Dave Bolland

[Redleaf]

The guy hasn't been without mistakes. I don't think too many GMs are. But what I like about Nonis is that he hasn't sold the farm for reclamation projects and 'wanna be Leafs before they retire' guys like so many Leaf GMs did before him. He's been patient, kept most of his draft picks, and has put together,(along with Burke), the most talented squad of youngsters the Leafs have had in 'as long as anyone can remember'. I respect the fact that he hasn't sold out, and believe he's done a real good job all around.

Sure, but that seems to me a pretty low scratch for the GM of a young, rebuilding team to meet. And where he's made his mistakes, it seems to me, is precisely with cutting bait or over-committing to complementary players like Bolland. I don't know what the Clarkson signing was if not mismanaging assets (not picks or youth, but compliance buyouts and cap space) for a "wanna be a Leaf before he retires."

To each their own, but I think some people are putting entirely too much weight on the Clarkson contract when sizing up how well Nonis has done.

That was his big acquisition. What else of note has he done? Got rid of dead-weight Mikhail Grabovski, let Clarke MacArthur walk, turned a maybe-top-6 center prospect and a 2nd into a maybe-top-6 center prospect, traded one 4-6 D with a boat anchor contract into one that's worse and with more of an anchor contract... McLaren... I mean, the only positive improvement has been Bernier.

So, there's not that much evidence that he hasn't been pretty mistake prone since becoming GM. And if 80% of the decisions someone makes are poor, why would you appeal to his authority as a 'smart hockey man' arguing that the next one's going to be good?


And not that it's worth getting into Clarkson again, but:

How much is it really a reflection of Nonis abilities as a GM to judge talent when a player like Clarkson suddenly and surprisingly has by far the worst season of his career?

The extent of the drop off -- sub-fourth liner on a team with a 4th line -- was surprising. That he did fall off wasn't.

Are we really saying Nonis should have anticipated this happening and because he didn't he's now a bad GM? Had Clarkson performed as well as he has virtually every other season he's played in the NHL, there wouldn't be nearly as many critics of Nonis decision to sign him.

Yes, Nonis should've known there was going to be a drop off. I recall a few people noting how he was used in NJ -- particularly on the top PP unit -- as being incredibly important to his success there. Without that, those skeptical of his 1.5 excellent seasons said, he'd be 3rd line grinder, nowhere near worth a $5m+/season, buyout-proof contract. Time has proven them 'smarter hockey men' than Dave Nonis.

Let's not forget, Clarkson had more than a few suitors willing to offer him that very same contract and more.

Clarkson had one other suitor who wanted to give him "that very same contract and more": the GM of the Edmonton Oilers. So, Dave Nonis. Marginally smarter than the GM of the most inept organization in the league.

Wow. You are not a fan. I get it. So, who's the GM we need who is substantially smarter, and knows in advance when players careers are about to turn for the worse?

 

[mr grieves]

That was his big acquisition. What else of note has he done? Got rid of dead-weight Mikhail Grabovski, let Clarke MacArthur walk, turned a maybe-top-6 center prospect and a 2nd into a maybe-top-6 center prospect, traded one 4-6 D with a boat anchor contract into one that's worse and with more of an anchor contract... McLaren... I mean, the only positive improvement has been Bernier.

Is this supposed to be the Holland deal? Because Blacker wasn't a center.

That a quick way of describing Colborne getting moved out, Holland getting brought in. There's more reason to be hopeful Holland could pan out, which I could've noted.

But it should've been: Colborne, Blacker, a second, and seventh for Holland and a fourth.

 

[mr grieves]

Wow. You are not a fan. I get it. So, who's the GM we need who is substantially smarter, and knows in advance when players careers are about to turn for the worse?

If by 'fan' you mean someone who's going to look on everything a team does as optimistically as its management so as not to spoil the surprise when things turn out poorly, no... I'm not a fan.

 

[Redleaf]

Wow. You are not a fan. I get it. So, who's the GM we need who is substantially smarter, and knows in advance when players careers are about to turn for the worse?

If by 'fan' you mean someone who's going to look on everything a team does as optimistically as its management so as not to spoil the surprise when things turn out poorly, no... I'm not a fan.

Yeah.....I see where this is going.

 

[mr grieves]

Wow. You are not a fan. I get it. So, who's the GM we need who is substantially smarter, and knows in advance when players careers are about to turn for the worse?

If by 'fan' you mean someone who's going to look on everything a team does as optimistically as its management so as not to spoil the surprise when things turn out poorly, no... I'm not a fan.

Yeah.....I see where this is going.

Really? You should be a GM.

 

[Kin]

That a quick way of describing Colborne getting moved out, Holland getting brought in. There's more reason to be hopeful Holland could pan out, which I could've noted.

But it should've been: Colborne, Blacker, a second, and seventh for Holland and a fourth.

I guess. I'm not sure I see the need to amalgamate the moves. You could just as easily equate Mac with Raymond and the Grabo decision with the decision to retain Bozak.

 

[mr grieves]

That a quick way of describing Colborne getting moved out, Holland getting brought in. There's more reason to be hopeful Holland could pan out, which I could've noted.

But it should've been: Colborne, Blacker, a second, and seventh for Holland and a fourth.

I guess. I'm not sure I see the need to amalgamate the moves. You could just as easily equate Mac with Raymond and the Grabo decision with the decision to retain Bozak.

Well, no. No reason to combine particular moves in that way. I think it's sufficient to say that the additions haven't balanced the subtractions, and the team's not, as a result of those personnel moves, better in relation to the cap or on the ice.

 

[Kin]

Well, no. No reason to combine particular moves in that way. I think it's sufficient to say that the additions haven't balanced the subtractions, and the team's not, as a result of those personnel moves, better in relation to the cap or on the ice.

In total? If the very limited context we're looking at is whether or not this team, as presently constituted, has a better chance of being competitive than they did when Nonis took over I think the team is in a better position if only because of Bernier. That's a pretty marginal upgrade and certainly not enough to the point that I would call him a good GM or give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that the point is you can't tangibly "overlook" something that likely isn't attributable.

Basically, yeah. I mean, you can't really look at Burke's time as GM and point out specific things that Nonis did entirely on his own - and, by that, I mean he initiated, negotiated and executed entirely independently. In the absence of that, all you really have is a pretty vague statement about moves he was part of to an unknown degree.

 

[bustaheims]

Had Clarkson performed as well as he has virtually every other season he's played in the NHL, there wouldn't be nearly as many critics of Nonis decision to sign him. Let's not forget, Clarkson had more than a few suitors willing to offer him that very same contract and more.

Even if Clarkson had performed at the level he had for most of his NHL career, the contract would still have been a substantial overpayment and 3 seasons too long. Just because other GMs were willing to make the same mistake does not absolve Nonis of making it.

 

[Redleaf]

Had Clarkson performed as well as he has virtually every other season he's played in the NHL, there wouldn't be nearly as many critics of Nonis decision to sign him. Let's not forget, Clarkson had more than a few suitors willing to offer him that very same contract and more.

Even if Clarkson had performed at the level he had for most of his NHL career, the contract would still have been a substantial overpayment and 3 seasons too long. Just because other GMs were willing to make the same mistake does not absolve Nonis of making it.

Yep. Clarkson was a bad, bad, bad, bad contract. Did I say bad? BAD.

The fact that Nonis signed him to that deal, makes him a terrible GM. Terrible, terrible, terrible. BAD.

Got it...

 

[hap_leaf]

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.

Well, that's just not true. Every good team has bad contracts. Look at the two teams in the finals. Both are reported to be interested in using their compliance buyouts on the various Richardses.

Well, that is a limited time offer and they must choose to use it soon or it expires.  They would be wise to explore all possibilities to use what's been given to them.

And those contracts, if considered bad, are not an impact to their teams as evidenced by their team's success.
The Leafs, however, instead of having just a bad contract on a useful player, have a bad contract on a bad player.

At least the Richardses have some pedigree.
Brad Richards 51 pts; Career High: 91 pts (twice); Accomplishments: Stanley Cup/Conn Smythe
Mike Richards 41 pts;  Career High: 75 pts; Accomplishments: Two Stanley Cups/ Olympic Gold
Poopypants Clarkson 11 pts; Career High: 46 pts; Accomplishments: possibly a bowling trophy from high school.

 

[Kin]

Well, that is a limited time offer and they must choose to use it soon or it expires.  They would be wise to explore all possibilities to use what's been given to them.

Right. But they're going to use them because they're bad contracts.

And those contracts, if considered bad, are not an impact to their teams as evidenced by their team's success.

Right. Good teams can overcome a bad contract. Every contract does not need to be perfect.

 

[bustaheims]

Right. Good teams can overcome a bad contract. Every contract does not need to be perfect.

I think even you'd grant there's a difference between those contracts and Clarkson. Good teams can overcome bad contracts because even the players they have on bad contracts still contribute - just not to the value of they're being paid. The real issue here is that good teams don't have players on their roster than don't contribute - and they especially don't overpay those players to not contribute. They don't have boat anchor contracts like Clarkson's.

 

[Kin]

I think even you'd grant there's a difference between those contracts and Clarkson. Good teams can overcome bad contracts because even the players they have on bad contracts still contribute - just not to the value of they're being paid. The real issue here is that good teams don't have players on their roster than don't contribute - and they especially don't overpay those players to not contribute. They don't have boat anchor contracts like Clarkson's.

Well, look, right now Clarkson's contract looks like the worst in the entire sport because, as you say, he didn't contribute at all last year and was probably a net negative for the club compared to, say, giving someone like Ashton or D'Amigo his minutes. So it'd be impossible for me to refute what you're saying by pointing to a good team with a comparably bad contract not because bad teams don't have bad contracts but because there's really no comparable contract out there right now.

Do I think the Clarkson contract is an impediment to the Leafs' success? Yes. Absolutely. There's no way around it at this point. Do I think, however, that a 5.25 million cap hit for, essentially, nothing makes it impossible for a team to be good? No. With a 69-71 million dollar cap a team could eat that kind of money and be competitive if they were well built elsewhere so the reason I responded the way I did to that post is that we shouldn't oversell the importance of Clarkson's deal as bad as it is. I was responding to someone who said there was no way to overstate the debilitating impact of the Clarkson deal when the difference between Clarkson and other overpaid 4th liners like Dany Heatley or Daniel Briere(even acknowledging the term of Clarkson's deal) isn't as big a problem as the difference between the rest of the roster and that of the competitive teams.

To put it another way, if instead of Clarkson the Leafs had been hit with a 5.25 million dollar cap penalty for the next seven years it would be a bad thing, yes, but I don't think we'd throw our hands up and say building a competitive team was impossible.

 

[Corn Flake]

Had Clarkson performed as well as he has virtually every other season he's played in the NHL, there wouldn't be nearly as many critics of Nonis decision to sign him. Let's not forget, Clarkson had more than a few suitors willing to offer him that very same contract and more.

Even if Clarkson had performed at the level he had for most of his NHL career, the contract would still have been a substantial overpayment and 3 seasons too long. Just because other GMs were willing to make the same mistake does not absolve Nonis of making it.

Yep. Clarkson was a bad, bad, bad, bad contract. Did I say bad? BAD.

The fact that Nonis signed him to that deal, makes him a terrible GM. Terrible, terrible, terrible. BAD.

Got it...

Also, Clarkson will never ever again be able to contribute anything at any point in the next 6 years. It is completely impossible. No chance whatsoever.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What busta said there wasn't even hyperbolic, not sure why it got such hyperbolic responses.  His career numbers did make his contract an overpayment and too long, how is that worth mocking responses?  I could see if it was something ridiculous that was said, but that was a pretty common viewpoint of a lot of people when it was signed and not particularly unreasonable.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Also, Clarkson will never ever again be able to contribute anything at any point in the next 6 years. It is completely impossible. No chance whatsoever.

I've been praying to Hockey Jeebus for 3-4 months that he can empower Clarkson to overcome impossibility next season.

EDIT: No mocking here, I've literally been praying for it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Also, Clarkson will never ever again be able to contribute anything at any point in the next 6 years. It is completely impossible. No chance whatsoever.

I've been praying to Hockey Jeebus for 3-4 months that he can empower Clarkson to overcome impossibility next season.

EDIT: No mocking here, I've literally been praying for it.

Yeah, sometimes the reality is there is no positive spin to a situation and it is only negative.  That's how this one is right now.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Yeah, sometimes the reality is there is no positive spin to a situation and it is only negative.  That's how this one is right now.

Yes, we're stuck with him, so the only positive would be him improving his game to at least a 30-40 point forward, overpaid status won't change.

As for Bolland, am I the only one that likes him at 4-4.5 a season here? I see this as the only way we're keeping him. Somebody is going to offer more, but it at least gives Bolland the choice to stay here, or if he wants the cash, leave.

Best case scenario; 3 year deal at 4 million per, but I doubt he takes that.