Toggle sidebar

Value of: Brandt Clarke

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
The Kings treatment of Brandt Clarke is very close to legitimately making me find another team to support. It's just THAT outrageously stupid and frustrating.

Kings have a combined 0-4 record and have been outscored a combined 15-2 when Clarke has been healthy scratched (in two of those four games, the Kings were shut out in BACK TO BACK GAMES).

He leads the team in points from a defenseman despite weird/damaging comments from the head coach and diminishing opportunity/ice time. And he's only just turned 22 years old. He's already made a number of highlight reel plays at the NHL level. He's incredibly creative and skilled. But he's 'too risky' for the Kings organizational philosophy (defense first, above all else, always).

Kings have something like a .750 win % when they play Clarke 14-18 mins of ice time and instead they'd rather play Kyle f**king Burroughs. Last night they got torched by the damn Blackhawks and in that game Kyle Burroughs had 5 mins of ice time and Jacob Moverare had 7 mins of ice time.... the Kings are consciously choosing THAT over Brandt Clarke - their best offensive defenseman right now and a player who SHOULD be the future of their blue line. Side note, Moverare is solid as hell but I'm just saying.

This Kings organization is just dumb as absolute rocks & completely allergic to offensive defensemen. It's completely insane. This kid is legitimately going to be a consistent 60+ point d-man if a team just gives him a chance to be creative and play freely. He's that gifted offensively.

So again, if you're thinking "No way the Kings trade Brandt Clarke that would be aggressively stupid" - This organization is just that stupid so don't be too surprised if they do just that this TDL or off-season.

EDIT: I have to add this in here because I'm reading some additional comments about how 'bad Clarke is defensively'.... His defensive game really isn't that bad. He's a young player so of course he makes mistakes sometimes and he needs to put on some more muscle so of course he can get out-muscled at times but all in all he's actually pretty solid defensively (especially for a 22 year old offensive defenseman in his first full NHL season). He just doesn't do everything 'perfectly' defensively ALL the time so Kings coaching/management have decided to view him as a player 'they can't trust'. It's nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Fat Elvis, ibleedkings, Guitpik and 9 others
bland said:
His preferred spot is on the offensive side of the blueline.

Everywhere else is dicey.

This is a player who came in this year and put up a bunch of points in a very unorthodox and ultra risky style. He was challenged by his coach publicly (likely after privately) to play professional defense FIRST then acclimate his skill without being the liability he most definitely was at the time. He has struggled since - his numbers dropped, his PP production was non-existent, and his defense only marginally improved.

Nobody knows how this went over with him off the ice, but his confidence sank like a stone after, gasp, being asked to be reliable. A whole lot of shell-shocked fellow Kings fans seem to think that the team is going to trade him instead of working through the natural acclimation difficulties because we have seen them make disaster trades with our other top prospects. I have said this many times, Clarke is the defensive version of Trevor Zegras, only on a team that wants immediate success and doesn't want to afford him what are increasingly looking like lengthy growing pains.

The fans aren't wrong. But, Clarke has in fact been the team's 7th best defenseman since the turn of the year and badly needs a break to build his confidence back up. A team stupidly chasing another first round exit (if they even make it) cannot afford to let Clarke play awful defense while not contributing offensively. He should be kept and sent to Ontario to regain some swagger.
Click to expand...

This is just wrong by the eye test AND the stats back that up

There are a # of guys who have been worse AND they can't move the puck, they're just thought of as good ol boy stay at home dmen...and it's not because they don't try to make plays. Hell Clarke is on the bench in part because Joel Edmundson started thinking he was Paul Coffey and leaving Brandt back alone to defend oddman breaks.

The fact is this team is deathly scared of playing anything but 6 defensive-leaning dman because they think that's their identity while discounting that the puck actually needs to move out of the zone too and while having 6 safety nets is nice you can watch the other teams checkers leave the points alone because they aren't a threat to do anything but throw the puck into someones shinguards and turn it over for an oddman break to defend semi-well in their own end, rinse, repeat.

It's not a coincidence the Kings are getting caved when running Spence, half-strength Drew, and 5 Matt Greenes with Clarke out. And some other team is going to make out like bandits like they have with all our other kids on a bargain price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Elvis, ibleedkings, chris kontos and 1 other person
Raccoon Jesus said:
This is just wrong by the eye test AND the stats back that up

There are a # of guys who have been worse AND they can't move the puck, they're just thought of as good ol boy stay at home dmen...and it's not because they don't try to make plays. Hell Clarke is on the bench in part because Joel Edmundson started thinking he was Paul Coffey and leaving Brandt back alone to defend oddman breaks.

The fact is this team is deathly scared of playing anything but 6 defensive-leaning dman because they think that's their identity while discounting that the puck actually needs to move out of the zone too and while having 6 safety nets is nice you can watch the other teams checkers leave the points alone because they aren't a threat to do anything but throw the puck into someones shinguards and turn it over for an oddman break to defend semi-well in their own end, rinse, repeat.

It's not a coincidence the Kings are getting caved when running Spence, half-strength Drew, and 5 Matt Greenes with Clarke out. And some other team is going to make out like bandits like they have with all our other kids on a bargain price.
Click to expand...
No RJ, its because Brandt Clarke is a defensive lisbility and has contributed 4 points in his last 19 games. He had 13 points in the first 20 games, just 12 in the next 35.

The stats and eye test show a kid blowing coverages, consistently beat from the wall to the slot, over-powered in front of his net and doing very, very little with the puck. He was so ineffective on the PP - which should be his strength - that he was passed by Spence and a 5 forward unit.

Your heart is in the right place here, but Clarke is the wrong kid to use as evidence. If he wasn't a top prospect he would have been sent down two months ago.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Remparts666
bland said:
No RJ, its because Brandt Clarke is a defensive lisbility and has contributed 4 points in his last 19 games. He had 13 points in the first 20 games, just 12 in the next 35.

The stats and eye test show a kid blowing coverages, consistently beat from the wall to the slot, over-powered in front of his net and doing very, very little with the puck. He was so ineffective on the PP - which should be his strength - that he was passed by Spence and a 5 forward unit.

Your heart is in the right place here, but Clarke is the wrong kid to use as evidence. If he wasn't a top prospect he would have been sent down two months ago.
Click to expand...

and how has it gone since they removed him from the PP and the lineup

hint, pp is at 5% ish on the road, and the Kings have been outscored 15-4, and his former partners #s and eye test have absolutely TANKED

This stuff is easy to look up, you know. The results, predictive stats, eye test all matches up.

I know you're one of those old school "I need my defensemen to play defense first" chaps and hate advanced stats so most of this conversation will be lost on you because you're like Blake, watching and waiting for a dzone mistake (while ignoring that it's often because Joel is inexplicable the first one out of the zone) instead of trying to play to his strengths and give him ice time and guidance to work thru things. Instead, it's just a dinosaur "be better" and glue him to the bench while ignoring everyone else's shortcomings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Elvis, ibleedkings, kingpest19 and 2 others
bland said:
No RJ, its because Brandt Clarke is a defensive lisbility and has contributed 4 points in his last 19 games. He had 13 points in the first 20 games, just 12 in the next 35.

The stats and eye test show a kid blowing coverages, consistently beat from the wall to the slot, over-powered in front of his net and doing very, very little with the puck. He was so ineffective on the PP - which should be his strength - that he was passed by Spence and a 5 forward unit.

Your heart is in the right place here, but Clarke is the wrong kid to use as evidence. If he wasn't a top prospect he would have been sent down two months ago.
Click to expand...
Even in the last 19 games, Clarke has had a +1 EV goal differential, the 3rd-best SAT% on D and the 2nd-lowest giveaways/60 on D. He's not a defensive liability.

He doesn't have many points over that span, but he still has the 4th-highest points/60 on D and the most takeaways/60 on D. That would seem pretty good for a kid his age if the first half of the season hadn't inflated expectations.

I do notice, though, that he's taken 7 penalties over that span, far more than anyone else. I'm guessing that that's what the coaches aren't happy with and what is causing him to lose ice time. That's understandable, but also a pretty strong message just because he has a penalty problem. Kempe had one years ago. before he broke out, and wasn't treated quite like this. Over time, by getting ice time, he learned and the penalties went away naturally. Clarke will similarly learn to handle situations better, but he needs to play in them in order to do that. I think that making him afraid while he's on the ice because he'll be benched if he takes penalties is counterproductive, especially for a player like him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Elvis, kingsfan28, ibleedkings and 1 other person
Easton Cowan + 2nd 25 or Easton Cowan + 1st 26?

Open to other pieces, Cowan may be able to join your roster next year in a bottom 6 role.
 
KopitarGOAT420 said:
The Kings treatment of Brandt Clarke is very close to legitimately making me find another team to support. It's just THAT outrageously stupid and frustrating.

Kings have a combined 0-4 record and have been outscored a combined 15-2 when Clarke has been healthy scratched (in two of those four games, the Kings were shut out in BACK TO BACK GAMES).

He leads the team in points from a defenseman despite weird/damaging comments from the head coach and diminishing opportunity/ice time. And he's only just turned 22 years old. He's already made a number of highlight reel plays at the NHL level. He's incredibly creative and skilled. But he's 'too risky' for the Kings organizational philosophy (defense first, above all else, always).

Kings have something like a .750 win % when they play Clarke 14-18 mins of ice time and instead they'd rather play Kyle f**king Burroughs. Last night they got torched by the damn Blackhawks and in that game Kyle Burroughs had 5 mins of ice time and Jacob Moverare had 7 mins of ice time.... the Kings are consciously choosing THAT over Brandt Clarke - their best offensive defenseman right now and a player who SHOULD be the future of their blue line. Side note, Moverare is solid as hell but I'm just saying.

This Kings organization is just dumb as absolute rocks & completely allergic to offensive defensemen. It's completely insane. This kid is legitimately going to be a consistent 60+ point d-man if a team just gives him a chance to be creative and play freely. He's that gifted offensively.

So again, if you're thinking "No way the Kings trade Brandt Clarke that would be aggressively stupid" - This organization is just that stupid so don't be too surprised if they do just that this TDL or off-season.

EDIT: I have to add this in here because I'm reading some additional comments about how 'bad Clarke is defensively'.... His defensive game really isn't that bad. He's a young player so of course he makes mistakes sometimes and he needs to put on some more muscle so of course he can get out-muscled at times but all in all he's actually pretty solid defensively (especially for a 22 year old offensive defenseman in his first full NHL season). He just doesn't do everything 'perfectly' defensively ALL the time so Kings coaching/management have decided to view him as a player 'they can't trust'. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...
I found 31 other teams to supportuntil the three stooges in the kings front office are, fired, retire or otherwize absent from the kings org.
Robittaile , blake and bergevin have no interest in anything other than continuing to cash aeg checks and evidently make professional fools of themselves
 
chris kontos said:
I found 31 other teams to supportuntil the three stooges in the kings front office are, fired, retire or otherwize absent from the kings org.
Robittaile , blake and bergevin have no interest in anything other than continuing to cash aeg checks and evidently make professional fools of themselves
Click to expand...
Just give Blake to Friday. Promise it's going to be awesome!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fat Elvis, chris kontos and KopitarGOAT420
KopitarGOAT420 said:
The Kings treatment of Brandt Clarke is very close to legitimately making me find another team to support. It's just THAT outrageously stupid and frustrating.

Kings have a combined 0-4 record and have been outscored a combined 15-2 when Clarke has been healthy scratched (in two of those four games, the Kings were shut out in BACK TO BACK GAMES).

He leads the team in points from a defenseman despite weird/damaging comments from the head coach and diminishing opportunity/ice time. And he's only just turned 22 years old. He's already made a number of highlight reel plays at the NHL level. He's incredibly creative and skilled. But he's 'too risky' for the Kings organizational philosophy (defense first, above all else, always).

Kings have something like a .750 win % when they play Clarke 14-18 mins of ice time and instead they'd rather play Kyle f**king Burroughs. Last night they got torched by the damn Blackhawks and in that game Kyle Burroughs had 5 mins of ice time and Jacob Moverare had 7 mins of ice time.... the Kings are consciously choosing THAT over Brandt Clarke - their best offensive defenseman right now and a player who SHOULD be the future of their blue line. Side note, Moverare is solid as hell but I'm just saying.

This Kings organization is just dumb as absolute rocks & completely allergic to offensive defensemen. It's completely insane. This kid is legitimately going to be a consistent 60+ point d-man if a team just gives him a chance to be creative and play freely. He's that gifted offensively.

So again, if you're thinking "No way the Kings trade Brandt Clarke that would be aggressively stupid" - This organization is just that stupid so don't be too surprised if they do just that this TDL or off-season.

EDIT: I have to add this in here because I'm reading some additional comments about how 'bad Clarke is defensively'.... His defensive game really isn't that bad. He's a young player so of course he makes mistakes sometimes and he needs to put on some more muscle so of course he can get out-muscled at times but all in all he's actually pretty solid defensively (especially for a 22 year old offensive defenseman in his first full NHL season). He just doesn't do everything 'perfectly' defensively ALL the time so Kings coaching/management have decided to view him as a player 'they can't trust'. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...
Cale makar cant play defense either
 
Stealth JD said:
Blues shouldn’t be trading firsts anytime soon. I’d rather they keep their lotto ticket for the DuPont draft than trade it early.
Click to expand...
I mean I feel like we will be pretty respectable by 2027 and Clarke is a guy who is a first round talent and could really shore out our back line for a long time. Its certainly a risk but I'm a big Clarke fan
 
WTFMAN99 said:
Easton Cowan + 2nd 25 or Easton Cowan + 1st 26?

Open to other pieces, Cowan may be able to join your roster next year in a bottom 6 role.
Click to expand...

Nah, he's a teenager, he'll be in the AHL until he's waiver eligible in like 2030, and then they'll let him carry Kopitar's luggage while being healthy scratched until he earns it*

*you earn it by being 26

Instead, have any middling bottom sixers that can't score? Bonus if they're left handed
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos
Raccoon Jesus said:
Nah, he's a teenager, he'll be in the AHL until he's waiver eligible in like 2030, and then they'll let him carry Kopitar's luggage while being healthy scratched until he earns it*

*you earn it by being 26

Instead, have any middling bottom sixers that can't score? Bonus if they're left handed
Click to expand...

Nick Robertson is your man, he only has 11 goals lol.
 
Raccoon Jesus said:
And a California boy with Filipino heritage

The Kings do love them a marketing ploy, they'd lap that shit up
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, is there a legit deal you think between the Leafs and LAK? I'd say most anything is available minus Matthews, Knies or Nylander (NMC).

We don't have much coming up at RD except Danford but that is years away, I don't know if the upside is much greater than a 2nd pairing guy but seems like the floor is a 3rd pairing guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom