David Clarkson - Signs with Maple Leafs

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm telling you guys...mike knuble...check out his career stats...didn't do anything before 30 and then became a mostly 25+goal scorer for 9 years after 30.

for the people that love the signing (which I do) this is the guy

Nobody says it can't happen, it's just not good to count on the exceptions to the rule.  I don't know what he's going to do for the next 7 seasons, it's just unlikely based on what he's done to date.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

(Enlarge or zoom if needed):

Make me choose between Gionta, Doan (at this point in his career), Havlat, Hemsky or Clarkson @ 5M-5.3 and I'd without much hesitation I know who I'd choose.

I don't find it very comforting that almost all those guys are into their early to mid 30s and still outscoring Clarkson over those periods.

If the only thing you care about is points, and it seems that is the case, then yeah you can be upset.  Difference being Clarkson brings about a bazillion other qualities to the table most of those guys don't bring a sniff of.  But I can't quantify them, soooo...............  :-\

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

 

[Deebo]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

So you are evaluating the signing and contract without all the information necessary then?

 

[Corn Flake]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

So you are evaluating the signing and contract without all the information necessary then?

The same way anybody on this board evaluates a contract then.

EDIT: But also generally saying that it is very debatable what "intangibles" contribute to a winning team, and I've yet to see any kind of definitive proof that character does or does not impact a team winning or losing.  I like to think it falls to a combination of the best players and some luck.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

No worries!

Well and I think if they sign someone to that big of a commitment where the majority of his contribution will be being physical/hitting, providing character (?) then I think that opens it up to a whole lot of criticism and makes me scratch my head.  I suspect that they really don't take the view that if he scores it's a bonus, but I'm very skeptical about making that big of a commitment to someone to potentially not contribute much on the scoresheet.  It seems like they just got rid of Grabovski for similar reasons.

I'm not saying things like character and being good in the room don't exist or don't come into a GM's evaluation, I think it's extremely hard to put a value on.

 

[Corn Flake]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

No worries!

Well and I think if they sign someone to that big of a commitment where the majority of his contribution will be being physical/hitting, providing character (?) then I think that opens it up to a whole lot of criticism and makes me scratch my head.  I suspect that they really don't take the view that if he scores it's a bonus, but I'm very skeptical about making that big of a commitment to someone to potentially not contribute much on the scoresheet.  It seems like they just got rid of Grabovski for similar reasons.

I'm not saying things like character and being good in the room don't exist or don't come into a GM's evaluation, I think it's extremely hard to put a value on.

Yes they certainly won't be thrilled if he only scores 10 goals next year but I doubt that will happen. Could it? sure. He could go all "Kulemin" on us offensively.  But I think the underlying point is that they don't expect 30+ goals from the guy but do expect reasonable production.  He plays much like Gary Roberts so the assist totals will be down but the goals should be up. The NJ PP was horrid last year but his net presence on the Leafs will be very interesting to watch and could really raise his production.

If we ignore contracts for a sec, he's the type of player this team needs. If we didn't ever know what players received in compensation I think everyone would generally be pretty stoked about the guy.  I think we just get too bent out of shape over the money/cap side of things. I don't see how his $5.25 mil prevents the Leafs from doing what they need to do cap wise going forward, so I'm not worried about it.

 

[Frank E]

Isn't "ability to produce in high pressure situations" and "clutchness" the same thing?

High pressure is broader range. Clutchness has some very specific criteria.

Which measurement takes into account how loud and vocal they are on the bench?

 

[Zee]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

No worries!

Well and I think if they sign someone to that big of a commitment where the majority of his contribution will be being physical/hitting, providing character (?) then I think that opens it up to a whole lot of criticism and makes me scratch my head.  I suspect that they really don't take the view that if he scores it's a bonus, but I'm very skeptical about making that big of a commitment to someone to potentially not contribute much on the scoresheet.  It seems like they just got rid of Grabovski for similar reasons.

I'm not saying things like character and being good in the room don't exist or don't come into a GM's evaluation, I think it's extremely hard to put a value on.

Yes they certainly won't be thrilled if he only scores 10 goals next year but I doubt that will happen. Could it? sure. He could go all "Kulemin" on us offensively.  But I think the underlying point is that they don't expect 30+ goals from the guy but do expect reasonable production.  He plays much like Gary Roberts so the assist totals will be down but the goals should be up. The NJ PP was horrid last year but his net presence on the Leafs will be very interesting to watch and could really raise his production.

If we ignore contracts for a sec, he's the type of player this team needs. If we didn't ever know what players received in compensation I think everyone would generally be pretty stoked about the guy.  I think we just get too bent out of shape over the money/cap side of things. I don't see how his $5.25 mil prevents the Leafs from doing what they need to do cap wise going forward, so I'm not worried about it.

Clarkson was on a 25-26 goal pace in the shortened season if projected over 82 games.  I think if he scores at that clip with the Leafs nobody will complain.

 

[mr grieves]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

I think the main concern, when you look at UFAs paid similarly and for similar terms, is that they all score a lot. I'm sure there are other players out there, for whom offensive production is a relatively small part of the package, but they don't show up on the list of comparable UFA contracts. The conclusion is pretty clear: the Leafs are paying more than the rest of the league for parts of the package that other teams in the league don't pay that much for.

Where's their money going? Are those parts of the package more likely to help the team win? Or are the Leafs Moneyballing an underappreciated value -- grit, or whatever -- that's actually more decisive in winning? I don't know, really. Some of the measurable stuff that shakes out of Clarkson's supposed qualities -- Corsi, which does pretty well approximating zone time, might be helped by his toughness town low -- suggests yes, other stuff -- hits -- suggests there's no relationship to winning.

It's only really a problem if that contract makes it harder for the Leafs to pay for those things that most other teams pay for. We won't know how that goes until we see what happens with the RFAs.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

That's fine if you want to discuss those things.  I'm purposely not bringing them up in my posts because I can't speak to them.  So I could either talk out my rear-end and pretend I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "character" things he brings, or I can stick to things I can quantify.

I don't see what's bad about that, nor do I see why it results in mocking.  If I bring it up, then fair play and go at me for it, but I don't.  I haven't watched the Devils play, I haven't scouted David Clarkson.  I can look at his stats and his production.

Not trying to mock. Sorry if I came off that way.

I think points are a small part of the Clarkson package.  I don't think you can argue a guy is a bad signing when you just look at points.  Nonis said himself in the first presser (paraphrasing) that its' all the other things he brings is why they signed him, and if he scores .. bonus.

No worries!

Well and I think if they sign someone to that big of a commitment where the majority of his contribution will be being physical/hitting, providing character (?) then I think that opens it up to a whole lot of criticism and makes me scratch my head.  I suspect that they really don't take the view that if he scores it's a bonus, but I'm very skeptical about making that big of a commitment to someone to potentially not contribute much on the scoresheet.  It seems like they just got rid of Grabovski for similar reasons.

I'm not saying things like character and being good in the room don't exist or don't come into a GM's evaluation, I think it's extremely hard to put a value on.

Yes they certainly won't be thrilled if he only scores 10 goals next year but I doubt that will happen. Could it? sure. He could go all "Kulemin" on us offensively.  But I think the underlying point is that they don't expect 30+ goals from the guy but do expect reasonable production.  He plays much like Gary Roberts so the assist totals will be down but the goals should be up. The NJ PP was horrid last year but his net presence on the Leafs will be very interesting to watch and could really raise his production.

If we ignore contracts for a sec, he's the type of player this team needs. If we didn't ever know what players received in compensation I think everyone would generally be pretty stoked about the guy.  I think we just get too bent out of shape over the money/cap side of things. I don't see how his $5.25 mil prevents the Leafs from doing what they need to do cap wise going forward, so I'm not worried about it.

Fair enough! Not much else I can really say about it. You fought well and noble-ly. I may even grow to love the guy.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Clarkson was on a 25-26 goal pace in the shortened season if projected over 82 games.  I think if he scores at that clip with the Leafs nobody will complain.

He also scored 10 of those goals in the first 14 games and only had 5 goals in the remaining 34 games. If we look solely at those 34 games, Clarkson was on pace for 12 goals over 82 games. If that's the Clarkson that shows up....I think almost everyone, including those that are defending the signing, will have issues with the deal.

 

[Corn Flake]

Clarkson was on a 25-26 goal pace in the shortened season if projected over 82 games.  I think if he scores at that clip with the Leafs nobody will complain.

He also scored 10 of those goals in the first 14 games and only had 5 goals in the remaining 34 games. If we look solely at those 34 games, Clarkson was on pace for 12 goals over 82 games. If that's the Clarkson that shows up....I think almost everyone, including those that are defending the signing, will have issues with the deal.

Remember last year when Kessel went a really long time without scoring? None in the first 11 games.

Yeah.  Scorers are streaky sometimes.

 

[bustaheims]

Remember last year when Kessel went a really long time without scoring? None in the first 11 games.

Yeah.  Scorers are streaky sometimes.

5 goals in 34 games is beyond streaky. That's practically half a season with minimal production. Clarkson's season looks more like he started on a hot streak and then cooled down to the player he's more traditionally been.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Clarkson was on a 25-26 goal pace in the shortened season if projected over 82 games.  I think if he scores at that clip with the Leafs nobody will complain.

He also scored 10 of those goals in the first 14 games and only had 5 goals in the remaining 34 games. If we look solely at those 34 games, Clarkson was on pace for 12 goals over 82 games. If that's the Clarkson that shows up....I think almost everyone, including those that are defending the signing, will have issues with the deal.

Remember last year when Kessel went a really long time without scoring? None in the first 11 games.

Yeah.  Scorers are streaky sometimes.

While I don't think Clarkson is a scorer, scoring 5 in 34 is dangerously into Kulemin/Grabovski range. You know the guys that have been ragged on for quite a while now.

In fact,

Clarkson only had 8 points in those final 34 games.
Kulemin had 15 points in the final 34 games
Grabovski had 10 points in the final 34 games

So despite us ragging on both Kulemin and Grabovski as being offensive black holes last year, both scored at a higher rate than Clarkson last year in the final 34 games(75%) of the season.

Call this signing as great as you want. Justify it with the intangibles, but let's be honest...The Leafs paid big big bucks and long term for a guy that had 14 points in 34 games, was a -10 over that period as well. Looks to me that he better be mighty loud in the dressingroom cause he sure as heck hasn't been doing much on the ice.

 

[Champ Kind]

Boy, did Jim Nill in Dallas ever get hosed!!!  Tyler Seguin only had 8 points in his last 22 games!!!!1!!!1

 

[mr grieves]

Boy, did Jim Nill in Dallas ever get hosed!!!  Tyler Seguin only had 8 points in his last 22 games!!!!1!!!1

I don't understand what point you think you're making here.

That we should re-sign Grabovski? Or embrace/ ignore big/ small sample sizes as necessary to defend every Leaf move? Fire Nonis and hire Jim Nill?

 

[mr grieves]

While I don't think Clarkson is a scorer, scoring 5 in 34 is dangerously into Kulemin/Grabovski range. You know the guys that have been ragged on for quite a while now.

In fact,

Clarkson only had 8 points in those final 34 games.
Kulemin had 15 points in the final 34 games
Grabovski had 10 points in the final 34 games

So despite us ragging on both Kulemin and Grabovski as being offensive black holes last year, both scored at a higher rate than Clarkson last year in the final 34 games(75%) of the season.

Call this signing as great as you want. Justify it with the intangibles, but let's be honest...The Leafs paid big big bucks and long term for a guy that had 14 points in 34 games, was a -10 over that period as well. Looks to me that he better be mighty loud in the dressingroom cause he sure as heck hasn't been doing much on the ice.

Interesting numbers. I know that Clarkson's pretty reliant on the PP to score... did his time 5v4 dwindle as the season went on?

 

[hockeyfan1]

According to the Edmontoh Journal...

Clarkson would have made more money playing in Edmonton.

He chose his hometown Leafs instead.  Refreshing at the very least, contract aside,.that a top-six UFA had actual wanted to play for the Leafs.

If Clarkson wasn't a Toronto boy, does anyon think he would still have signed on with the Leafs, or chosen the Oilers or some other team?

 

[Deebo]

1 line of blue text, but not a link?

Come on!!