David Clarkson - Signs with Maple Leafs

[Mot the Barber]

Another Armstrong type player.  Physical and a pretty good player but will probably end up being injured 90% of the time until he gets traded/bought out, retires or is forgotten somewhere on the waiver wires.  What a waste.  At least Grabbo had a few more years left in him.  He was at least of some use. 

The best part of Clarkson will be when the Leafs finally rid themselves of this overpaid and underperforming player, like they do so often and then get lauded by Leafs fans for doing so.  It's sad when the most celebrated part of this organization is when they get rid of crap players that they stupidly acquired years before.  Truly the expectations are low in this town.

 

[TML fan]

Phil Kessel is a one dimensional goal scorer who can't do anything without a top centre feeding him the puck...wait? Are we on Clarkson now? Keeping track of players who suck before even playing a game for the team is a full time job...

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Phil Kessel is a one dimensional goal scorer who can't do anything without a top centre feeding him the puck...wait? Are we on Clarkson now? Keeping track of players who suck before even playing a game for the team is a full time job...

Except Kessel was a 5th overall pick and very young still coming off impressive NHL scoring numbers already, so those criticisms were always fairly silly, whereas those of a 29 year old Clarkson would seem more valid to me.

Also, questioning the value of a player does not mean the player "sucks."

 

[lamajama]

Another Armstrong type player.  Physical and a pretty good player but will probably end up being injured 90% of the time until he gets traded/bought out, retires or is forgotten somewhere on the waiver wires.  What a waste.  At least Grabbo had a few more years left in him.  He was at least of some use. 

The best part of Clarkson will be when the Leafs finally rid themselves of this overpaid and underperforming player, like they do so often and then get lauded by Leafs fans for doing so.  It's sad when the most celebrated part of this organization is when they get rid of crap players that they stupidly acquired years before.  Truly the expectations are low in this town.

His past history (unlike Horton) does not tend to indicate he's got injury issues - or will have in the future despite his playing style.

 

[mr grieves]

Another Armstrong type player.  Physical and a pretty good player but will probably end up being injured 90% of the time until he gets traded/bought out, retires or is forgotten somewhere on the waiver wires.  What a waste.  At least Grabbo had a few more years left in him.  He was at least of some use. 

The best part of Clarkson will be when the Leafs finally rid themselves of this overpaid and underperforming player, like they do so often and then get lauded by Leafs fans for doing so.  It's sad when the most celebrated part of this organization is when they get rid of crap players that they stupidly acquired years before.  Truly the expectations are low in this town.

His past history (unlike Horton) does not tend to indicate he's got injury issues - or will have in the future despite his playing style.

Read cw's post again. You don't need a history of injuries to be ineffective at 33 playing the way Clarkson does. Bodies break down faster playing Clarkson's game.

Conditioning and medical staffs are better than they used to be, but players also bigger and faster by then. So, that might be a wash.

If he's able to keep it up for three years, the Leafs will have a good player for 3 years. I don't think anyone's saying the wheels are about to come off, but to think he's going to make it to 37 is being pretty hopeful. I don't even think Nonis thinks he'll be around doing much then, or he wouldn't have said "he's still got some good years ahead of him," "Even if he's not a 30 goal scorer...," or "7 years is the price you have to pay to be in for a guy like this."

 

[Kin]

Gritty guys don't age well in the NHL. They tend to have a much shorter wick because they wear down and become injury prone/chronically injured much sooner. Darcy Tucker reached the place where he couldn't play up to his cap hit long before 40 (although $3 mil wasn't a true boat anchor) and he's 38 today, ending his career at 35. Ditto for Colby Armstrong - who was a heart and soul guy until he got hurt playing for the Leafs. Happened with Wendel Clark -really before he was 30 though he ended his career around 33. The only guy I can think of off hand who enjoyed a long career and kept doing it to some degree was Gary Roberts - I'm sure there are a few exceptions. Tucker lasted a little longer than he might have but he largely stopped playing gritty, lost his feisty edge and became a perimeter player/goal suck towards the end. Leafs bought him out when he was 33 or so. Leafs bought out Colby Armstrong when he was 28 or so.

I don't know. I think that's sort of a conclusion we come to without really having the sort of data we'd need to say anything conclusively about it. Especially now when medicine and sports science are evolving along with the game. Do a lot of physical players lose their effectiveness in their early 30's? Guys who continue a high level of play into their late 30's are a rarity regardless of how or what they play. Look at what's happened to Tomas Kaberle since he hit 32. I don't know that I've seen enough of a pattern in the league at large to say that gritty players are any more or less susceptible to it.

Regardless there are flipsides to that. If 36 or sooner can legitimately be considered a reasonable retirement age for a player with Clarkson's style then the possibility exists that he'll retire before it concludes. Again, my point here isn't that 7 years doesn't have risk. My point is that the difference in term between the deal Clarkson signed and the deal that we might have ideally wanted him to sign doesn't carry with it a ton more risk.

 

[sneakyray]

tomas holmstrom made a career out of being beat up in front of the net and produced well into his late 30's.  Look at mike knuble's stats...the guy was a banger and had 9 20+ goal seasons (many closer to 30) all after the age of 30.

so it can be done.

and clarkson has no injury history.

 

[bustaheims]

and clarkson has no injury history.

Well, sure, if you ignore the broken leg that caused him to miss half of the 09/10 season.

 

[sneakyray]

and clarkson has no injury history.

Well, sure, if you ignore the broken leg that caused him to miss half of the 09/10 season.

yes, sorry...shoddy research on my part

 

[mr grieves]

But that's largely beside the point. Considering that this was brought up using Clarkson's contract in direct comparison to Luongo's saying "Oh, but I'm not saying it should be compared to Luongo's of course" as you defend the attitude is pretty transparent.

It was brought up when someone hear reported a bit of ****-talking they were getting from a Canuck's fan! And it was, as I understood it, to illustrate how some are reacting to Clarkson's contract. I know you won't believe it coming from me, but you're the one being obtuse here.

But the kettle didn't show up to call the pot black. Fun salary stuff below!

It's among the biggest UFA contracts under the new CBA.

Which is 5 months old and hasn't seen any big name free agents actually reach UFA status. Guys are signing for 55, 60, 65 million over 8 years basically every day. That makes Clarkson's deal is just over half as valuable as the most valuable deals being signed. It's basically Ville Leino's deal a year or so removed. That might not speak to how good a deal it is but the changes to the CBA don't actually make the deal any bigger. It's still pretty comparable to a lot of deals that a lot of mid-tier free agents have signed and, as evidenced today, will continue to sign. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about the deal.

Come now. I know you want to feel good about the contract, and I'm on board with its becoming a more manageable cap burden -- and perhaps a cap insignificance -- in a few years. But don't let the need to say how the contract won't cripple the Leafs get in the way of understanding how crazy the contract is.

If you're going to jump on people for suggesting it's impossible to say both Clarkson's and Lou's contracts are crazy on money, term, and value -- that even in that respect, "Clarkson's contract is nothing like Luongo's,"  don't point to franchise centermen's or Norris candidates' being locked up by their teams.

At his position -- wing -- Clarkson has the 27th highest cap hit in the league, and 20th if you eliminate the RFA contracts. In terms of total value, there are only eight UFA wingers with richer contracts, and they are:

Corey Perry,
Marion Hossa,
Marion Gaborik,
Nathan Horton,
Zach Parise,
Danny Heatley,
Ilya Kovalchuk,
and Rick Nash.

Those who signed bigger contracts during their RFA years are Thomas Vanek, Taylor Hall, and Alex Ovechkin. And that's it. Pick a winger you like more than any of the above. Any winger at all... That guy's making less than Dave Clarkson.

And Dave Clarkson's had one 40 point season in his career and is 29 years old.

Yes, it's kind of a crazy contract.

And in so far as it's kind of crazy, it's kind of like Lou's.

 

[Kin]

It was brought up when someone hear reported a bit of ****-talking they were getting from a Canuck's fan!

Yes, in relation to Luongo's. Come on, man.

Come now. I know you want to feel good about the contract...

I've already said repeatedly I don't like the contract. I know that's hard for you to get but not everyone has an agenda they're relentlessly pushing.

If you're going to jump on people for suggesting it's impossible to say both Clarkson's and Lou's contracts are crazy on money, term, and value -- that even in that respect, "Clarkson's contract is nothing like Luongo's,"  don't point to franchise centermen's or Norris candidates' being locked up by their teams.

Why? It illustrates a very basic point here. Clarkson did not get the contract of an elite player. There really isn't any argument there. Pointing to the contracts of elite players and pointing out the vast, significant discrepancy between them is to highlight that fact. Elite players receive contracts that are 80% more valuable than the one Clarkson got. Clarkson got the contract of a sought after middle-tier free agent adjusted for inflation. No more, no less.

At his position -- wing -- Clarkson has the 27th highest cap hit in the league, and 20th if you eliminate the RFA contracts.

Because of the nature of the salary cap, the players who are likeliest to have the highest cap hits are the ones who signed their contracts recently. Most RFA's earn significantly less than they'd earn on the free agent market. Prior to the lockout, lots of players signed contracts where in exchange for lucrative up front money the AAV was artificially lowered.

So, yes. The guy who was the most sought after UFA in the first UFA class since backdiving deals were largely eliminated has a high AAV compared to a lot of guys who signed deals before him. But there's nothing outlandish about his cap hit. His cap hit is lower than the one Daniel Alfredsson, the 40 year old who scored 26 points last year, has.

Yes, it's kind of a crazy contract.

The only thing I've written in defense of the contract has really boiled down to the opinion that the difference between what was even the most optimistic person could have reasonably hoped Clarkson would sign for and what he did sign for is not the difference between sane and crazy. It's the difference between reasonable and 2 or 3 years and a million or so more dollars at most. A seven year contract takes Clarkson to the age of 36, an age where lots of hockey players play well. Luongo's takes him to 43. You say "Yeah, but, the Leafs couldn't give him Luongo's term so they're both crazy"

No. No, Luongo's contract was so crazy not allowing more of its type was a major sticking point in the collective bargaining process that cancelled half the season. The NHL's aim, which they largely succeeded at, was to get crazy contracts out of the game.

The guy who drinks the most at the office christmas party is not "kind of" like Keith Moon.

 

[hockeyfan1]

 

[moon111]

I think this goes from being an okay signing to an excellent signing if he grows a proper porn-stach.

 

[freer]

Another Armstrong type player.  Physical and a pretty good player but will probably end up being injured 90% of the time until he gets traded/bought out, retires or is forgotten somewhere on the waiver wires.  What a waste.  At least Grabbo had a few more years left in him.  He was at least of some use. 

The best part of Clarkson will be when the Leafs finally rid themselves of this overpaid and underperforming player, like they do so often and then get lauded by Leafs fans for doing so.  It's sad when the most celebrated part of this organization is when they get rid of crap players that they stupidly acquired years before.  Truly the expectations are low in this town.

His past history (unlike Horton) does not tend to indicate he's got injury issues - or will have in the future despite his playing style.

Read cw's post again. You don't need a history of injuries to be ineffective at 33 playing the way Clarkson does. Bodies break down faster playing Clarkson's game.

Conditioning and medical staffs are better than they used to be, but players also bigger and faster by then. So, that might be a wash.

If he's able to keep it up for three years, the Leafs will have a good player for 3 years. I don't think anyone's saying the wheels are about to come off, but to think he's going to make it to 37 is being pretty hopeful. I don't even think Nonis thinks he'll be around doing much then, or he wouldn't have said "he's still got some good years ahead of him," "Even if he's not a 30 goal scorer...," or "7 years is the price you have to pay to be in for a guy like this."

I don't see Clarkson being here to long.. A couple more years playing the way he does . Just ask Neale and Clark

 

[Erndog]

Curious, why is something like $27M of the deal in signning bonuses?  His NHL salary each year is like $1M or $2M.... he gets big signning bonuses each year.

Just wondering if anyone knows why they (or Clarkson's agent) structured the deal that way.

(Bozak has $2M each season in signning bonus as well).

 

[Bullfrog]

They can take the money and invest it at the beginning of the season??  :-\

 

[Erndog]

Yeah, just curious.  Was wondering if there would be any benefit to the team.

Also, anyone sort of feel like Clarkson/Bolland is a little reminiscent of the summer we signed Roberts/Corson? 

 

[Zee]

Yeah, just curious.  Was wondering if there would be any benefit to the team.

Also, anyone sort of feel like Clarkson/Bolland is a little reminiscent of the summer we signed Roberts/Corson?

I thought the same thing, if Clarkson can have the sort of success Roberts brought to the Leafs I'd be more than happy.  Corson...not so much.  Bernier the new Cujo?  How many more parallels can we draw?  Any Sundin's out there?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Curious, why is something like $27M of the deal in signning bonuses?  His NHL salary each year is like $1M or $2M.... he gets big signning bonuses each year.

Just wondering if anyone knows why they (or Clarkson's agent) structured the deal that way.

(Bozak has $2M each season in signning bonus as well).

Richard Peddie actually talked a little about this on twitter the other day. I meant to mention it but forgot. Apparently when Grunwald was the Raptors GM he started to structure contracts like that because it's much more benefical to a player when it comes to taxes. So that way the Raptors would be on a more even playing field with some of the American teams that have better tax breaks.

 

[losveratos]

Curious, why is something like $27M of the deal in signning bonuses?  His NHL salary each year is like $1M or $2M.... he gets big signning bonuses each year.

Just wondering if anyone knows why they (or Clarkson's agent) structured the deal that way.

(Bozak has $2M each season in signning bonus as well).

It's actually a smart play we'll probably see more of. Especially across multiple players on a team in the future. It allows you to make some wiggle room by pushing bous money into the next year as a penalty if you needed that extra little bit for a trade at the deadline... or a player comes back early from an injury. It's definitely something I'm happy the leafs did.

So to simplify it's good because you can pay the bonus money that went over the cap the next year if you have problems.