• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Neb00rs

Who would take back Clarkson (at a discounted rate)?

58 posts in this topic

 

And lets not forget, his 30 in 2011-12 were 3rd on the team behind Kovalchuk (37) and Parise (31). His 15 in 2012-13 made him number one on the team. 

 

Seeing as we don't have another 30 goal scorer, I see no basis for not taking him back IF they ate some of the contract as proposed. 

 

 

Dropping a one-time 30 goal scorer onto a team doesn't just add 30 goals to the team's total. We all see that with Ryder this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping a one-time 30 goal scorer onto a team doesn't just add 30 goals to the team's total. We all see that with Ryder this year.

This. If his game filled a void on this team, year, take him. It doesn't. He's probably better than Ruutu, but not as much as we think, and they're not that much different. If they were paid similar amounts (Clarkie a little more, but not much) and we could get rid of Ruutu, maybe Clarkson would come in handy. As it is, though, it would be a move to make a move, or a sentimental ex-Devil signing, just like all the moves we've flamed Lou for in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm... I would trade some of the dead weight we currently have to have him back... I mean being how half of the forwards on this team are garbage anyway why not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He scored almost all those 15 goals in the first half half of a half season, then disappeared.  By your logic then he is really a 60 goal scorer.  At most I would expect him to score 10-15 goals a season and we have plenty of guys who do that.  We need consistent 30+ goal scorers.

 

Lol. I don't consider Clarkson a 30 goal scorer (15-20) but this is one of the most ridiculous posts of the year. It makes absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get Clarkson back, the Leafs would have to pick up half the salary and NJ would have to trade them Clowe, picking up 40% of his salary, and this deal would have to happen after July 1 so that Clarkson's yearly bonus is paid out already by the Leafs.  That's the only way I consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get Clarkson back, the Leafs would have to pick up half the salary and NJ would have to trade them Clowe, picking up 40% of his salary, and this deal would have to happen after July 1 so that Clarkson's yearly bonus is paid out already by the Leafs.  That's the only way I consider it.

 

There you go, I'd do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get Clarkson back, the Leafs would have to pick up half the salary and NJ would have to trade them Clowe, picking up 40% of his salary, and this deal would have to happen after July 1 so that Clarkson's yearly bonus is paid out already by the Leafs.  That's the only way I consider it.

face it we're stuck with clowe. and his horrid contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I'd rather just have Clowe. He's slow, but a better skater, he can pass (on purpose, not on missed wraparounds) and he doesn't spend all game staring at the officials. He's also put of several 50 point seasons.

 

In a full 82 game season, he'd be on pace for 44 points this year, while Clarkson would be looking at around 17, and Clowe plays on an offensively inferior team. It looks like we already got the best of Clarkson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I don't consider Clarkson a 30 goal scorer (15-20) but this is one of the most ridiculous posts of the year. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

How so?  Others seem to comprehend it fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

face it we're stuck with clowe. and his horrid contract

 

In the new system, almost no contracts are unmoveable because you can split the money.  Clowe's contract with NJ picking up half would certainly move somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?  Others seem to comprehend it fine.

 

Because you take the sample as is. You don't look for distribution throughout the sample. 30 goals scored in 82 games, all scored in the first 41 is the EXACT same thing as 30 goals scored throughout the season. That's the most basic rule of statistics. By your (non) logic Clarkson would not score 60 goals, he would score 30 goals in the first half of the season again. Which of course, also makes no sense statistically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you take the sample as is. You don't look for distribution throughout the sample. 30 goals scored in 82 games, all scored in the first 41 is the EXACT same thing as 30 goals scored throughout the season. That's the most basic rule of statistics. By your (non) logic Clarkson would not score 60 goals, he would score 30 goals in the first half of the season again. Which of course, also makes no sense statistically. 

 

And you would see I was being sarcastic and doing what you are trying to do to me to the original poster who was insisting that Clarkson is a 30-goal scorer.

 

But I still love you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would see I was being sarcastic and doing what you are trying to do to me to the original poster who was insisting that Clarkson is a 30-goal scorer.

 

But I still love you.

 

Love you too Dman but I do understand what you meant.

 

I don't mean to say that you were serious about him being a 60 goal scorer, but that your assertion that HIS logic means Clarky would score 60, is illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love you too Dman but I do understand what you meant.

 

I don't mean to say that you were serious about him being a 60 goal scorer, but that your assertion that HIS logic means Clarky would score 60, is illogical.

 

 

hmmmm touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love you too Dman but I do understand what you meant.

 

I don't mean to say that you were serious about him being a 60 goal scorer, but that your assertion that HIS logic means Clarky would score 60, is illogical.

 

In fact, if you were to adopt that theory, anyone who scores opening night is an 82 goal scorer, and if he drops in two, he is smashing all kinds of records. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, if you were to adopt that theory, anyone who scores opening night is an 82 goal scorer, and if he drops in two, he is smashing all kinds of records. 

 

Wrong. That's too small of a sample size. This is getting ridiculous, there's no argument here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. That's too small of a sample size. This is getting ridiculous, there's no argument here.

 

That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, 15 goal scorer.

That 30 goal season was the definition of a fluke, to expect him to do it again is just wishful thinking.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Ah yes, but as not only a Devils but a NYJets fan, I am by definition a wishful thinker! How could I not be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, if you were to adopt that theory, anyone who scores opening night is an 82 goal scorer, and if he drops in two, he is smashing all kinds of records.

  

Wrong. That's too small of a sample size. This is getting ridiculous, there's no argument here.

As near as I can figure you guys are talking past each other. IOW, you're saying roughly the same things different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leafs will hold onto Clarkson and then once he leaves, Leafs fans will look back on his failed tenure with rose colored glasses turning him into some sort of folk hero much like Wendel Clark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0