Worse contract: Clarkson or Finger

[onlygotmygrade10]

The words 'worst contract ever' are thrown around a lot, and while there were some bad ones this summer, Clarkson's has not just the amount but the length to have the current reign of this title.

That being said, it's known Clarkson was in demand, and was going to get that money somewhere. Toronto's signing of Jeff Finger on the other hand, made little sense, and there was even some concern they had mistakenly signed the wrong player.

This is apples and oranges to some degree, Finger's contract is finished, Clarkson's has only started, Fingers' contact could be buried, etc, but assuming Finger's contract couldn't be buried, which one would you rather be stuck with given the value or lack thereof of each player?

Finger
Pro: doesn't make as much or as much term
Con: not good at hockey

Clarkson
Pro: has scored 30 goals
Con: was really, really useless last year

I post this because I'm not sure who I would pick. Kind of lean towards Clarkson just because you never know, and could he be really be worse next year, but not something I would really argue very strongly.

Click to read more...

 

[Territory]

Depends on how Clarkson plays next season. He could very well bounce back and have a good year.

His game will still get nitpicked to death either way.

 

[Teeder9]

Clarkson. he will never be able to play well enough for it to matter

 

[Babscocks]

Clarkson, unless he redeems himself hugely this year. Finger was kind of an unknown guy and got a big contract, but I can't imagine in 5-6 years still paying Clarkson 5+ million a year to skate around falling

 

[Babscocks]

Not sure what Finger was brought in for but I know Clarkson was supposed to put up a few points.

Finger first year in Toronto 66 games 6 goals 17 assists.
Clarkson first year in Toronto 60 games 5 goals 6 assists.

Clarkson's 11 points really pissed me off

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Clarkson because it's pretty much buyout proof.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Clarkson might have the worst contract in history simply because of the madness of its structure.

People should be fired for signing something so messed up and clearly designed to be buy-out proof and untradable.

Oh well!

 

[Leafidelity]

Leafs fans have a strange fascination with labelling their problems as the worst of all time. Everything and everyone cant ever just be bad, it has to be the worst of all time.

 

[Teeder9]

Leafs fans have a strange fascination with labelling their problems as the worst of all time. Everything and everyone cant ever just be bad, it has to be the worst of all time.

Worst post of all time

 

[SeenSchenn2]

Leafs fans have a strange fascination with labelling their problems as the worst of all time. Everything and everyone cant ever just be bad, it has to be the worst of all time.

It's so true.

Worst post of all time

 

[Schenn]

Seems a little premature to call Clarkson's contract the worst of all time. Let's maybe give him another year, shall we?

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

The amount is FAR too high for a veteran that's averaged 30 points over his career.
The term is FAR too long for a player of his age that plays his style!!!!
There is a No Movement Clause
There is a Limited No Trade Clause.
The contract is buy out proof due to signing bonuses.

Without a DOUBT the worst contract in nhl history.

While I agree other teams were interested in Clarkson because of his lucky season (plus a 10 game hot start), I'm sure that interest died out once Nonis started getting close to 5 million with a long term.
All the extra money, years, and add-on's were almost assuredly Clarksons agent playing Nonis for a fool.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Seems a little premature to call Clarkson's contract the worst of all time. Let's maybe give him another year, shall we?

Up to age 29, Clarkson averaged 30 points in the nhl
Let's say Clarkson has the same career average in points from 30-37 that he did from 23-29 (which would be an EXTRAORDINARILY rare occurrence).
That would would make him a 30 point player the remaining 6 years. At 5.5 million. Buy out proof. No movement clause. Limited no Trade clause.

Without QUESTION still the worst contract in nhl world history.

 

[Mystifo]

The amount is FAR too high for a veteran that's averaged 30 points over his career.
The term is FAR too long for a player of his age that plays his style!!!!
There is a No Movement Clause
There is a Limited No Trade Clause.
The contract is buy out proof due to signing bonuses.

Without a DOUBT the worst contract in nhl history.

While I agree other teams were interested in Clarkson because of his lucky season (plus a 10 game hot start), I'm sure that interest died out once Nonis started getting close to 5 million with a long term.
All the extra money, years, and add-on's were almost assuredly Clarksons agent playing Nonis for a fool.

Sir allow me to point you towards TWO contracts which can state otherwise...


Rick Dipetro: http://capgeek.com/player/1101
Alexei Yashin: http://capgeek.com/player/1162


I did not add the horrid Bobby Holik one as NYR nicked that one early. Can add Scott Gomez to the list as well.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Seems a little premature to call Clarkson's contract the worst of all time. Let's maybe give him another year, shall we?

It has the worst structure of all time.

It's not worth it to buy him out at any point during his entire contract because his salary is almost entirely signing bonuses.

I've never seen a contract structured like his.

Obviously if he plays much better then it doesn't matter. But he looked really bad last year so the potential that his cap hit will become an albatross is very real.

The fact that even if the Leafs buy him out will only save them around a million in cap hit is really ****ed up. I don't get why a GM would go along with it.

Go here and buyout Clarkson every year from 2014 to 2019 http://capgeek.com/buyout-calculator/?player_id=780

Note the savings column, tell me that isn't ****ed up?!?!

 

[Mystifo]

It has the worst structure of all time.

It's not worth it to buy him out at any point during his entire contract because his salary is almost entirely signing bonuses.

I've never seen a contract structured like his.

Obviously if he plays much better then it doesn't matter. But he looked really bad last year so the potential that his cap hit will become an albatross is very real.

The fact that even if the Leafs buy him out will only save them around a million in cap hit is really ****ed up. I don't get why a GM would go along with it.

Go here and buyout Clarkson every year from 2014 to 2019 http://capgeek.com/buyout-calculator/?player_id=780

Note the savings column, tell me that isn't ****ed up?!?!

That is pretty nasty. It is actually more more cost effective to just eat 50% of his salary over the contract time.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Sir allow me to point you towards TWO contracts which can state otherwise...


Rick Dipetro: http://capgeek.com/player/1101
Alexei Yashin: http://capgeek.com/player/1162


I did not add the horrid Bobby Holik one as NYR nicked that one early. Can add Scott Gomez to the list as well.

Those two contracts did not have no movement clauses, or any type of no trade clauses, and both were clearly "buy-out-able".

The reason Clarksons contract is the worst in all world history is not JUST because of the money and the term.
It's because of all the other nonsense on top of the money and the term.

 

[socko]

Leafs fans have a strange fascination with labelling their problems as the worst of all time. Everything and everyone cant ever just be bad, it has to be the worst of all time.

and yet in this case, it appears they may be right. It's definitely the worst Leaf contract of all-time. And a heavy contender for worst contract league wide.

 

[Swervin81]

Why the **** did the Leafs structure it the way they did? What motivation was there for them to do so? I could understand on Clarkson's side to maximize payout if all goes wrong and if he is bought out, but why would Nonis/Loiselle and co ACCEPT such a structure when it pretty much makes the contract buyout proof. WHY?!?!?!?! It makes no ****ing sense. I'm so glad our joke of a cap guru was fired today.

 

[onlygotmygrade10]

Sir allow me to point you towards TWO contracts which can state otherwise...


Rick Dipetro: http://capgeek.com/player/1101
Alexei Yashin: http://capgeek.com/player/1162


I did not add the horrid Bobby Holik one as NYR nicked that one early. Can add Scott Gomez to the list as well.

I put 'worst contract ever' in quotations because it was meant as hyperbole. Regardless, it's still pretty bad. I'll leave it to someone else to rank all time lousy contracts.

These one's are also bad, though at least in Yashin's case he was good at one point.

 

[Diatomic]

Why the **** did the Leafs structure it the way they did? What motivation was there for them to do so? I could understand on Clarkson's side to maximize payout if all goes wrong and if he is bought out, but why would Nonis/Loiselle and co ACCEPT such a structure when it pretty much makes the contract buyout proof. WHY?!?!?!?! It makes no ****ing sense. I'm so glad our joke of a cap guru was fired today.

If your going down with the ship may aswell drown the whole crew too

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Why the **** did the Leafs structure it the way they did? What motivation was there for them to do so? I could understand on Clarkson's side to maximize payout if all goes wrong and if he is bought out, but why would Nonis/Loiselle and co ACCEPT such a structure when it pretty much makes the contract buyout proof. WHY?!?!?!?! It makes no ****ing sense. I'm so glad our joke of a cap guru was fired today.

Here's almost assuredly what happened.

Edmonton and the Leafs were the last two interested.
Clarksons agent played them against each other.
When the cap hit/term started getting silly, Edmonton backed out.
Clarksons agent could sense just how badly Nonis wanted him, and convinced Nonis that he was still playing him against Edmonton.
Nonis kept offering more and more and more. 7 years. NMC. Limited NTC. Crazy structure.
Clarkson and his agent were probably stunned at this point, astounded that their charade was working.
Eventually, while trying to hide laughter, Clarksons agent agreed to Nonis, still keeping up the facade about Edmonton claiming "money was left on the table".
Pierre lebron gets word of this and incorrectly reports that "edmonton offered more money".
Contract signed, Clarkson keeps up the facade that he "left money on the table".
Nonis also makes a statement that another team offered more money, to try and rationalize the sillyness.
The rest is history.

Of course this is just how I think it likely played out.
I don't believe FOR A SECOND that any other nhl GM was even considering offering anything CLOSE to this contract to Clarkson.
Nonis was played for a fool.

 

[happyaccident]

Up to age 29, Clarkson averaged 30 points in the nhl
Let's say Clarkson has the same career average in points from 30-37 that he did from 23-29 (which would be an EXTRAORDINARILY rare occurrence).
That would would make him a 30 point player the remaining 6 years. At 5.5 million. Buy out proof. No movement clause. Limited no Trade clause.

Without QUESTION still the worst contract in nhl world history.

He'd be lucky to even keep up that average. You have to take his age and style of play into account. Power forwards at 30 years of age, how many of them actually start getting better? Plus he has no actual skill tools to back himself up with.
Look what's happening to Justin Verlander. 7 seasons of 200+ innings and a fastball that would actually rock upper 90s or even triple-digits as the game went on (!!!), now he signs a 180M contract and he's in the low 90s and getting smacked.
The game is speeding up and Clarkson is slowng down, he's done. Based on merit alone, he'll be lucky to even be in the lineup by season's end.

 

[Moncherry]

Clarkson, and this isn't a contest.

He's signed until the year 2020 with a cap hit of $5.25 million. Think about that.

 

[Stephen]

Seems a little premature to call Clarkson's contract the worst of all time. Let's maybe give him another year, shall we?

There's no amount that Clarkson can bring as a hockey player that would justify his pay at this point.