David Clarkson

[brothert]

I guess for me, my dislike for Clarkson is not Clarkson himself but the methodology behind the signing.  MLSE/Nonis/Whomever follows the same formula every time for acquiring players.  The criteria seems to be "Whats the biggest name player/newsworthy player I can get for my dollars?" instead of what players will fill roles on the team?  Clarkson has a role on some team but on this leafs team?  I question the logic.  His speed is such that he can't keep up on the top two lines and worse than his speed his backchecking and defense is so bad that it is surpassed by our sniper's (Kessels) defensive prowess.  It is clear that I am picking on his biggest weaknesses and that he has other talents.  He's big, he's tough and he has hands and would be a decent power forward if he had the speed for it.  He's not afraid to muck it up and has some Tucker like qualities (good or bad? )  Now if can pick off his weakness by watching him for 30 games, how come professional scouts and management come to a conclusion that he is what the 2013-14 TML team needs?  Did we even need a winger this past summer?  MacArthur wasn't terrible and would have fit at a decent price.  With the addition of Clarkson, I'm not sure what direction are we heading in?  Are we going to model a big grinding team?  If so we will have to look at moving Kessel and Kadri and JVR at some point, as none of those fit that mold.  Detroit went after Weiss to fit a specific need.  I am not sure Nonis did that with Clarkson.  He made a big media buzz with clarkson and now its backfiring so I guess he gets what he deserves but I've seen this show before over the last 30 years.  You can build a somewhat decent team with a bit of luck, a cheque book and mediaworthy players but I don't think you can build a winner by buying the highest priced UFA's every offseason.  So Clarkson is the face of whats wrong with this organization for me at this point.  Nothing personal and hopefully he ignores most of the griping.

 

[Kin]

With the addition of Clarkson, I'm not sure what direction are we heading in?  Are we going to model a big grinding team?  If so we will have to look at moving Kessel and Kadri and JVR at some point, as none of those fit that mold.  Detroit went after Weiss to fit a specific need.  I am not sure Nonis did that with Clarkson. 

I don't get this at all. Teams don't have to have every single player fit a particular mold. Boston is a big, tough team but they make room for not-big, skilled players. Pittsburgh is a team built on skill but find room for players with a bit of grit.

After the Boston series the idea that Toronto could use some size and grit on the wing was an idea that a lot of people had. Adding Clarkson was absolutely an attempt to do that. He may have been the wrong player for it but the aim was pretty clear.

 

[Highlander]

Yes Nik is right on that but I still think we have to give Clarkson some more time to turn things around.
And really, who else was available of his calibre?  (Oh no a post with a 100 or more players is coming my way)

 

[brothert]

And really, who else was available of his calibre?  (Oh no a post with a 100 or more players is coming my way)

This here is exactly my point.  Maybe he was the only big name player available.  We went and bought a BIG square peg to fill a small circular hole on our team.  We didn't have to make a big UFA splash at all.  Just keep that space for next year.  Hindsight would point to dividing that money up between MacArthur and Komorov making our team stronger overall.

As for teams, I think each team has some sort of identity.  Boston is big hard team that are not a great skating  team and they struggle with counterattacking speed(one of the reasons I think the leafs showed so well in the playoffs).  I think if Nonis wanted more grit, he should have looked for a skater who could hit and not necessarily have great hands.  I also believe you can't coach a team that has 4 different styles of lines.  There must be some general theme/philosophy to each team.  Ultimately its easier if you have  players that can do it all and I would say that the leafs don't have a single player that fits that mold of an "all rounder" in their top 3 lines. So this summer/season we have committed dollars and term to two skating skill players with limited toughness(Bozak/Kessel) and brought in Clarkson.  Maybe he needs time to prove me wrong about his fit on this team but my gut says he won't.

 

[moon111]

The step into the NHL is a big one.  Now we're asking kids to make even a bigger step.  It doesn't work.  See Edmonton for an example.  The biggest problems are from injuries and unrealistic expectations on the blueline.  The fourth line and Clarkson are getting ripped due to the lack of success.  They might be a slight part of the problem, but if the team was winning, they'd be considered the extra dimension needed.

 

[Kin]

And really, who else was available of his calibre?  (Oh no a post with a 100 or more players is coming my way)

But that's where I think JohnK is right. Even if Clarkson was the best example of the type of player the Leafs needed available(and he probably wasn't, Horton was but he wasn't going to sign here) then overpaying him on that basis is toxic to the concept of good team building. That sort of impatience is bad for any team but for a team like the Leafs who aren't all that close regardless it can really be an impediment.

I don't think Randy Carlyle and Dave Nonis invented the idea of overpaying free agents over beers this summer as seems to be some people's conceit but they're as guilty of it in this case as anyone.

 

[2badknees]

After the Boston series the idea that Toronto could use some size and grit on the wing was an idea that a lot of people had. Adding Clarkson was absolutely an attempt to do that. He may have been the wrong player for it but the aim was pretty clear.

I think you nailed it right there. Nonis likely went to the offseason with preventing that game 7 loss as the building point. Sure, Bolland and Clarkson might have gotten the Leafs through to the 2nd round in that scenario, but it's too specific a scenario to address.

For the record, I like both acquisitions, although not so much the term on both - Clarkson being too long, and Bolland being too short, but I'm sure many would have liked to see more depth on the D as the offseason priority.

 

[Highlander]

I think both Bolland and Clarkson were good additions, yes we paid a premium but that is par for the course. When the cap is up to 90 Million in 3 or 4 years imagine what dudes similare to Clarkson will be paid.

 

[hap_leaf]

For the record, I like both acquisitions, although not so much the term on both - Clarkson being too long, and Bolland being too short, but I'm sure many would have liked to see more depth on the D as the offseason priority.

Not a chance Clarkson will be playing in 2020.  With his skillset I can't picture him being effective past the age of 34 (he is 29).  As he gets slower he will be clutching and grabbing with that trademark free hand in order to keep up.  Then he will be scratched then dumped when he is a detriment to the team ala Komi.

 

[Jalili]

I don't get what you're getting at? I can come back to you and say the 70 point season was 9 years ago and Horcoff has never scored more than 22 goals(9 years ago)...Clarkson has a 30 goal season(2 years ago) and was on pace for 25 last year. Zajac had two 60 point seasons 5 years ago but hasn't been 45 in the last 5 with some pretty serious injuries.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clarkson's contract is a 'good' contract..not yet anyways. The point is, there's several contracts out there that are similar that suck just as much.

Realistically though, I don't think their contracts suck nearly as much as Clarkson's.

Zajac is a valuable all-around player who's become known more for his defensive ability than he is for offense. So even though he's not performing up to par for the amount he's being paid, he's still an important contributor to his team.

Horcoff has 1 year left on his contract after this one, and his salary is far less than his cap hit. For a team with a self-imposed cap, the salary is what counts and the cap hit is irrelevant. He's being paid $4M this year and $3M the next.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't get what you're getting at? I can come back to you and say the 70 point season was 9 years ago and Horcoff has never scored more than 22 goals(9 years ago)...Clarkson has a 30 goal season(2 years ago) and was on pace for 25 last year. Zajac had two 60 point seasons 5 years ago but hasn't been 45 in the last 5 with some pretty serious injuries.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clarkson's contract is a 'good' contract..not yet anyways. The point is, there's several contracts out there that are similar that suck just as much.

Realistically though, I don't think their contracts suck nearly as much as Clarkson's.

Zajac is a valuable all-around player who's become known more for his defensive ability than he is for offense. So even though he's not performing up to par for the amount he's being paid, he's still an important contributor to his team.

Horcoff has 1 year left on his contract after this one, and his salary is far less than his cap hit. For a team with a self-imposed cap, the salary is what counts and the cap hit is irrelevant. He's being paid $4M this year and $3M the next.

The OP asked for players with similar cap hits eating up more than 8% of their team's salary. I showed two contracts that had similar effects. Horcoff only has one year left, but his large salary was even "larger " 3 years ago when it was signed. We can say that it now looks better but how can we be sure that we can't say the same thing about Clarkson?

And Zajac may be an important piece on his team but he's still extremely over paid for what he brings to the table.

 

[losveratos]

I don't get what you're getting at? I can come back to you and say the 70 point season was 9 years ago and Horcoff has never scored more than 22 goals(9 years ago)...Clarkson has a 30 goal season(2 years ago) and was on pace for 25 last year. Zajac had two 60 point seasons 5 years ago but hasn't been 45 in the last 5 with some pretty serious injuries.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clarkson's contract is a 'good' contract..not yet anyways. The point is, there's several contracts out there that are similar that suck just as much.

Realistically though, I don't think their contracts suck nearly as much as Clarkson's.

Zajac is a valuable all-around player who's become known more for his defensive ability than he is for offense. So even though he's not performing up to par for the amount he's being paid, he's still an important contributor to his team.

Horcoff has 1 year left on his contract after this one, and his salary is far less than his cap hit. For a team with a self-imposed cap, the salary is what counts and the cap hit is irrelevant. He's being paid $4M this year and $3M the next.

The OP asked for players with similar cap hits eating up more than 8% of their team's salary. I showed two contracts that had similar effects. Horcoff only has one year left, but his large salary was even "larger " 3 years ago when it was signed. We can say that it now looks better but how can we be sure that we can't say the same thing about Clarkson?

And Zajac may be an important piece on his team but he's still extremely over paid for what he brings to the table.

Zajac plays a more important position at center and has twice the goal and slightly more than twice the assists as clarkson.
If talking defense... Zajac is 3rd on his team in +/- while Clarkson is near the bottom of ours at 24th place.
Clarkson's icetime is also only a couple minutes shorter so that's not a huge factor.
If we then ask the question about linemates, I'd say Clarkson has had his fair share of talented co-workers.
If we talk about physicality... finally Clarkson has him beat. But that sometimes leads to inopportunely timed penalties.

I really don't see how Zajac is more overpaid than Clarkson for what he brings... other than the fact that the salary itself is actually more. But I would do a one for one trade in half a second.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't get what you're getting at? I can come back to you and say the 70 point season was 9 years ago and Horcoff has never scored more than 22 goals(9 years ago)...Clarkson has a 30 goal season(2 years ago) and was on pace for 25 last year. Zajac had two 60 point seasons 5 years ago but hasn't been 45 in the last 5 with some pretty serious injuries.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clarkson's contract is a 'good' contract..not yet anyways. The point is, there's several contracts out there that are similar that suck just as much.

Realistically though, I don't think their contracts suck nearly as much as Clarkson's.

Zajac is a valuable all-around player who's become known more for his defensive ability than he is for offense. So even though he's not performing up to par for the amount he's being paid, he's still an important contributor to his team.

Horcoff has 1 year left on his contract after this one, and his salary is far less than his cap hit. For a team with a self-imposed cap, the salary is what counts and the cap hit is irrelevant. He's being paid $4M this year and $3M the next.

The OP asked for players with similar cap hits eating up more than 8% of their team's salary. I showed two contracts that had similar effects. Horcoff only has one year left, but his large salary was even "larger " 3 years ago when it was signed. We can say that it now looks better but how can we be sure that we can't say the same thing about Clarkson?

And Zajac may be an important piece on his team but he's still extremely over paid for what he brings to the table.

Zajac plays a more important position at center and has twice the goal and slightly more than twice the assists as clarkson.
If talking defense... Zajac is 3rd on his team in +/- while Clarkson is near the bottom of ours at 24th place.
Clarkson's icetime is also only a couple minutes shorter so that's not a huge factor.
If we then ask the question about linemates, I'd say Clarkson has had his fair share of talented co-workers.
If we talk about physicality... finally Clarkson has him beat. But that sometimes leads to inopportunely timed penalties.

I really don't see how Zajac is more overpaid than Clarkson for what he brings... other than the fact that the salary itself is actually more. But I would do a one for one trade in half a second.

You could always take a look back a couple pages and see why Zajac was even brought up. Thanks

 

[Tigger]

He's been better, still needs to move his feet more but better overall recently.

 

[losveratos]

He's been better, still needs to move his feet more but better overall recently.

I agree with this statement. Maybe it's a comfort thing or maybe he's just finding his legs or whatever cliche thing sports guys usually say. Either way, I hope he maintains.

 

[Highlander]

Can we stop bashing Clarkson now, he was totally responsible for Rangers goal and was grinding all game

 

[L K]

Can we stop bashing Clarkson now, he was totally responsible for Rangers goal and was grinding all game

He's definitely been better but its a smalls stretch of good play.  3-4 strong games 41 games into the year isn't much to boast about.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Can we stop bashing Clarkson now, he was totally responsible for Rangers goal and was grinding all game

Yeah....I guess so.  It is amazing how much he loves playing in Toronto.  It is nice that it is working out for him better.  I actually might start laying off Ranger as well since he has looked like he is actually playing more solid, reading the plays and not getting caught out of position as much.

Kadri on the other hand really has regressed. He sucks!

 

[mr grieves]

Kadri on the other hand really has regressed. He sucks!

You must jest. He's on pace for 50 points, which is about what a reasonable person would think he'd manage after a very lucky rookie campaign. But I do agree: we need a goat.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Kadri on the other hand really has regressed. He sucks!

You must jest. He's on pace for 50 points, which is about what a reasonable person would think he'd manage after a very lucky rookie campaign. But I do agree: we need a goat.

You are right on the 1st account.

On the 2nd account, you also might be right.  Leafs Nation always seems to need a goat no matter how the team is doing.  Its almost too bad.