So, I still dont understand why you'd invest 3 years and $10M for a guy whose style of play makes him a target of several "small taps" a game. Its just not prudent financially.
Ryane Clowe
- Thread starter a tribe cq
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
So, I still dont understand why you'd invest 3 years and $10M for a guy whose style of play makes him a target of several "small taps" a game. Its just not prudent financially.
NYR Viper
Registered User
Callahan plays the same style and is 5'10. All of the Rangers defensemen block tons of shots. It's the style of play that wins games in this league.
3 years is not too long. 3-3.5 million is a good deal for a player like Clowe.
He is practicing today with the team. <---- Lied to by media
Last edited:
And Ill be very concerned about Callahan as well when hes over 30. Look what happened to Chris Drury. Guys who play a tough style wear down - some faster than others.
In a cap world, projecting a players value over the full term of the contract is very important. When I look at Clowe, I see a player that certainly isnt what he once was, and has the potential to be a disaster on the books in the outlying years if he gets 3+.
Yeah, that's what worrying, and that it might not be enough with just overpaying for him, he could also get an insane offer.
Hartnell got alot of money from Philly, but I believe he has been worth it. I am sure Clowe in theory would only get better if we kept him. Unless his body breaks down...
No, neither year is a huge difference. They both put up equivalent point per game paces in each season. All this shows is that in Clowe's worst season, Clarkson only barely kept up with him in his best season... And Clarkson put up those numbers with vastly more PP TOI than Clowe.
By 6 months. Is that the make-it-or-break-it cut off for one player's career being over and the other having a long, successful career ahead of him?
Is it really that he has become a better player in those 4 years? Really? So it is just a coincidence that in those four years he has also seen a steady increase in PP TOI - and thus, PP points?
2009-2010: 109:13 PP TOI (6 of 24 points on the PP)
2010-2011: 136:28 PP TOI (2 of 18 points on the PP)
2011-2012: 244:19 PP TOI (16 of 46 points on the PP)
2012-2013: 170:30 PP TOI -- on pace for just under 300 PP TOI. (8 of 24 points on the PP)
If you take away his PP TOI in either this season or last, he drops right back down to a 25-30 pt player; and a mediocre to ****** third liner.
So the question is, if you want to bring him to NYR, are you willing to play him on the PP as much as he has been in the last two seasons? Because that is the only way in hell you can expect him to come anywhere near those point numbers. I sure am not willing to do that.
And FYI -- this season, he was 23rd in the entire league in total PP time. Yet didn't even crack the top 140 in total points. He had more avg PP minutes per game than any single player on the Rangers. So how exactly is that going to work - getting him all that PP time?
Even with a big amount of PP time in the last 36 games, his ppg pace has dropped back down to earth after an insanely hot start (he was 1.25 ppg in his first 12 gp; 0.25 ppg in his last 36). So yea, his last season was an absolute aberration/inflated by a significant role on NJ's PP. I say no thanks to that.
I don't disagree. $5-$6 million for him is insane. But would you pay somewhere in the range of $3.5-$4.5 mil? You never start negotiations at the price you think is reasonable; both parties inflate or deflate their respective offers. I see Clowe's rumored demands more as a negotiation strategy/bargaining chip than anything... but I guess we'll see what happens.
Last edited:
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
4M per for two years would be the max per year I would ever even consider.
If he wants longer term it has to come at a lower per year cap hit. Clowe at 31, 32 maybe even 33 might be near the same player he is right now. At 34, 35 and beyond... we all know where that goes unless he is a serious outlier like Selanne. There are only 55 forwards league wide who played this last season who are currently 34 or older. Clowe is not Doan, Iginla, or Morrow in terms of pure talent, by the time he is those guys age, he's not going to be putting up points at the rate those guys still can.
Rather see the Rangers take Kreider, put him where Clowe would play and attempt to turn him into a Clowe like player. Maybe not fighting but he plays with an edge and is as big. Who knows, maybe he'd even become a better offensive player. 3 or 4 years of Clowe maybe being the same player or 3 or 4 years of maybe turning Kreider or some younger player in to a Clowe like player, I'd prefer the later option.
If he wants longer term it has to come at a lower per year cap hit. Clowe at 31, 32 maybe even 33 might be near the same player he is right now. At 34, 35 and beyond... we all know where that goes unless he is a serious outlier like Selanne. There are only 55 forwards league wide who played this last season who are currently 34 or older. Clowe is not Doan, Iginla, or Morrow in terms of pure talent, by the time he is those guys age, he's not going to be putting up points at the rate those guys still can.
Rather see the Rangers take Kreider, put him where Clowe would play and attempt to turn him into a Clowe like player. Maybe not fighting but he plays with an edge and is as big. Who knows, maybe he'd even become a better offensive player. 3 or 4 years of Clowe maybe being the same player or 3 or 4 years of maybe turning Kreider or some younger player in to a Clowe like player, I'd prefer the later option.
I know that is the point i was making, without all the typing you added. LOL
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Clowe is making 4M this season (a 500k raise on the previous three seasons). And he signed that contract after a 23g, 30a 52 points campaign. He's top those numbers twice (in the first two years of that contract). Since then, his production has declined (below the 52 points of 08-09). So why does he warrant getting what he got when he was younger and more productive (and give up a 2nd as well)? The Rangers need to start paying guys based on what they could do and stop paying them on what they have done.
I agree with this.
I'll add that i would add a year but would actually offer less per year.
3-3.5 for 3 years is fine with me though i prefer a 2 year deal.
I do however disagree that there is a way to turn Kreider into a Clowe type player but i like the rest of the idea.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
There is a difference. Clarkson's production is going up, while Clowe's is going down.
I understand that. Are you willing to pay him similar $$ to Clowe, and give him top-3 PP TOI on the team? That is the only way he has a chance of maintaining those #s. Clowe's #s have not been similarly inflated by PP time or a career high shooting %.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I'm not willing to pay either of them what Clowe has been reportedly asking for. For the similar money (say 3.5), gun to me head, I would guess Clarkson if for no other reason than they keep the 2nd and he seems to be in better health. But I'm not sure I'm dying to sign either one of them. I need to see more from Clowe — especially in the playoffs.
I do find it hard to believe that this team seems incapable of developing their own Clowe or Clarkson.
Last edited:
NYR Viper
Registered User
I would agree with this but i think if the Rangers win 2 series then it becomes a 2nd anyway. Take away the 2nd and i would rather have Clowe, again only for a reasonable amount (3-3.5) and not more than 3 years preferably only 2.
I wish the Rangers could either develop their own Clowe or get a young player that becomes one.
He's finally been given chance on top 6 the past 2 years and is a beast on the forecheck. His flaw is talking low percentage shots, but at least that helps maintain possession. He is a faster, less injury prone player.
Made Dan
Registered User
NYR Viper
Registered User
If the Rangers win (2) rounds the Sharks also get that 2nd. If they don't do either, it's a 5th.
Would you agree that one of the major issues with the Rangers is signing players to long-term contracts based on what they have done rather than what they will do?
And if so, wouldnt you agree thats exactly what you're doing with Clowe?
NYR Viper
Registered User
I agree the problem is the Rangers hand out long-term contracts to players who are deteriorating.
Clowe @ 3 years is not he same thing as Richards for 9 or Gomez for 7.
It is all about signing a player to a contract that is market value. If Clowe scores 35 points next season and has 100PIM's making 3.5 million, there would be a market for him around the league. Plenty of playoff experience. Tough as nails. Good along the boards. Good PP player.
I am a fan of players who can be multi-dimensional. A player who can effect a game in multiple ways is normally a decent investment because even if they aren't scoring, they can contribute to wins.
He can play anywhere in the top-9 at that contract I proposed and help that line and this team win.
I also don't think he is as "run-down" as you seem to.
I know. I know.
In fact, you only seem to acknowledge the injuries when you're trying to make excuses for his recent lack of production.
NYR Viper
Registered User
I am acknowledging them. They are obviously there. But to say a 30 year old is all of a sudden a crap player because of a fluke season seems a bit like an over-reaction, no?
If that were the case Staal would be on his way down as well with all the injuries to the head he has had.
Oh God no. The results of this move are so obvious its sickening. Clarkson is going to get a 4.5-5.0 contract and then proceed to suck sometime during his second season.
Now, I'm not too keen on bringing back Clowe but I want nothing to do with Clarkson.
The Gloaming
23
People bring up Clarkson's age like he's some kind of 22 year old stud.
He's 6 months younger than Clowe. Give me a break with the Clarkson fetish.
He's 6 months younger than Clowe. Give me a break with the Clarkson fetish.
Kaapodonna
What me worry?
NO MORE EX DEVILS!!!!! THEY DON'T WORK OUT!I would not be opposed to bringing Clowe back on a 2-3 year deal for 3-4 Mil. Whether he would take it, or we can fit him in, is an other story.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
USA vs Canada- Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 4Staked: $2,414.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated:
-