Brandt Clarke - yes or no

VCRW

VCRW

Classic player
Yes, he is still very young, but Clarke's progress as a NHL defenseman seems to be heading in the wrong direction. His skating is concerning. His lack of defensive instincts is concerning. His lack of physical strength is concerning. His 36 penalty minutes mostly from lazy play is concerning. If I am the GM, and if it means bringing a quality right shot forward to the Kings, I would have to seriously consider moving him at the deadline and making him another team's long term project.

Thoughts???
 
Easy to say yes to a contract and quality player with term, harder to say yes to a rental (even if it's Rantanen). Even Clarke for Tuch seems like its the wrong conversation though. Not opposed to the idea, but think the return is hard to find.
 
Clarke is playing better defensively than I thought he would. I had very low expectations there, but he makes some perfectly average and competent plays along the boards. He backs off for the most part and doesn’t play too risky where he’s rushing to get a loose puck in the offensive zone just to get beat and have a forward skate past him and gain numbers back the other way.
I thought something like that would happen all time.

His ceiling could be average defense while putting up 80 points. It was an odd choice to begin with given the Kings’ focus on defense, but if they let him be him enough as he matures like they let Fiala be Fiala, it’s a fun and productive player on a team that does need a few guys to keep the other team guessing.
 
This was always going to be a development year for Clarke and I do believe we’ve seen significant development in his own end. My concern is his long term fit with the Kings game style. His game fits on a team that runs and guns. The Kings won’t ever play that style under Blake/Hiller.

So as much as it pains me to think about cutting bait on a 22 year old d-man with game breaking offensive skills, what’s the point in keeping him if he will never get to showcase his special talent?
 
jammer06 said:
Easy to say yes to a contract and quality player with term, harder to say yes to a rental (even if it's Rantanen). Even Clarke for Tuch seems like its the wrong conversation though. Not opposed to the idea, but think the return is hard to find.
Click to expand...
Buffalo doesn't really need more young defensemen to develop slowly. I wouldn't think that Clarke would be part of that deal. They would probably want Laferriere plus... fill in the blank.
 
How does he compare with DD's first season defensively? My memory doesn't serve me well enough...

I'd be OK if he's traded for an established and durable NHL player on a long contract with at the very least fair value on it...and if the Kings manage to snag a quality RD UFA.
 
Bollocks said:
How does he compare with DD's first season defensively? My memory doesn't serve me well enough...

I'd be OK if he's traded for an established and durable NHL player on a long contract with at the very least fair value on it...and if the Kings manage to snag a quality RD UFA.
Click to expand...
Doughty's first season:
81GP, 6 goals, 21 assists, -17, 56 penalty minutes, 23:50 average time on ice

Clarke this year:
54GP, 4 goals, 21 assists, +7, 36 penalty minutes, 16:24 average time on ice

Perhaps someone with better memory can provide a POV on the eye test comparison.
 
05/29/93 said:
After trading Faber, I would be VERY hesitant to trade Clark now. The Kings always seem to want to trade away young, talented defensemen (Larry Murphy, Alex Zhitnik, Darryl Sydor, Brock Faber, etc.).
Click to expand...
And I think part of the reason they might have been ok trading Faber was because they knew they had Clarke in the pipeline...Faber was traded roughly a year after they drafted Clarke.
 
LAKingSteve said:
Doughty's first season:
81GP, 6 goals, 21 assists, -17, 56 penalty minutes, 23:50 average time on ice

Clarke this year:
54GP, 4 goals, 21 assists, +7, 36 penalty minutes, 16:24 average time on ice

Perhaps someone with better memory can provide a POV on the eye test comparison.
Click to expand...
Eye test there's no comparison, Clarkes skating is train wreck watchable, doughtys exuded competence. I mean this in the most positive way possible but Clarke looks like a beer League skater in the wrong division but somehow he's all over the score sheet. Mostly because when his offensive instincts activate all the sudden all of his skating hindrances are gone and he's the scariest part of the rush
 
I wasn't a big fan of his on draft day and thought he would get eaten up in the NHL this season but wow, he has really impressed me. Clarke does need to work on his skating, but to his credit he has done a good job of not being caught out of position (when he is it often ends in a penalty) and has been much better in the defensive zone than expected. More so, the beginning of the season players routinely were taking a run at him and he not only survived he excelled (one of the best rookie defensive starts to a season I have seen). I thought he would have a high probably of getting injured early (based on his weight and lack of physicality) but he has shown the ability to stay healthy and absorb the punishment.

It's clear he's been working hard on his overall game - and all things included, I am a fan.

For a team that lacks offense and is weak on the PP it would be very odd for the Kings to trade Clarke (unless perhaps it was for a player like Powers or Byram).

I'd consider him to be untouchable at the present time.
 
LAKingSteve said:
Doughty's first season:
81GP, 6 goals, 21 assists, -17, 56 penalty minutes, 23:50 average time on ice

Clarke this year:
54GP, 4 goals, 21 assists, +7, 36 penalty minutes, 16:24 average time on ice

Perhaps someone with better memory can provide a POV on the eye test comparison.
Click to expand...
Doughty was 18 and Clarke is 22. Beyond their age focus on The TOI.

Doughty as a rookie was playing on the 1st pairing. He was playing in every situation. Was he always making the right plays? Nope but he was very very good. Doughty could control the flow of the game even as a rookie. Clarke can’t do that… yet. Maybe he will be able to somewhere down the line but he doesn’t think the game on the same level as Doughty (most d-men don’t).

Clarke’s gifts are apparent when the puck is on his stick. The Kings don’t play a style where a d-man is asked or expected to carry the puck, period. It’s an oil and water scenario. I don’t really understand what Blake has planned for Clarke.
 
05/29/93 said:
After trading Faber, I would be VERY hesitant to trade Clark now. The Kings always seem to want to trade away young, talented defensemen (Larry Murphy, Alex Zhitnik, Darryl Sydor, Brock Faber, etc.).
Click to expand...

This. It would be a bad look for Blake and the Kings to move away an offense-minded D-man at this point, especially when their PP is total crapsauce this season. That would be the very last thing the Kings would do right now. LA cannot afford to be more impotent on O and be too fixated on D when they have trouble scoring in the O-zone at times. Look what they did with Durzi; I mean, sure, he was very prone to making really stupid decisions with the puck but he really made the Kings' O twice as good a few seasons ago, especially on the PP. Then Blake for some reason decided to discard him for peanuts and our PP hasn't been the same ever since, all the more so when Vilardi and Kupari were traded away for PLD and we all know how that turned out.
 
VCRW said:
Yes, he is still very young, but Clarke's progress as a NHL defenseman seems to be heading in the wrong direction. His skating is concerning. His lack of defensive instincts is concerning. His lack of physical strength is concerning. His 36 penalty minutes mostly from lazy play is concerning. If I am the GM, and if it means bringing a quality right shot forward to the Kings, I would have to seriously consider moving him at the deadline and making him another team's long term project.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

He is def afraid of getting hit
 
People are missing the one big difference between DD and BC's first seasons.

Drew was on a team that sucked and he was allowed to play in all situations. There was no expectation of winning or getting into the playoffs. He was allowed to eat up minutes and learn on the job. He also had OD as his defensive partner who, at the time was the prefect fit to bring him along. I recall every game OD and DD talking it up on the bench going over things that were happening on the ice. Drew learned a lot from OD.

Clarke is on a team that is trying to win. He does not have an OD to bring him along. He gets limited/protected minutes ( not so much when DD was out). Clarke does not have a mentor like DD had and he is not developing as quickly as he could/should be, but it is not necessarily all his fault.
 
Last edited:
Why? Why would some of you folks want to move away Clarke for a potentially worse package of players? I'd rather I move away Spence than Clarke. If you ask me, he's worse than Clarke. Moving Clarke away to a different team is the very last thing our team needs right now. And heaven forbid if Clarke manages to find even better success with his new team. We cannot afford losing another potentially strong O-minded D-man and then getting fleeced for little to nothing in return.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top