Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Nathan Horton to Toronto for David Clarkson

mouser

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,610
13,123
South Mountain
Fro said:
Hope_Smoke ‏@Hope_Smoke 34s35 seconds ago
I just don't understand why CBJ wanted Clarkson over Mike Richards. Did LA say no?

then this

Hope_Smoke retweeted
Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance 2m2 minutes ago
@Hope_Smoke They never talked to LA about it.
Click to expand...

LA already has Voynov on LTIR while his DA charges are resolved. The Kings would face major roster/cap issues during the offseason with two contracts that large on LTIR.
 
CapnCornelius

CapnCornelius

Registered User
Oct 28, 2006
10,986
0
Kev22 said:
This is going to sound silly, but Horton's body made the decision not to insure Horton. Insurance is renewable from year to year, correct? They passed on year one, I get that, it was wasted money to pay the premium because he wasn't going to play for more than half a year. I'll give a pass on that. Where my questions are is the second year, I'm guessing that policies are based on the "league year" and policies can only be renewed/started at certain times and Horton's body fell apart before they could insure. This decision does make the front office as a whole look foolish, probably even team ownership, but I think that they came up with at least a workable solution.

I'll reserve judgement on the trade until I see what Clarkson brings. He seems to be excited to be here and likes our style of play, so let's see what happens.
Click to expand...

This line of thought has been brought up several times and it is just flawed logic.

The reason you don't pass on year one is...you need to insure him in year 1 to avoid not being able to insure him later if something happens! Its a foolish risk. Yes, I get the deductible argument and how the insurance would not have paid off for them for that 1 year. The thing is, it absolutely would have paid for them if he suffered a cataclysmic or degenerative condition. If you don't insure a guy year 1 because you can't benefit from his shoulder condition you open yourself up to the risk of every other injury that could happen in that year being uninsurable for the duration of his lengthy deal. This wasn't a reasonable risk. It was just plain stupid.
 
Double-Shift Lasse

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
34,651
15,880
Exurban Cbus
CapnCornelius said:
Knew I would find it if I looked. Wasn't here, it was on Twitter, but here were my ramblings at the time. July 3, 2013:

"Don't get me wrong, Horton is a good player, but do we want him and Gaborik (both injury prone) as the backbone of our offense?"

"And if there is a weakness of Jarmo and JD, historically, it is underestimation of injury history. Paul Kariya. Andy MacDonald. Etc."

"...on the other hand, Bruins have shown injury issue is low risk, high reward. If a guy is LTIR he doesn't count against cap and..."

"Insurance also pays part of salary."

So, again, I was assuming from the Berard situation that we'd get insurance. I figured that was a given. The point on JD and Jarmo is really coming back to haunt though. And that's my concern going forward. If they are not factoring in potential for Jenner/Murray to be injury prone, there are some serious risks of this team taking a turn for the worse as hard as that may be to believe.
Click to expand...

Missed this earlier. My apologies. Thanks for the follow-up. It wasn't owed me.
 

Kev22

Registered User
Feb 19, 2003
4,089
0
Plain City, OH
Visit site
CapnCornelius said:
This line of thought has been brought up several times and it is just flawed logic.

The reason you don't pass on year one is...you need to insure him in year 1 to avoid not being able to insure him later if something happens! Its a foolish risk. Yes, I get the deductible argument and how the insurance would not have paid off for them for that 1 year. The thing is, it absolutely would have paid for them if he suffered a cataclysmic or degenerative condition. If you don't insure a guy year 1 because you can't benefit from his shoulder condition you open yourself up to the risk of every other injury that could happen in that year being uninsurable for the duration of his lengthy deal. This wasn't a reasonable risk. It was just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Everyone seems to want to put the blame on Jarmo. Personally, I feel that's pretty short sighted, there's many people pulling the puppet strings on this one. Could be Priest, could be JD. How did ownership play in this?
 

BluejacketNut

Registered User
Sep 23, 2006
6,275
211
www.erazzphoto.com
Of course JK gets the blame, he's the GM. We certainly dont know who made the call, but regardless, when youre the GM, youre ultimately responsible. Now if it was JD or JP that made the call, then we're in even more trouble since JK will end up just being a puppet and not able to make decisions. But again, thats his choice in accepting the job and taking responsibility for the decision
 

Hockey Talker29

Registered User
Oct 10, 2003
4,489
309
Toronto
Visit site
As a Leafs fan:

Clarkson is one of the worst players I've ever seen put on a Leafs jersey, and I've been a fan for over 20 years.

With that said this move will save your team a sizable amount of money, which will help you actually improve going forward. I expect Clarkson to be bought-out this summer to fully realize the savings from moving Horton's uninsured contract. Total savings are in the neighbourhood of $9m-$11m.

It really was a win-win for different reasons.

But thank you guys for taking him off our hands.

I have yet another reason to love BJs now. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X