David Clarkson

[Strangelove]

Oh but just wait for the playoffs!

I have never in my life seen a player get a bigger pass from the media than Clarkson's been given this year.

 

[mc]

On the Fan at 12 noon, they mentioned the play of JVR 1 goal in 11 games, the lack luster play of Phaneuf and they went through four or five players. No mention of Clarkson. Buddy buddy I guess.

 

[Kin]

On the Fan at 12 noon, they mentioned the play of JVR 1 goal in 11 games, the lack luster play of Phaneuf and they went through four or five players. No mention of Clarkson. Buddy buddy I guess.

Honestly, what more is there to say at this point?

 

[mc]

On the Fan at 12 noon, they mentioned the play of JVR 1 goal in 11 games, the lack luster play of Phaneuf and they went through four or five players. No mention of Clarkson. Buddy buddy I guess.

Honestly, what more is there to say at this point?

Just saying the media is giving this guy a free pass. He was the priced free agent signing of last summer. Got paid handsomely.

 

[Kin]

Just saying the media is giving this guy a free pass. He was the priced free agent signing of last summer. Got paid handsomely.

But it's largely irrelevant at this point. When the Leafs play well, Clarkson doesn't contribute. When the Leafs play poorly, Clarkson doesn't contribute. So if you're breaking down what's gone wrong the last few games, why would you dwell on a constant? It'd be like saying the Leafs are losing because Colton Orr isn't finding the back of the net.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

I've come to a realization over this season.  When it started I was under the mistaken impression that Clarkson wore the number 71 as kind of a tribute to Wendel Clark ..a way to wear his number ..without wearing his number.  This is a mistake..what i've now realized is the reason he wears 71 is due to the fact that he is Bizarro Wendel Clark.  I think using this logic everything makes sense.  Also by that metric he's having a terrific season and everyone should applaud how good he's been at his job

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Oh but just wait for the playoffs!

And I've never really understood that as a "compliment" to a player (and it has been said a few times regarding Clarkson).  If they show up in the playoffs, but aren't good in the regular season, how is that a positive of the player?  He didn't help them get to the playoffs, and in the case of a team that misses or nearly misses, that's a big deal.  If it's a sign of 'heart' it would seem to be a lack thereof.  Why couldn't this player help them to actually make the playoffs?

(I know you weren't arguing that about him, btw)

 

[Stickytape]

I've come to a realization over this season.  When it started I was under the mistaken impression that Clarkson wore the number 71 as kind of a tribute to Wendel Clark ..a way to wear his number ..without wearing his number.  This is a mistake..what i've now realized is the reason he wears 71 is due to the fact that he is Bizarro Wendel Clark.  I think using this logic everything makes sense.  Also by that metric he's having a terrific season and everyone should applaud how good he's been at his job

OMG you're right.

 

[louisstamos]

I've come to a realization over this season.  When it started I was under the mistaken impression that Clarkson wore the number 71 as kind of a tribute to Wendel Clark ..a way to wear his number ..without wearing his number.  This is a mistake..what i've now realized is the reason he wears 71 is due to the fact that he is Bizarro Wendel Clark.  I think using this logic everything makes sense.  Also by that metric he's having a terrific season and everyone should applaud how good he's been at his job

 

[hap_leaf]

I was surprised to see all the well wishing posters for him at the Prudential Center.  He obviously made an impact there. 

I think sometimes a player is just an incorrect match for a team's type of play.  The idea, I believe, was to get him engaged in the cycling down low play.  But the 2nd and 3rd lines have spent such little time in the offensive zone this year he really hasn't found a groove.

And maybe this all revolves around Bolland in a way that would have given Clarkson a chance to show what they can do in the cycle.

 

[Erndog]

I was surprised to see all the well wishing posters for him at the Prudential Center.  He obviously made an impact there. 

I think sometimes a player is just an incorrect match for a team's type of play.  The idea, I believe, was to get him engaged in the cycling down low play.  But the 2nd and 3rd lines have spent such little time in the offensive zone this year he really hasn't found a groove.

And maybe this all revolves around Bolland in a way that would have given Clarkson a chance to show what they can do in the cycle.

You are giving him far too much rope and credit.

David Clarkson can not play hockey.

 

[pnjunction]

Pick your cap poison

2019-2020 is screwed no matter what thanks to the salary structure.

2.95M in cap space next year would be nice, but 1.8M until 2026 ugh.

It's going to be pretty hard to resist 2 years of 5.17M savings in 2016 regardless of the lingering pain.

Does anyone else think they will soften on these buyout structures somehow?  The way they spike because of the salary structures is pretty cruel, I wonder if we'll see something like the compliance buyouts where they fudge the rules.  Same goes for recapture penalties on traded players.  I just don't see them actually going through with sticking Vancouver with 8M for a guy that they traded away 7 years ago.

 

[Erndog]

I'd be buying him out asap.

Why? 

Because it's inevitable.  So if it's bound to happen, do it immediately to get the cap relief immediately.

Why waste $5.25M in cap space next season when we could be saving around $3M we could put elsewhere... and we can play Ashton or Bodie in Clarksons spot and not lose a thing.

Yes, the 6 extra years around $1.8M would suck but the cap will be a lot higher then AND we've already been dealing with dead money for years (Tucker's $1M for 6 years, etc).  Not that big a deal.

 

[Kin]

I'd be buying him out asap.

Why? 

Because it's inevitable.  So if it's bound to happen, do it immediately to get the cap relief immediately.

Why waste $5.25M in cap space next season when we could be saving around $3M we could put elsewhere... and we can play Ashton or Bodie in Clarksons spot and not lose a thing.

Yes, the 6 extra years around $1.8M would suck but the cap will be a lot higher then AND we've already been dealing with dead money for years (Tucker's $1M for 6 years, etc).  Not that big a deal.

I think you've got to give him another year. I mean, unless his cap hit makes the team make some really tough decisions I think that if he gets one off-season after a year where he stunk this bad and comes back and can't contribute...then you talk about eating that kind of dead money. Even if the idea of this just being an off-year is a sort of fluky, wishful thinking kind of thing...I think you've got to give it a chance.

 

[pnjunction]

Yes we are in a bind now and the cap will be higher later, but what will we really accomplish with the cap hit now?  Is the team going to contend in the next 2 years?

Just saying that if one were pessimistic about the next few years, but wanted the team to have the best chance of winning in the future, leave the cap hits in 2020+ alone.

My take is the Leafs manage to screw themselves in the most amazing ways by making decisions with short-term mindset.  Yeah 1.8M cap hit is no Rask trade but it seems stupid to cripple future teams when this one isn't going anywhere fast.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd be buying him out asap.

Why? 

Because it's inevitable.  So if it's bound to happen, do it immediately to get the cap relief immediately.

Why waste $5.25M in cap space next season when we could be saving around $3M we could put elsewhere... and we can play Ashton or Bodie in Clarksons spot and not lose a thing.

Yes, the 6 extra years around $1.8M would suck but the cap will be a lot higher then AND we've already been dealing with dead money for years (Tucker's $1M for 6 years, etc).  Not that big a deal.

I think you've got to give him another year. I mean, unless his cap hit makes the team make some really tough decisions I think that if he gets one off-season after a year where he stunk this bad and comes back and can't contribute...then you talk about eating that kind of dead money. Even if the idea of this just being an off-year is a sort of fluky, wishful thinking kind of thing...I think you've got to give it a chance.

Yeah, they need to use this off-season to figure out how to effectively integrate him into the lineup.  They've got a $5.25 million guy who doesn't get any PP time, has seen his shots on goal plummet and can't do much on other lines.  I mean, it was fairly inevitable with the wingers the Leafs already had that pouring more money into the wings didn't make a lot of sense, even less with the amount Clarkson got to not even sniff PP time - but they've got to do something to try and wring some production out of him.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Yes we are in a bind now and the cap will be higher later, but what will we really accomplish with the cap hit now?  Is the team going to contend in the next 2 years?

Just saying that if one were pessimistic about the next few years, but wanted the team to have the best chance of winning in the future, leave the cap hits in 2020+ alone.

My take is the Leafs manage to screw themselves in the most amazing ways by making decisions with short-term mindset.  Yeah 1.8M cap hit is no Rask trade but it seems stupid to cripple future teams when this one isn't going anywhere fast.

Reading through the thread when he signed is a depressing experience.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

Yes we are in a bind now and the cap will be higher later, but what will we really accomplish with the cap hit now?  Is the team going to contend in the next 2 years?

Just saying that if one were pessimistic about the next few years, but wanted the team to have the best chance of winning in the future, leave the cap hits in 2020+ alone.

My take is the Leafs manage to screw themselves in the most amazing ways by making decisions with short-term mindset.  Yeah 1.8M cap hit is no Rask trade but it seems stupid to cripple future teams when this one isn't going anywhere fast.

Reading through the thread when he signed is a depressing experience.

David Clarkson:  A Depressing experience  ...could be a documentary on leafs tv

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I'd be buying him out asap.

Why? 

Because it's inevitable.  So if it's bound to happen, do it immediately to get the cap relief immediately.

Why waste $5.25M in cap space next season when we could be saving around $3M we could put elsewhere... and we can play Ashton or Bodie in Clarksons spot and not lose a thing.

Yes, the 6 extra years around $1.8M would suck but the cap will be a lot higher then AND we've already been dealing with dead money for years (Tucker's $1M for 6 years, etc).  Not that big a deal.

I think you've got to give him another year. I mean, unless his cap hit makes the team make some really tough decisions I think that if he gets one off-season after a year where he stunk this bad and comes back and can't contribute...then you talk about eating that kind of dead money. Even if the idea of this just being an off-year is a sort of fluky, wishful thinking kind of thing...I think you've got to give it a chance.

I'm with you.  I would like to see what he could with a different coach/system, assuming the Leafs go off the cliff and take Carlyle with him.  I don't think Clarkson has forgotten how to play hockey, so something is amiss.  Ken Daneyko's comments were interesting, talking about Clarkson coming from one of the most disciplined systems in the NHL to arguably the least disciplined.  Maybe he's on to something?

 

[93forever]

Bolland has 10 points in 17 games, same as Clarkson, but Bolland has 2 more goals than Clarkson.

Even if Clarkson isn't scoring I was hoping he would add some leadership to the team, but 3 lengthy losing streaks and lots of boneheaded penalties later I still cannot find any reason why he is earning 4 million.