David Clarkson

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I'm not sure they've found the right players for him to play with yet.

Kadri looks to have zero chemistry with him.

On the positive side, he's shown that he hits a lot, can control the puck along the boards in the offensive zone and cycle well, can tip with the best of them and displayed a heck of a shot on his first goal. The guy has a skill set.

On the negative side, he's been suspended 10 games and has yet to produce much on the score sheet. He's had too many games where he's been invisible.

I think with the right coaching, he's a player who can be used very effectively as he has many tools to draw on.

The problem I see is that this is a rush team (Kessel, JVR, Kadri, Lupul) and they just don't play a cycle game. The person who's closest to playing that style is JVR. I wonder if we'd see more success out of:

Kessel- Kadri - Lupul
Clarkson - Bolland - JVR
Raymond - Bozak - Kuli

Until Bolland returns I'd put Bozak with JVR and Clarkson (though we don't have Lupul either ATM).

A $5M dollar player shouldn't have to rely on the other people on his line for his production necessarily but with Clarkson I think that will be the case for the whole of his Maple Leafs career.

 

[TML fan]

It would be interesting to see MacArthur's point pace if he were playing for the Leafs right now. I doubt it would be consistent with what he's doing in Ottawa.

 

[TML fan]

It's not hard to see what's affecting Clarkson's performance. He's a horrible skater. He can't keep up with the rush game. He's often the only guy going down low to get the puck and nobody is crashing the net, so hea not picking up any assists that way. Since the Leafs don't control the puck in the offensive zone he's not getting opportunities for garbage goals which is his bread and butter.

Again, playing a more aggressive style will benefit Clarkson's game. He's a horrible fit for the current passive defensive system the Leafs employ.

 

[L K]

Clarkson benefitted from one season of strong production.  Aside from a stretch from November 2011-February 2013 he really is a 3rd line point producer.  I am not surprised in the least by his lack of production at this point.

First 5 years: 298GP 52G 48A 100P (82GP 14G 13A 27P)

He started off 2011 as usual with 2G 1A in 9GP but then:

Oct'11-Feb'13: 85GP 38G 21A 59P (82GP 37G 20A 57P)

Since then: 51GP 7G 6A 13P (82GP 11G 10A 21P)

So overall we have 85 games of 37G/20A/57P production versus 349GP of 14G/13A 27P pace production.

We are never going to get full value on his contract offensively, so ultimately he's going to have to be a heck of a lot more physical during the play if he is going to justify being anything more than an anchor on the cap.

Just as a comparison.  Unproven/small sample size Nazem Kadri from 2011-2013 = 76GP 26G 40A 66P.  So more productive in a smaller sample size, but he had more to prove (which I agree).  On the other hand, Clarkson put up numbers over a small period of time and cashed in on it even as he wasn't producing those numbers.  A bad signing all around.

 

[TML fan]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

 

[mc]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

Numbers aside, the guy is invisible out there most of the games he has played.

 

[TML fan]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

Numbers aside, the guy is invisible out there most of the games he has played.

Well, if we're talking about the defensive zone, I would agree he's not a very good defensive player. Generally though, I completely disagree. Often he's the only guy in the offensive zone while everyone else is having a tea party at the Leafs' blue line. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Clarkson is the only guy on the entire team I notice without the puck.

 

[mr grieves]

I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey.

Yeah, wouldn't blame Clarkson for this. But isn't it something management should've anticipated when putting together its roster? I mean, I get that Clarkson plays a way that Nonis/Carlyle value, that they aspire to be grinding/ cycling team, but they're not really. And adding David Clarkson doesn't change that, not when the rest of your scoring lines are Kadri, Lupul, Kessel, JvR, and Raymond.

 

[mc]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

Numbers aside, the guy is invisible out there most of the games he has played.

Well, if we're talking about the defensive zone, I would agree he's not a very good defensive player. Generally though, I completely disagree. Often he's the only guy in the offensive zone while everyone else is having a tea party at the Leafs' blue line. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Clarkson is the only guy on the entire team I notice without the puck.

LOL! Don't know which game you are watching. If you had said all the games he played against the Leafs while a Devil, I would have agreed with you. He seems completely lost out there as Leafs.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

Numbers aside, the guy is invisible out there most of the games he has played.

Well, if we're talking about the defensive zone, I would agree he's not a very good defensive player. Generally though, I completely disagree. Often he's the only guy in the offensive zone while everyone else is having a tea party at the Leafs' blue line. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Clarkson is the only guy on the entire team I notice without the puck.

LOL! Don't know which game you are watching. If you had said all the games he played against the Leafs while a Devil, I would have agreed with you. He seems completely lost out there as Leafs.

I disagree. There have been games where Clarkson has single handedly controlled the puck along the offensive boards by himself. He's looked dominant, at times, without the finish.

He's had games where he's invisible as well, but I think that's because his line is unable to establish any offensive zone presence (turn the puck over before they hit the blue line, dump and chase but don't retrieve the puck). Kadri and Raymond aren't exactly guys who play that style.

I feel for the guy because the expectations are unrealistic with the teams style of play. I blame Carlyle and Nonis for that. The only line that brings some of that style was Bolland-Kulemin (Raymond not so much at the time).

Maybe that'll be the line that succeeds in pinning teams in their own end and playing a cycle game vs. the rush lines of Kessel-Bozak-JVR and Lupul-Kadri-Raymond.

Let's hope....

 

[TML fan]

I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey.

Yeah, wouldn't blame Clarkson for this. But isn't it something management should've anticipated when putting together its roster? I mean, I get that Clarkson plays a way that Nonis/Carlyle value, that they aspire to be grinding/ cycling team, but they're not really. And adding David Clarkson doesn't change that, not when the rest of your scoring lines are Kadri, Lupul, Kessel, JvR, and Raymond.

Honestly, no I wouldn't have expected them to anticipate that the Leafs would play like this. Not after how they played the majority of their playoff series vs Boston. I've said this before but I believe the Leafs were the better team in that series and it was their reversion to a collapsing defensive system that cost them game 7. In fact, I think the addition of Clarkson was an acknowledgement that they need to play an aggressive offensive style.

My honest opinion of Carlyle boils down to this: he's stubborn. Plain and simple. They realized that they weren't going to be able to contain Boston and so they played out of their usual element for that series and even though it worked, I think Carlyle is set in his ways and this is how he wants his team to play defence. Unfortunately when you do that you are suffocating your offence, and so while Carlyle says he wants the Leafs to forecheck and cycle, their defensive set up makes those two things incompatible. The Leafs simply aren't good enough to do both effectively. It has to be one or the other.

Sorry I kind of went off topic a bit there. But essentially I think the Leafs made the right move getting Clarkson, or at least they did it for the right reasons. There is a disconnect of how management has put together te team and how it is deployed on the ice.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey.

Yeah, wouldn't blame Clarkson for this. But isn't it something management should've anticipated when putting together its roster? I mean, I get that Clarkson plays a way that Nonis/Carlyle value, that they aspire to be grinding/ cycling team, but they're not really. And adding David Clarkson doesn't change that, not when the rest of your scoring lines are Kadri, Lupul, Kessel, JvR, and Raymond.

If you consider the fact that they are not done filling out this roster, as Nonis has stated several times, you would have to think they would like a mixture of gritty players to balance out with the players you've mentioned here. Clarkson's just one piece. I would suggest that they are looking for more players with similar attributes as Clarkson, hopefully with better skillsets.

 

[TML fan]

There's more to his game than just the numbers. That what the Leafs paid for. I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey. I understand what the expectations are but they have to be tied into the performance of the team and measured based on that. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been getting tons of opportunities when 2/3s of the games are being played in the Leafs' end.

If on the other hand, the Leafs were generating tons of chances and Clarkson wasn't getting in on any of them, or was and wasn't making anything happen, then I would be concerned, but at this point in time it would take some pretty heavy convincing to get me to see it that way.

Numbers aside, the guy is invisible out there most of the games he has played.

Well, if we're talking about the defensive zone, I would agree he's not a very good defensive player. Generally though, I completely disagree. Often he's the only guy in the offensive zone while everyone else is having a tea party at the Leafs' blue line. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Clarkson is the only guy on the entire team I notice without the puck.

LOL! Don't know which game you are watching. If you had said all the games he played against the Leafs while a Devil, I would have agreed with you. He seems completely lost out there as Leafs.

Ok well I'm pretty sure I'm watching the Leafs play. To be honest the whole team looks lost. Perhaps we just see things differently? Personally, and while I understand that this is a results based business, I feel like a lot of the things Clarkson does don't get results because the team is not in the correct position to best make use of what he generates. It's possible to do everything right and still have nothing come of it, or even have a negative result.

 

[TML fan]

@ Chev:

I actually think Raymond is really good on the cycle. He does run into trouble against more physical defencemen, but he's shifty and has good hands. He controls the puck very well. Lack of puck support is usually what burns him when he does get physically outmatched.

 

[moon111]

IMHO, one of the Leaf's strengths are they're really good or really poor in positions.  Some knocked the Kessel trade, but I think having that #1 RW spot filled by someone like him is such a hard part of the puzzle.  Clarkson is the type you want as well.  Now if they could round out the roster... which might happen as the cap goes up, Tucker and Armstrong comes off the books... things become much more interesting.

Haven't we waited long enough for a winner?

Emotionally, yes.  Reality, no.  Since 1993, what Canadian team has been in more playoff rounds?  Long success, long drought.  Leafs haven't had enough top 10 draft picks to be a winner.

 

[mr grieves]

I'm finding it hard to blame him entirely for his lack of production given the way the Leafs play hockey.

Yeah, wouldn't blame Clarkson for this. But isn't it something management should've anticipated when putting together its roster? I mean, I get that Clarkson plays a way that Nonis/Carlyle value, that they aspire to be grinding/ cycling team, but they're not really. And adding David Clarkson doesn't change that, not when the rest of your scoring lines are Kadri, Lupul, Kessel, JvR, and Raymond.

Honestly, no I wouldn't have expected them to anticipate that the Leafs would play like this. Not after how they played the majority of their playoff series vs Boston. I've said this before but I believe the Leafs were the better team in that series and it was their reversion to a collapsing defensive system that cost them game 7. In fact, I think the addition of Clarkson was an acknowledgement that they need to play an aggressive offensive style.

My honest opinion of Carlyle boils down to this: he's stubborn. Plain and simple. They realized that they weren't going to be able to contain Boston and so they played out of their usual element for that series and even though it worked, I think Carlyle is set in his ways and this is how he wants his team to play defence. Unfortunately when you do that you are suffocating your offence, and so while Carlyle says he wants the Leafs to forecheck and cycle, their defensive set up makes those two things incompatible. The Leafs simply aren't good enough to do both effectively. It has to be one or the other.

Sorry I kind of went off topic a bit there. But essentially I think the Leafs made the right move getting Clarkson, or at least they did it for the right reasons. There is a disconnect of how management has put together te team and how it is deployed on the ice.

Yeah, I generally agree with your characterization of the game 7 collapse, how the team's playing now, and what they're doing that makes it so.

But I still don't know that they had the complimentary pieces this off-season to make Clarkson work. Who on the team can play with him? Who can retrieve the puck well, move it well on the boards, and set someone like Clarkson up? He's useless on the rush -- a pass five feet behind Lupul a few games ago lingers in my mind -- and besides maybe Bolland, sometimes Raymond, occasionally Kadri, and in principle (though not often in fact) JvR, the skill players don't really play this way. The ones that can all come with caveats. And, at their best, the Leafs didn't really play Clarkson's game against Boston.

You know who played that game a couple seasons back, and seems to this season, and might've looked nice alongside Clarkson? Grabovski. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

Clarkson on an 82 game pace for 24 points, and a 72 game pace for 21 points.  MacArthur has 20 points already for Ottawa.

Clarkson's going to have to REALLY turn it up if he wants to change perceptions and have an impact.  His deal could go south very quickly.

For comparing players I always thought that:
3rd line $5.5 MIL Center Grabovski was bought out and replaced with 3rd line $3.375 MIL center Bolland:
Grabovski - 27 gp  8 goals
Bolland - 15 gp  6 goals

3rd line $3.25 MIL LW MacArthur was replaced with 3rd line $1 MIL LW Raymond:
MacArthur - 26 gp  8  goals
Raymomd  -  27 gp  9  goals

3rd line $0.875 MIL RW Frattin was replaced with 3rd line $5.25 MIL RW Clarkson:
Frattin - 22 gp  2  goals
Clarkson - 27 gp 2  goals

I honestly felt the other 2 players were effectively replaced at a cap savings.

On the other hand, Clarkson is currently playing well below 3rd line expectations number-wise.  I thought that this year he would get 15 goals and 25 assists with his rugged play and he still might.  That still wouldn't justify his salary but would at least be a respectable point total for a 3rd line player.  I mean Clarkson really looks bad at this point for the Leafs as Frattin is starting to be considered a bust at less that $1 MIL and he has matched Clarkson's output. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Clarkson on an 82 game pace for 24 points, and a 72 game pace for 21 points.  MacArthur has 20 points already for Ottawa.

Clarkson's going to have to REALLY turn it up if he wants to change perceptions and have an impact.  His deal could go south very quickly.

For comparing players I always thought that:
3rd line $5.5 MIL Center Grabovski was bought out and replaced with 3rd line $3.375 MIL center Bolland:
Grabovski - 27 gp  8 goals
Bolland - 15 gp  6 goals

3rd line $3.25 MIL LW MacArthur was replaced with 3rd line $1 MIL LW Raymond:
MacArthur - 26 gp  8  goals
Raymomd  -  27 gp  9  goals

3rd line $0.875 MIL RW Frattin was replaced with 3rd line $5.25 MIL RW Clarkson:
Frattin - 22 gp  2  goals
Clarkson - 27 gp 2  goals

I honestly felt the other 2 players were effectively replaced at a cap savings.

On the other hand, Clarkson is currently playing well below 3rd line expectations number-wise.  I thought that this year he would get 15 goals and 25 assists with his rugged play and he still might.  That still wouldn't justify his salary but would at least be a respectable point total for a 3rd line player.  I mean Clarkson really looks bad at this point for the Leafs as Frattin is starting to be considered a bust at less that $1 MIL and he has matched Clarkson's output.

I'd rather have Raymond and MacArthur.

 

[mr grieves]

For comparing players I usually look at offensive production beyond goals...

Clarkson on an 82 game pace for 24 points, and a 72 game pace for 21 points.  MacArthur has 20 points already for Ottawa.

Clarkson's going to have to REALLY turn it up if he wants to change perceptions and have an impact.  His deal could go south very quickly.

For comparing players I always thought that:
3rd line $5.5 MIL Center Grabovski was bought out and replaced with 3rd line $3.375 MIL center Bolland:
Grabovski - 27 gp  8 goals 22 points (.81/gp)
Bolland - 15 gp  6 goals 10 points (.67/gp)

3rd line $3.25 MIL LW MacArthur was replaced with 3rd line $1 MIL LW Raymond:
MacArthur - 26 gp  8  goals 20 points (.77/gp)
Raymomd  -  27 gp  9  goals 18 points (.67/gp)

3rd line $0.875 MIL RW Frattin was replaced with 3rd line $5.25 MIL RW Clarkson:
Frattin - 22 gp  2  goals 6 points (.27/gp)
Clarkson - 27 gp 2  goals 5 points (.19/gp)

I honestly felt the other 2 players were effectively replaced at a cap savings.

And you can add in the $4.2m 3rd/4th liner they kept and the $600k one they gave away:
Bozak 15 gp, 10 points (.67/gp)
Colborne 25 gp, 7 points (.28/gp)

But Raymond, MacArthur, and Grabo would've made a nice trio of forwards.

 

[Kin]

For comparing players I usually look at offensive production beyond goals...

Although if that's the inclination Bolland and Raymond are still the more cost effective players in that grouping. In fact, of the players listed(including Bozak) Grabovski still would represent the most cap dollars per projected point aside from Clarkson with Raymond being the least by far.