David Clarkson

[We Want Ten]

Who do you think Clarkson is tradeable to? He is widely regarded as having the worst contract in the NHL.
At least with Horton if a team with a lot of cash has him they can get cap relief.

At some point Clarkson's deal will show itself to be horrible to everyone. Right now we haven't seen our team on the ice for 2015-16 or in the future. But having a bottom 6 forward making $5.4M will limit the roster flexibility.

Again I hope he plays well but even if he settles on the 3rd line it's a terrible contract. One that will be near impossible to get rid of.

Exactly.
One day that chicken is gonna come home to roost.

 

[CBJSlash]

I think a handful a teams would be intrigued at Clarkson @50%, no doubt. Others would be interested in swapping bad contracts.

Neither of these things were possible with Horton with 28 other teams.

Again, not saying it's likely, but Clarkson is 10x more tradeable than Horton.

 

[Inquiring Minds]

At some point Clarkson's deal will show itself to be horrible to everyone. Right now we haven't seen our team on the ice for 2015-16 or in the future. But having a bottom 6 forward making $5.4M will limit the roster flexibility.

Again I hope he plays well but even if he settles on the 3rd line it's a terrible contract. One that will be near impossible to get rid of.

"I'm shocked, shocked!, to find there is gambling going on in here."
What part of the situation do you think is not known to the entire NHL?
The Leafs overpaid and DC underperformed.

You will drive yourself crazy if you use the contract as a measuring stick for his performance in the future. We didn't negotiate the contract, it came to us because of the Horton situation. All dollars have to be thrown out of consideration. Evaluate him for what he brings, apart from the $. The money is sunk cost. Nothing can be done about it. It has been committed. The question now is what will we get out of it?
Horton = zero.
Clarkson = ?

From my point of view, if Clarkson brings anything, it is a plus. If he brings nothing, put him on waivers, bound for Lake Erie to make room for another player. We are out nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Xoggz22]

"I'm shocked, shocked!, to find there is gambling going on in here."
What part of the situation do you think is not known to the entire NHL?
The Leafs overpaid and DC underperformed.

You will drive yourself crazy if you use the contract as a measuring stick for his performance in the future. We didn't negotiate the contract, it came to us because of the Horton situation. All dollars have to be thrown out of consideration. Evaluate him for what he brings, apart from the $. The money is sunk cost. Nothing can be done about it. It has been committed. The question now is what will we get out of it?
Horton = zero.
Clarkson = ?

From my point of view, if Clarkson brings anything, it is a plus. If he brings nothing, put him on waivers, bound for Lake Erie to make room for another player. We are out nothing more, nothing less.

Clearly not the team's point of view as this puts them in the same position they found themselves with Horton. Paying a huge salary and getting nothing for it. Your scenario will not happen. Clarkson either plays or is moved for more bad contracts. Period. He is a fixed asset at this point and the only way to cover that cost is to win games and put butts in the seats to pay the contract. His impact is important to both winning games and payroll impact.

 

[JacketsDavid]

"I'm shocked, shocked!, to find there is gambling going on in here."
What part of the situation do you think is not known to the entire NHL?
The Leafs overpaid and DC underperformed.

You will drive yourself crazy if you use the contract as a measuring stick for his performance in the future. We didn't negotiate the contract, it came to us because of the Horton situation. All dollars have to be thrown out of consideration. Evaluate him for what he brings, apart from the $. The money is sunk cost. Nothing can be done about it. It has been committed. The question now is what will we get out of it?
Horton = zero.
Clarkson = ?

From my point of view, if Clarkson brings anything, it is a plus. If he brings nothing, put him on waivers, bound for Lake Erie to make room for another player. We are out nothing more, nothing less.

The CBJ are a Budget team and the way Clarkson's contract is set he can't be cut (he can be but we still have to pay him his bonus each year for remainder) and can't be moved. So sending him away is not an option unless he agrees to it. So sending him to Cleveland is not an option.

Again you can't just read the CBJ press releases (and local paper) and assume it was a great deal to trade a broken down player who may never play again.

To win you need to maximize your assets. $5.4M spent on a bottom line forward will never be a plus. You may not see it now, but just wait a few months or a season or two and it will be very clear how much that contract hurts us from adding key players. $5M+ contracts should be leaders and contributors not a guy we hope plays on the 3rd line.
At least in my mind I'd rather suck it up and keep Horton's contract and let someone with some upside play on the 3rd/4th line. Then if the team is good and Horton is hurt, apply for the cap relief and get a player who helps (that assumes the CBJ can afford to pay more in salary which I hope is the case). I don't see any way Clarkson at $5.4M will be better than letting someone like Dano or Rychel have a regular spot on 3rd line.

But again I've had this argument too many times - lot of folks truly believe adding Clarkson makes us a better team. I don't. And my guess I'll get to ***** about his contract for a long, long time

 

[Viqsi]

But again I've had this argument too many times - lot of folks truly believe adding Clarkson makes us a better team. I don't. And my guess I'll get to ***** about his contract for a long, long time

Which do you prefer?

An NHL third-liner
or
Nothing

Those are and were the options. There is no middle ground, there is no alternative path, there's no "trick" you can use to choose otherwise. It is one or the other, period, end of story. You will still lose tons of money no matter how you pick, and the choice will have next to zero impact on the amount. It is inevitable. There are no other options no matter how much you desperately wish otherwise.

Choose.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Which do you prefer?

An NHL third-liner
or
Nothing

Those are and were the options. There is no middle ground, there is no alternative path, there's no "trick" you can use to choose otherwise. It is one or the other, period, end of story. You will still lose tons of money no matter how you pick, and the choice will have next to zero impact on the amount. It is inevitable. There are no other options no matter how much you desperately wish otherwise.

Choose.

I might choose nothing in this case. I know, I know, the team made the decision based on extenuating financial circumstances. But I will admit to kind of liking the way the forward lines shape up without Clarkson in the mix. That said, I expect he'll get chances to produce and I hope he does, finds a spot in which he makes the lineup better.

 

[We Want Ten]

Which do you prefer?

An NHL third-liner
or
Nothing

Those are and were the options. There is no middle ground, there is no alternative path, there's no "trick" you can use to choose otherwise. It is one or the other, period, end of story. You will still lose tons of money no matter how you pick, and the choice will have next to zero impact on the amount. It is inevitable. There are no other options no matter how much you desperately wish otherwise.

Choose.

Right now, sure. But what about in 2-3 years from now?

 

[stevo61]

Right now, sure. But what about in 2-3 years from now?

Vs what? A 2-3 year older Horton who still isnt playing? Its part of being a small market team

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Vs what? A 2-3 year older Horton who still isnt playing? Its part of being a small market team

That plus the cap is going up. Who knows, maybe in 3-4 years Clarkson's deal is a steal

 

[Viqsi]

I might choose nothing in this case. I know, I know, the team made the decision based on extenuating financial circumstances. But I will admit to kind of liking the way the forward lines shape up without Clarkson in the mix. That said, I expect he'll get chances to produce and I hope he does, finds a spot in which he makes the lineup better.

I sort of get that, but given the whole "you're losing tons of money regardless" bit, I'd rather get something, and management seems to have agreed.

* * *​

Right now, sure. But what about in 2-3 years from now?

At that point, the choice could very well be between an NHL fourth-liner on the decline, and... nothing.

* * *​

That plus the cap is going up. Who knows, maybe in 3-4 years Clarkson's deal is a steal

You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Which do you prefer?

An NHL third-liner
or
Nothing

Those are and were the options. There is no middle ground, there is no alternative path, there's no "trick" you can use to choose otherwise. It is one or the other, period, end of story. You will still lose tons of money no matter how you pick, and the choice will have next to zero impact on the amount. It is inevitable. There are no other options no matter how much you desperately wish otherwise.

Choose.

In a salary cap world, there is no "nothing". Every single asset remotely associated with the league is "something", whether positive or negative.

 

[db2011]

I need some help- if we were to spend to the cap, couldn't we also have put Horton on LTIR and gotten relief?

If so, then if you choose "nothing", you may be implying that we might be ready to spend to the cap at some point during the contract and get relief.

But maybe that option wasn't open to us for insurance reasons? I remain confused about this, but hopeful Clarkson produces and meshes with our room

 

[Mayor Bee]

I need some help- if we were to spend to the cap, couldn't we also have put Horton on LTIR and gotten relief?

Yes.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I need some help- if we were to spend to the cap, couldn't we also have put Horton on LTIR and gotten relief?

If so, then if you choose "nothing", you may be implying that we might be ready to spend to the cap at some point during the contract and get relief.

But maybe that option wasn't open to us for insurance reasons? I remain confused about this, but hopeful Clarkson produces and meshes with our room

Yes, it was open to us. But ownership was unwilling to pay his full salary for 5 more years for a player who would never play without insurance softening the financial blow. Sure, we would have gotten the salary cap relief..But ownership still had to pay his 5.3 (?) million per year salary in full for the next 5 years. They weren't willing to, and I understand that.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I sort of get that, but given the whole "you're losing tons of money regardless" bit, I'd rather get something, and management seems to have agreed.

Yep I pretty much acknowledged both of those things (bolded). I just like our forward group better without him in it is all.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Yes, it was open to us. But ownership was unwilling to pay his full salary for 5 more years for a player who would never play without insurance softening the financial blow. Sure, we would have gotten the salary cap relief..But ownership still had to pay his 5.3 (?) million per year salary in full for the next 5 years. They weren't willing to, and I understand that.

The next five years of Clarkson's contract look like:
2015-16 - $5.5 mil ($1 mil salary, $4.5 bonus)
2016-17 - $7 mil ($2 mil salary, $5 bonus)
2017-18 - $7 mil ($2 mil salary, $5 bonus)
2018-19 - $4.75 mil ($1 mil salary, $3.75 bonus)
2019-20 - $3.25 mil ($1 mil salary, $2.25 bonus)
Yearly cap hit - $5.25 mil
Total cash laid out - $27.5 mil

And Horton, with all salary and no bonuses
2015-16 - $6 mil
2016-17 - $6 mil
2017-18 - $6 mil
2018-19 - $4.5 mil
2019-20 - $3.6 mil
Yearly cap hit - $5.3 mil
Total cash laid out - $26.1 mil

 

[Viqsi]

In a salary cap world, there is no "nothing". Every single asset remotely associated with the league is "something", whether positive or negative.

Fine. Call it "a NHL third-line player versus Unusable Cap Space for the same price".

* * *​

I need some help- if we were to spend to the cap, couldn't we also have put Horton on LTIR and gotten relief?

To the extent that LTIR qualifies as relief, that was in fact an option. You still end up with cap space hell as the offseason ends, because there's a period between "end of offseason" and "start of season" during which you have to be under the cap and LITR doesn't count. Go ahead and try making that work for five million dollars' worth of guys that 1) you actually want on your roster and 2) won't get claimed on waivers when you try to send them down to the AHL for that just-shy-of-$1m-per-player cap credit you get that way while still having a complete final roster.

You can get some of it back, for sure. Maybe one or two mil depending on the contract status of your other young up and comers (assuming you have any). But that makes you awfully dependent on hoping that prospects come out of nowhere and do amazing things.

Is Clarkson worth half his contract (about $2.6m/year)? The consensus seems to be "yes". As that's getting more than $1-2m back than we'd be able to finagle out of a Horton LTIR shellgame (which also presumes the presence of quality players on two-way contracts not subject to waivers that we want on our roster - not necessarily an assured thing), the conclusion is that we actually have at least marginally better value in Clarkson than we would have had in keeping Horton.


EDIT: "But wait, Viqsi!" I hear you say. "We could have signed guys AFTER the start of the season and thus gotten use out of that LTIR space!" Yes, of course, assuming 1) we could actually find anybody worthwhile (remember how long it took to find someone useful when we desperately needed warm bodies during Injury Hell this year?) and 2) we don't get ourselves ******** for our presumption by other GMs recognizing that we need to dump assets at the end of the year and deciding that we'd be a great source for their next Boychuk-style thievery - or, alternatively, ending up above the cap at the end of the year and taking that particular penalty into the following year, when it's time to resign guys of no consequence like, oh, Murray and Johansen and Wennberg and...

 

[Doug19]

i just don't like clarkson

 

[SuperGenius]

I'm just glad we're hashing this all out before he plays a significant amount of time here. We certainly wouldn't want to have his actual performance and fit with this team affect our opinions.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

The next five years of Clarkson's contract look like:
2015-16 - $5.5 mil ($1 mil salary, $4.5 bonus)
2016-17 - $7 mil ($2 mil salary, $5 bonus)
2017-18 - $7 mil ($2 mil salary, $5 bonus)
2018-19 - $4.75 mil ($1 mil salary, $3.75 bonus)
2019-20 - $3.25 mil ($1 mil salary, $2.25 bonus)
Yearly cap hit - $5.25 mil
Total cash laid out - $27.5 mil

And Horton, with all salary and no bonuses
2015-16 - $6 mil
2016-17 - $6 mil
2017-18 - $6 mil
2018-19 - $4.5 mil
2019-20 - $3.6 mil
Yearly cap hit - $5.3 mil
Total cash laid out - $26.1 mil

27.5 million dollars for at least 1+ point(s) production (you would think) or 26.1 million dollars for nothing. Zero. Zilch. Not even leadership. Take your pick. They made the right one.

 

[stevo61]

I'm just glad we're hashing this all out before he plays a significant amount of time here. We certainly wouldn't want to have his actual performance and fit with this team affect our opinions.

Im in the camp that thinks he'll be alright. People are going crazy because of the contract but in Columbus all he'll be asked to do is lay some hits, be a good teammate, protect Bobs water bottle and park his behind infront of the net. He wont be asked to carry a line and hopefully not carry the puck, there is a video from his big year in NJ and thats all he needs to do, sit by the net and do his thing and not get caught up in all the other stuff

 

[EspenK]

I'm just glad we're hashing this all out before he plays a significant amount of time here. We certainly wouldn't want to have his actual performance and fit with this team affect our opinions.

Just wait. This only promises to get better.

 

[BluejacketNut]

Vs what? A 2-3 year older Horton who still isnt playing? Its part of being a small market team

Its funny how we're considered a "small market team" (which we are) and yet have the 2 worst contracts in the NHL, Bourque and Clarkson, go figure

 

[Viqsi]

I'm just glad we're hashing this all out before he plays a significant amount of time here. We certainly wouldn't want to have his actual performance and fit with this team affect our opinions.

What, you mean there's some other, non-prejudicial way to do these things? Pfah. I disbelieve.

* * *​

Its funny how we are considered a "small market team" and yet have the 2 worst contracts in the NHL, Bourque and Clarkson, go figure

Clarkson qualifies by consensus, but Bourque? Sorry, he's way outclassed by the likes of Mike Richards, Dustin Brown, and Stephen Weiss, to name but a few.