the bench, that's the way I see it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

IMO. Other then being a stupid call on Clarkson's decision to jump off the bench to begin with. I imagine that most fans here thought he showed leadership standing up for Kessel. 

Is that why all the best leaders do it so often?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If it were a schoolyard fight, for instance, and you knew you would get suspended from school for jumping in and sticking up for your friend who was attacked by the schoolyard bully, as a parent, I'd have a hard time telling my kid he was wrong to do it.

There were 4 other guys willing to stick up for Kessel on the ice already. 5 if you count Bernier. I'm sure to a man every single player on the bench wanted to jump on the ice too at that point but they weren't dumb enough to do it. If anything Clarkson's decision was just selfish.

And you know what, I wouldn't be so hard on Clarkson in this instance if he went out and pounded the living daylights out of John Scott. But all he was able to do was yell at him from a few feet closer.