David Clarkson

[Kin]

I think David Clarkson's year is indicative of a player getting a huge contract with a flagship team, which happens to also be his hometown, and letting all the hype go straight to his head. His play this season, or rather his lack of it, has been all 'between the ears'.

How can it be indicative of something you can't think of a single other occurrence of?

 

[Bullfrog]

I would be happy 10-15 goals,  if he did not fall down all the time

If he got 20 goals, I'd be fine with him falling as much as he wants.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

He had two good seasons where he scored at a .55 PPG clip over 128 games.  In the 298 games before that he scored at .34 PPG.  His career total before this season is .40 PPG, and this season it is .20 PPG.

 

[Kin]

Although, looking at those buyout numbers I have to say I'm now convinced that the Clarkson contract is justifiable karmic retribution for anyone who supported the owners and this ludicrous cap during either of the last two lockouts.

What I did to deserve the Clarkson contract, however, is anyone's guess.

 

[AvroArrow]

Maybe next season it becomes Lupul-Kadri-Clarkson.

And to quote myself, here's why that could be a bad idea:

http://theleafsnation.com/2014/4/3/he-fights-he-scores-goals-he-fights-he-s-a-drain-on-the-salary-cap

WOW, I knew he dragged the line down with him, but WOW.

Kadri's Pts/60 with Clarkson:  1.09
Kadri's Pts/60 without Clarkson:  2.04

 

[Redleaf]

I think David Clarkson's year is indicative of a player getting a huge contract with a flagship team, which happens to also be his hometown, and letting all the hype go straight to his head. His play this season, or rather his lack of it, has been all 'between the ears'.

How can it be indicative of something you can't think of a single other occurrence of?

You mean to tell me that you can't think of a single player that has had a bad season after signing a big contract with a new team? There is nothing else that I meant by 'indicative' than that.

 

[Kin]

You mean to tell me that you can't think of a single player that has had a bad season after signing a new contract with a new team? There is nothing else that I meant by 'indicative' than that.

I can think of lots of examples of players having bad seasons with new teams after signing as a UFA, the issue is that you're attributing it to mental factors vs. physical ones or being a poor fit with said new team in which case I am hard-pressed to name one off the top of my head. Certainly not one where "bad season" means a good hockey player being a bad hockey player as opposed to say, a really really good player having a sub-par but still relatively good season.

 

[Redleaf]

You mean to tell me that you can't think of a single player that has had a bad season after signing a new contract with a new team? There is nothing else that I meant by 'indicative' than that.

I can think of lots of examples of players having bad seasons with new teams after signing as a UFA, the issue is that you're attributing it to mental factors vs. physical ones or being a poor fit with said new team in which case I am hard-pressed to name one off the top of my head. Certainly not one where "bad season" means a good hockey player being a bad hockey player as opposed to say, a really really good player having a sub-par but still relatively good season.

I think its nearly always a mental issue when signing a big contract, especially in a new market. Some guys can live with it, others start thinking they have to alter their games to fulfill it. Clarkson is indicative of the latter.

 

[Champ Kind]

What I did to deserve the Clarkson contract, however, is anyone's guess.

You either support Ford Nation or hate puppies.

 

[Kin]

So if its not between the ears, than whats your theory?

I don't know that I have a single theory outside of Clarkson not being as good a player as advertised and his value being inflated due to:

1) The linemates and opportunities he received in New Jersey
2) The widespread overvaluing of players who can fight/do anything else well
3) The relatively poor choices on last year's UFA market who fit the Leafs' criteria

and then maybe some issues of him being a poor fit for the Leafs stylistically. I'm not an X's and O's guy though.

 

[Kin]

You either support Ford Nation or hate puppies.

Oh, I'm not saying there aren't reasons. I'm just not sure which of my many sins I'm going to be atoning for over the next seven years.

 

[freer]

I think David Clarkson's year is indicative of a player getting a huge contract with a flagship team, which happens to also be his hometown, and letting all the hype go straight to his head. His play this season, or rather his lack of it, has been all 'between the ears'.

How can it be indicative of something you can't think of a single other occurrence of?

You mean to tell me that you can't think of a single player that has had a bad season after signing a big contract with a new team? There is nothing else that I meant by 'indicative' than that.

Scott Gomez is one, Brad Richards does not look very good, neither is Gaborik's. there are just a few

 

[bustaheims]

Scott Gomez is one, Brad Richards does not look very good, neither is Gaborik's. there are just a few

Gomez put up 70 points in his first season as a Ranger. He was overpaid, but his play didn't really drop off until the 2nd season after he was traded to Montreal. In Gaborik's first season as a Ranger, he put up the highest point total of his career. Even Richards' 1st season as a Ranger was roughly in line with how he produced for most of his career - a little lower, but, playing for a heavily defensive minded team certainly influenced that. It certainly wasn't a disaster of a season by any stretch. None of these players fit the criteria of guys struggling in the season after signing a big contract.

 

[Damian]

Lets be honest, falling down all the time doesnt help

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

...Nonis should?ve been highly skeptical that Clarkson could repeat even that pedestrian performance for at least three reasons.

First, in 2011-12 Clarkson?s shooting percentage was 13.2 per cent and his ?true? shooting percentage (discussed in our March 20 column) was 8.5 per cent, both of which were much higher than his lifetime averages of 9.3 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. It?s exceptionally rare for a player who has been in the league for four years to significantly increase his shooting percentage on a sustained basis. At his historic averages, in 2011-12 Clarkson would have scored only 21 goals, not 30.

Second, Clarkson just turned 30, which is right around the time forwards? production starts dropping precipitously. According to advanced stats guru Eric Tulsky, production can be expected to drop to 80 per cent of a player?s peak at age 31, 70 per cent at age 32-33, and 60 per cent by age 35. So by the second year of the contract the Leafs should have expected Clarkson to generate around 30 points. By year six of the monstrous contract, it?d be closer to 22 points.

Third, Clarkson scored a boatload of his points in 2011-12 on the power play. This year he?s played just 20 per cent of Toronto?s power-play minutes. This obviously would further impact his productivity.

There is an ugly graph at the bottom of this too: link

 

[freer]

...Nonis should?ve been highly skeptical that Clarkson could repeat even that pedestrian performance for at least three reasons.

First, in 2011-12 Clarkson?s shooting percentage was 13.2 per cent and his ?true? shooting percentage (discussed in our March 20 column) was 8.5 per cent, both of which were much higher than his lifetime averages of 9.3 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. It?s exceptionally rare for a player who has been in the league for four years to significantly increase his shooting percentage on a sustained basis. At his historic averages, in 2011-12 Clarkson would have scored only 21 goals, not 30.

Second, Clarkson just turned 30, which is right around the time forwards? production starts dropping precipitously. According to advanced stats guru Eric Tulsky, production can be expected to drop to 80 per cent of a player?s peak at age 31, 70 per cent at age 32-33, and 60 per cent by age 35. So by the second year of the contract the Leafs should have expected Clarkson to generate around 30 points. By year six of the monstrous contract, it?d be closer to 22 points.

Third, Clarkson scored a boatload of his points in 2011-12 on the power play. This year he?s played just 20 per cent of Toronto?s power-play minutes. This obviously would further impact his productivity.

There is an ugly graph at the bottom of this too: link

Does any one still read that rag. Of course they say that now. They were all for the signing in the summer

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

...Nonis should?ve been highly skeptical that Clarkson could repeat even that pedestrian performance for at least three reasons.

First, in 2011-12 Clarkson?s shooting percentage was 13.2 per cent and his ?true? shooting percentage (discussed in our March 20 column) was 8.5 per cent, both of which were much higher than his lifetime averages of 9.3 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. It?s exceptionally rare for a player who has been in the league for four years to significantly increase his shooting percentage on a sustained basis. At his historic averages, in 2011-12 Clarkson would have scored only 21 goals, not 30.

Second, Clarkson just turned 30, which is right around the time forwards? production starts dropping precipitously. According to advanced stats guru Eric Tulsky, production can be expected to drop to 80 per cent of a player?s peak at age 31, 70 per cent at age 32-33, and 60 per cent by age 35. So by the second year of the contract the Leafs should have expected Clarkson to generate around 30 points. By year six of the monstrous contract, it?d be closer to 22 points.

Third, Clarkson scored a boatload of his points in 2011-12 on the power play. This year he?s played just 20 per cent of Toronto?s power-play minutes. This obviously would further impact his productivity.

There is an ugly graph at the bottom of this too: link

Does any one still read that rag. Of course they say that now. They were all for the signing in the summer

I don't think 'they' take an official position on player signings that can be attributed to every writer that works or may work there.

 

[Joe S.]

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.

 

[Highlander]

Hi Joe S.  Apart from the ludicrous money most of these free agents make, (most are not worth the $$$ spent), 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.
For whatever reason perhaps his suspension, playing in his backyard, the injury to Bolland, Carlyles system or to much attention to outside business details, have derailed our Dave C.
We are stuck with him so we better hope that he somehow becomes the pest and agitator he was, or that he ends up on long term injury and comes off the cap.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

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.