Guest Dasein Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Nothing will beat Engelland at just under 3 million per.....for 3 years. He was a fringe #6/#7 guy in Pit and wasn't even in the line-up every night. Madness. But.. But.. Truculence! Seriously though.. It's like going to a silent auction and bidding twice the real value and the amount anybody is willing to bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkSniper Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 He's paid 5.25 million too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stizz19 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Well, at the very least Clarkson was coming off of a remotely good season. Weiss was injured for most of the year and only put up 4 points (1G, 3A) and still got signed to a 5-year $24.5mil deal. That's the price you have to pay to bribe someone to live in that sh*thole. It's why Edmonton can't get any good FA's to sign there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stizz19 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 the guy is a beauty how can anyone say he shouldnt be in the nhl? just shows how much you really know about hockey... the leafs thought he was a player that he wasnt that isnt his fault , if they put him back in a roll his type can play he is definitely a good NHLer... what was he supposed to do turn down the contract? just because a team chose to over pay him and his out put isnt in line with what he gets paid doesnt make him a bad player... it makes the leafs a bad judge of talent... the guy is a beauty 2nd/3rd liner on any team in the league. Any team...except the leafs? He looks useless out there. He may be only good on NJ for all we know, he might be worse on every other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 But.. But.. Truculence! Seriously though.. It's like going to a silent auction and bidding twice the real value and the amount anybody is willing to bid. Twice? I'd say at least three if not 4 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Really looking for it I'm sure people wanted him. Large portion probably not though. They'll always be a group of people that want us in on a guy. Thus making it look like the community as a whole wants in on everyone even if that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimp C Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 $5.25 dollars for a 4th liner. For the next 7 years. With a NMC. And the cherry on top? His contract is apparently "buyout proof" It would appear that the Leafs, in their infinite wisdom, managed to give David Clarkson what is perhaps the NHL's first buyout-proof contract. Including the $4.5m he is earning this season, a buyout this June would net Clarkson something like $34m; or roughly 93% of the total value of the contract. A buyout would save the Leafs almost nothing ($2.6m or so). All in all, the only hope Leaf fans have is that Clarkson finds some way to contribute on a regular basis for the next 4 seasons or so. http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2014/3/10/5492384/david-clarksons-contract-is-maybe-probably-buyout-proof This is the type of contract that would seriously make you re-think your allegiance to your team. Basically, with this contract the Leafs will have 5.25 million in dead cap space, ensuring they have no chance at being a contender for those 7 years (yeah yeah, they probably weren't gonna be one anyways). But this contract eliminates the distinct possibility that the Leafs somehow become a good team and go on to win a cup. No team can operate with 5.25 million being paid for nothing. Why would you cheer for a team that you know 100% will not win anything for the next 7 years? 7 years is a long time. I will probably be married in 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 $5.25 dollars for a 4th liner. For the next 7 years. With a NMC. And the cherry on top? His contract is apparently "buyout proof" http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2014/3/10/5492384/david-clarksons-contract-is-maybe-probably-buyout-proof This is the type of contract that would seriously make you re-think your allegiance to your team. Basically, with this contract the Leafs will have 5.25 million in dead cap space, ensuring they have no chance at being a contender for those 7 years (yeah yeah, they probably weren't gonna be one anyways). But this contract eliminates the distinct possibility that the Leafs somehow become a good team and go on to win a cup. No team can operate with 5.25 million being paid for nothing. Why would you cheer for a team that you know 100% will not win anything for the next 7 years? 7 years is a long time. I will probably be married in 7 years. It gets better by the second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Your definition of 'large portion' is a little off. You've been around a while. You know for a fact there were multiple trade demands for him, signing demands and mroe than a few people stating $4+ million was totally worth it. remember, we were gonna get him and Ott and we were gonna roll the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Clarkson's $5.25m deadweight on a non playoff team is still better than $8.45m tied up in banged-up Booth and benched Ballard while trying to win a cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimp C Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Clarkson's $5.25m deadweight on a non playoff team is still better than $8.45m tied up in banged-up Booth and benched Ballard while trying to win a cup Lol Toronto has Phaneuf making 7 mill a year as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Just uhhmm...wanna point out. Before he got signed, a large portion of the CDC crowd demanded Gillis pay what he wanted and were convinced he was worth $4.5 to $5 million a year. Just think on that I don't remember a large portion (or even a small portion) ever saying this. Even if this were the case, then we can thank our lucky stars that Gillis was wise enough not to throw an offer his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Clarkson should send a big chunk of his contract to Patrick Elias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Welcome to Free Agency in the modern NHL... Guess what he had teams lining up offering just as much with some just trying to reach the cap floor. Something to maul over during the next year long lockout. Thx Bettman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Clarkson's situation seems quite similar to that of Komisarek and Beauchimen. Both of the latter were very good complimentary players in a given system, with the right linemates. But once they signed in Toronto, with the heavy media spotlight, pressure of the big salary, lack of top-end talent, and different coaching, their games completely fell apart. Those D-men also showed that if they are removed from that situation quickly enough and put into a better one, they can succeed again (Beauchimen) - but wait too long and the player may be ruined (Komisarek). I can see a situation unfolding where a team takes Clarkson on with TO retaining half of his salary. That may be their only way out of this. But the longer he flounders there, the more and more unlikely even that option becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 You've been around a while. You know for a fact there were multiple trade demands for him, signing demands and mroe than a few people stating $4+ million was totally worth it. remember, we were gonna get him and Ott and we were gonna roll the league that's not how I remember it at all Warhippy. I think the majority were actually quite vocal in stating that they thought it was a gross overpayment at the time. that was certainly what I had to say, and I don't recall a whole lot of folks arguing otherwise. I think there were a whole lot more people on the Ott bandwagon - again I wasn't one of them, and am thankful the Canucks did not spend anything to acquire the guy, but in either event, there are actual threads on the matters that you can simply bump. I think you'll find that Clarkson was nowhere near as popular at the time as you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Clarkson may look alright this year. Santo could make a pig look pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Clarkson may look alright this year. Santo could make a pig look pretty. They had some good cycling with Komarov against NY, not a ton of good chances but good possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 You've been around a while. You know for a fact there were multiple trade demands for him, signing demands and mroe than a few people stating $4+ million was totally worth it. remember, we were gonna get him and Ott and we were gonna roll the league That was Clowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 That was Clowe. Clowe > Clarkson. But both are still overpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.