Confirmed with Link: Darren Helm re-signed 5 years 3.85m/year

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,078
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Helm had 26 points in 77 games. He was a -2 for the season. He was 4th on the team in hits with 115, behind Abdelkader (207), Glendenning (143), and Ericsson (125).

I can go into his face off and posession stats, but what exactly is so remarkable about this guy to give him the contract he got?

From last 2 seasons, TOP10 players who started more from defensive zone, and had better Corsi%:

Patrice Bergeron, 56.9%, 36.8 Def.Zone.Starts
Jordan Staal, 56.0%, 32.7 DefZone
Brad Marchand, 55.6%, 33.0 DefZone
Tomas Hertl, 55.4%, 33.0 DefZone
Darren Helm, 54.6%, 31.9 DefZone
---------------------------------------
Paul Statsny 53.7%, 33.6 DefZone
Mark Scheifele, 53.5%, 32.7 DefZone
Nino Niederreiter, 53.5%, 32.6 DefZone
Ryan Getzlaf 53.3%, 32.4 DefZone
Mike Fisher 52.8%, 32.5 DefZone
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,853
8,577
From last 2 seasons, TOP10 players who started more from defensive zone, and had better Corsi%:

Patrice Bergeron, 56.9%, 36.8 Def.Zone.Starts
Jordan Staal, 56.0%, 32.7 DefZone
Brad Marchand, 55.6%, 33.0 DefZone
Tomas Hertl, 55.4%, 33.0 DefZone
Darren Helm, 54.6%, 31.9 DefZone
---------------------------------------
Paul Statsny 53.7%, 33.6 DefZone
Mark Scheifele, 53.5%, 32.7 DefZone
Nino Niederreiter, 53.5%, 32.6 DefZone
Ryan Getzlaf 53.3%, 32.4 DefZone
Mike Fisher 52.8%, 32.5 DefZone
And most of the rest of that list doesn't look like a black hole on offense. Especially on a team that can't score in the playoffs.

Being great at preventing scoring chances, and not much else, leads to boring hockey where you still get eliminated early.
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
What does age 27 have to do with Helm? Do you think he wasn't getting slower last year? Were his hands improving? Or is this just a random call out that he can't possibly be declining because age? Further, suggesting that anyone said prospects are always better is completely dishonest. I have no idea why some of you have such a hard time addressing things that were actually said.

No, Helm was not declining last year. He was the same Helm he's been for quite some time.

And yes, there are people here who think prospects are always better than what I outlined. It's one of the main themes of this forum, and has been for the 9 years I've been around. My apologies if you are arguing for a veteran outside the organization, instead of a prospect, to fill Helm's spot.


Yeah? So he's going to add how many wins? This isn't a team that needs speed with no ability to do anything offensively. This isn't a team that needs forechecking with poor puck possession. This isn't a team that needs a guy 'who knows how to play at that level'. This is a team that needs more talent than Helm adds. Unless, of course, you're completely content with having around the 15th best NHL team. Then he's probably your man.

There are 23 roster spots on this team, why does Darren Helm, a player who brings valuable attributes, have to fulfill all the team's needs? While we all want those needs taken care of, you still have to have the things the team does have that are necessary for success. And Helm brings some of those things.


But quick, say something about how our prospects will play if they outplay him, as if that's ever been borne out by team history (oh, now you can mention Larkin or DDK, like they beat out and sent a guy to the pressbox who had just been resigned to a long term, high dollar deal).

Obfuscation. You said Helm beings nothing to this team. That's ridiculous.


His style of play doesn't improve a mediocre club, plain and simple. He's a complementary player, and we have nothing, whatsoever, for him to complement.

So let me get this straight.... if you are a mediocre hockey team, then there is no place for what you deem to be a complementary player? What's left that fits the bill? 12 star scoring forwards? Should we jettison Nyquist, Tatar, Abdelkader, Vanek, Athanasiou, Sheahan, Glendening, Miller, Ott, Jurco, and Pulkkinen? No place for complementary players on a mediocre team after all. Or are any of those guys more than complementary forwards in your eyes?
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Helm definitely brings something to every team he plays on. The thing is... Is what he brings worth almost two million more a year than it was last year? Is it worth locking up 3.85 of your cap on a third line center, top six wing who generally tops out at 35 points?

Oh well, just have to hope stone hands develops some touch around the net or they utilize him in that "best 3C in hockey" role and just let him and Glenny frustrate the hell out of opposing scoring lines by being fast and good defensively.
 
Oct 18, 2006
14,329
1,896
The Helm contract is deplorable. Just a shocking contract. I don't mind Helm, but I was more than willing to let him go and get the cash elsewhere. Instead we were the ones who overpaid. Crazy.

I don't hate the Glendening deal, the cap hit is very reasonable, but I hope this doesn't mean he'll be playing a larger role than he should. He's a 4C, at the absolute best he's a temporary 3C when injuries happen.
 
Aug 6, 2012
10,752
5
It all comes down to usage. Helm is enormously useful when put in the right situation. He should never be near a scoring line unless you are basically forced to based on the roster (not this one, obviously).

A line of Sheahan-Helm-Abby or some variation is so sexy. Tell them to play realgud north-south and just grind away. It might leave your scoring lines a bit soft but now you have a hell of a third line that you can trust. Same goes for the fourth line with Glendening (since this is his thread :D). Give him linemates that are suited for him.

No more of this Miller-Glendening-Pulkkinen ********. That gets you absolutely nowhere, real fast.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
No, Helm was not declining last year. He was the same Helm he's been for quite some time.

That doesn't answer my questions. He was, to my eye test at least, significantly worse on the forecheck (to the point that it may as well have not been a part of his game at all, compared to his first few years in the league), and I really don't think he played as fast. If you want to argue that that was an effect of coaching and usage, I could buy that.

And yes, there are people here who think prospects are always better than what I outlined. It's one of the main themes of this forum, and has been for the 9 years I've been around. My apologies if you are arguing for a veteran outside the organization, instead of a prospect, to fill Helm's spot.

Prospects are always better than mediocre players, or it's always better to play a prospect over a mediocre player? I've seen a lot of the latter, none of the former. I don't think I've seen a single person say Mantha, for instance, is definitively better, but I've seen a lot of people essentially saying that he (or AA) would be a better use of the roster spot.

There are 23 roster spots on this team, why does Darren Helm, a player who brings valuable attributes, have to fulfill all the team's needs? While we all want those needs taken care of, you still have to have the things the team does have that are necessary for success. And Helm brings some of those things.

He doesn't have to fulfill them all, but the ones he does fulfill have very little value to a team that's barely going to scrape into the playoffs for yet another year. That's the point: for a team like Tampa Bay (as an example of a team that's close, not necessarily because they have a hole), signing a guy of Helm's caliber makes a lot of sense. They might be a player or so away from contention. Detroit is several players away from contention. Darren Helm isn't the kind of player that has value to a team, in that case, unless you'd really rather have the 16th draft pick and not the 15th, or if, like KH, all you want is to back into the playoffs and the results once there don't matter.

Obfuscation. You said Helm beings nothing to this team. That's ridiculous.

Apologies, then, I was being a little hyperbolic: he adds nothing to this team if the goal is to win a cup. The supporting team isn't strong enough for his skillset to matter at all. If you still disagree, I'd ask this: how many wins does the team end up with last year with and without Helm? How many wins does he add in 2016-17? If the answer is <5 (and I think it's very near 0), then I think we fundamentally agree, even if semantics get in the way.

So let me get this straight.... if you are a mediocre hockey team, then there is no place for what you deem to be a complementary player? What's left that fits the bill? 12 star scoring forwards? Should we jettison Nyquist, Tatar, Abdelkader, Vanek, Athanasiou, Sheahan, Glendening, Miller, Ott, Jurco, and Pulkkinen? No place for complementary players on a mediocre team after all. Or are any of those guys more than complementary forwards in your eyes?

To the first question: it depends on your goals and the rest of the makeup of your team. Nyquist or Tatar might have value, if you think they'll be able to play with Larkin, but I don't really think they both have value for this team (which is why basically the entire board is willing to dump one to bring back a player that would). Additionally, if your goal is just to make the playoffs, then a bunch of complementary players demonstrably help with that goal. However, a group of complementary players isn't really ever going to contend; they're just not good enough.

To the second part, I think we should be willing to jettison all of them. I love Abbie and think he bring a lot to this team, but I think signing him, for what he is, to a lifetime deal was unbelievably stupid. If we can dump Vanek at the deadline for picks, I think that's absolutely a smart move. I don't know why AA even came up, as he's barely played in the NHL yet. But again, if you're not contending, none of those guys, at the veteran level, are players that should be getting massive, long term contracts. None of those guys are players who should be getting top dollar in FA. I haven't complained about Vanek's deal at all, because like Richards', it's only one year. It sucks that he's another guy blocking AA or Mantha, but for a year, who cares (and he's moveable). Helm's contract is a travesty, in comparison.

I'd add that I'm not pressing for a sell off and a tank-to-the-bottom, but that if your team is going to be mediocre anyways, it might as well be mediocre while you play guys who have a shot at making it not mediocre in the future, rather than signing high priced (in term or AAV) FAs who won't add more than 1 or 2 wins (and 0 in the playoffs) anyway.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Another worry about this contract is that Helm obviously had to be sold to come back assuming other teams were offering him more money. I bet Holland guaranteed him top 6 IT and PP IT.
 

DanZ

Registered User
Mar 6, 2008
14,495
31
From last 2 seasons, TOP10 players who started more from defensive zone, and had better Corsi%:

Patrice Bergeron, 56.9%, 36.8 Def.Zone.Starts
Jordan Staal, 56.0%, 32.7 DefZone
Brad Marchand, 55.6%, 33.0 DefZone
Tomas Hertl, 55.4%, 33.0 DefZone
Darren Helm, 54.6%, 31.9 DefZone
---------------------------------------
Paul Statsny 53.7%, 33.6 DefZone
Mark Scheifele, 53.5%, 32.7 DefZone
Nino Niederreiter, 53.5%, 32.6 DefZone
Ryan Getzlaf 53.3%, 32.4 DefZone
Mike Fisher 52.8%, 32.5 DefZone

Also known as the Datsyuk effect.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
helm's deal in vacuum/alone wouldn't be so bad.

but when you have 30+ or close to 30 year olds signed to long-term deals in howard, zetterberg, kronwall, ericsson, abdelkader and nielsen who are overpaid in money and/or term, the dead money starts to add up.
 

silkyjohnson50

Registered User
Jan 10, 2007
11,301
1,178
Also known as the Datsyuk effect.

The two forwards that Helm has played with the most the past 2 season; Datsyuk and Tatar.

They ranked 1st and 5th in 14-15 and 7th and 14th in 15-16 in Corsi among forwards who played regular minutes those seasons.

I've always been a Helm supporter and thought he had a positive impact on that top line in 14-15, but it gets annoying constantly seeing stats cherry picked to make Detroit look amazing in whatever they do.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
The two forwards that Helm has played with the most the past 2 season; Datsyuk and Tatar.

They ranked 1st and 5th in 14-15 and 7th and 14th in 15-16 in Corsi among forwards who played regular minutes those seasons.

I've always been a Helm supporter and thought he had a positive impact on that top line in 14-15, but it gets annoying constantly seeing stats cherry picked to make Detroit look amazing in whatever they do.

helm isn't that good corsi/possession driver but he's still good. he's still at 52.4% corsi without datsyuk in 947 mins the past 2 seasons; and almost 400 of those came with glendening. helm + glendening had 48.4% corsi. glendening without helm had 43.6% corsi.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
helm's deal in vacuum/alone wouldn't be so bad.

but when you have 30+ or close to 30 year olds signed to long-term deals in howard, zetterberg, kronwall, ericsson, abdelkader and nielsen who are overpaid in money and/or term, the dead money starts to add up.

This sums it up very well. You hear the phrase death by a thousand cuts around here often lately.

Also, worth noting, have any of the long deals really worked out yet? So far Ericsson, Howard, and Weiss were all huge misses. Kronwall is OK I think. And now Glendening, Abby, Frans, and Helm at 5 years and beyond.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,078
12,078
Tampere, Finland
helm isn't that good corsi/possession driver but he's still good. he's still at 52.4% corsi without datsyuk in 947 mins the past 2 seasons; and almost 400 of those came with glendening. helm + glendening had 48.4% corsi. glendening without helm had 43.6% corsi.

That's interesting.

Also known as the Datsyuk effect.


So, ~50% (947min of total 1840min) of 5-on-5 ice-time during last 2 years was without Datsyuk, and it did drop him only to "Mike Fisher" -level from 54.6% --> 52.4%.

Still a TOP10 Corsi% player who has started 31.9% or more from defensive end.

I'm quite sure that without Datsyuk (and with Glendning), Helm started even more from defensive zone from bad position and it makes those numbers even more impressive. And his qualcomp numbers were 4th highest on our team at last season. Takes the heavy load when different guys and shiny new kids get easy minutes.

And gets bashed.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
Also, worth noting, have any of the long deals really worked out yet? So far Ericsson, Howard, and Weiss were all huge misses.

It's essentially the cost of doing business in the modern NHL, isn't it? There appear to be two types of UFA-style contracts: the one year reclamation project deal and the 5+ year version for everyone else.

Sure, the guys who top out at the mid-point of rosters get 2-4 year deals, but with anyone who is pegged as a top half UFA, it's 5+ almost without exception (unless the player is 34, or already 35+, etc).

I understand why people don't like the 5+'ers, but nowadays it's either offer 5-7 years or forget about signing anyone good.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
It's essentially the cost of doing business in the modern NHL, isn't it? There appear to be two types of UFA-style contracts: the one year reclamation project deal and the 5+ year version for everyone else.

Sure, the guys who top out at the mid-point of rosters get 2-4 year deals, but with anyone who is pegged as a top half UFA, it's 5+ almost without exception (unless the player is 34, or already 35+, etc).

I understand why people don't like the 5+'ers, but nowadays it's either offer 5-7 years or forget about signing anyone good.

you're ignoring the part about all of them missing. How many long term contracts given to UFA age players actually pan out well for the player and team? Even if we can't get as "good" of a player, it might be better to stick to the one or two year deals to guys who got passed over early in the UFA period than to tie into a better player for a longer term.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,853
8,577
Which is exactly why any significant foray into free agency makes most sense in two scenarios:

1) You're already a contender, and you'd like one piece to try and put yourself over the top for a championship. Being that close, overpaying for a single contract is usually a very worthwhile gamble to try and close the deal on a Cup.

2) You're at the other end of the spectrum, as either an expansion team, or a franchise with an internal budget, and you need help getting to the salary floor. Grab a couple players to bring the books up to where they need to be.

But when you're in the middle, being either just inside or just outside the playoffs, most worthwhile players don't hit free agency in the first place, and the few who do will cost you an arm and a leg...so why overpay in that scenario, when it likely won't make a difference in terms of bringing home any hardware?
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
That doesn't answer my questions. He was, to my eye test at least, significantly worse on the forecheck (to the point that it may as well have not been a part of his game at all, compared to his first few years in the league), and I really don't think he played as fast. If you want to argue that that was an effect of coaching and usage, I could buy that.

I do think it had to do with usage. During the large swaths of the season he was playing with Datsyuk, he wasn't playing a forechecking role. I just didn't notice a decline, given the type of player he is. Is he as fast as he's ever been? As fast as his peak year, in terms of speed? No, I don't think quite. But he's still plenty fast.


Prospects are always better than mediocre players, or it's always better to play a prospect over a mediocre player? I've seen a lot of the latter, none of the former. I don't think I've seen a single person say Mantha, for instance, is definitively better, but I've seen a lot of people essentially saying that he (or AA) would be a better use of the roster spot.

Not sure how using an inferior player is a better use of the roster spot, but my point was just that, every year on this board, there are always a bunch of bottom-6 players who people want dumped (or never signed/traded for) in favor of prospects who are clearly inferior and who have a questionable upside to begin with. Furthermore, what I outlined earlier was not dishonest. I have seen many posts over the years that have suggested X number of roster spots in the bottom-6 should always be reserved for prospects. But it's neither here nor there, just a theme I often find a bit foolhardy.


He doesn't have to fulfill them all, but the ones he does fulfill have very little value to a team that's barely going to scrape into the playoffs for yet another year. That's the point: for a team like Tampa Bay (as an example of a team that's close, not necessarily because they have a hole), signing a guy of Helm's caliber makes a lot of sense. They might be a player or so away from contention. Detroit is several players away from contention. Darren Helm isn't the kind of player that has value to a team, in that case, unless you'd really rather have the 16th draft pick and not the 15th, or if, like KH, all you want is to back into the playoffs and the results once there don't matter.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The assets Helm brings to the table are just as valuable to the last place team in the league as they are to a Cup contender, imo (assuming the GM's style of roster makeup is equal..... there are obviously systems where he'd work better than others, but they are irrespective of the success of the given team).

And to be clear, I'm making this point while not considering his contract, nor his expected usage. With that specific context added, I'd rather he not be on the team. But in a vacuum I think the guy is plenty valuable to the Wings.


Apologies, then, I was being a little hyperbolic: he adds nothing to this team if the goal is to win a cup. The supporting team isn't strong enough for his skillset to matter at all. If you still disagree, I'd ask this: how many wins does the team end up with last year with and without Helm? How many wins does he add in 2016-17? If the answer is <5 (and I think it's very near 0), then I think we fundamentally agree, even if semantics get in the way.

If we're applying "WAR" to hockey, I think Helm is way under 5, yeah. I'd guess the players above 5 WAR in the NHL are pretty much the top tier, elite players. I understand what you're driving at, but if we're saying anyone on the Wings under 5 WAR (or whatever high WAR number we choose) is expendable, then I think that's most of the team. So I have to wonder why this argument applies more to Helm than to most of the rest of the team (again, contract aside of course).


To the first question: it depends on your goals and the rest of the makeup of your team. Nyquist or Tatar might have value, if you think they'll be able to play with Larkin, but I don't really think they both have value for this team (which is why basically the entire board is willing to dump one to bring back a player that would). Additionally, if your goal is just to make the playoffs, then a bunch of complementary players demonstrably help with that goal. However, a group of complementary players isn't really ever going to contend; they're just not good enough.

To the second part, I think we should be willing to jettison all of them. I love Abbie and think he bring a lot to this team, but I think signing him, for what he is, to a lifetime deal was unbelievably stupid. If we can dump Vanek at the deadline for picks, I think that's absolutely a smart move. I don't know why AA even came up, as he's barely played in the NHL yet. But again, if you're not contending, none of those guys, at the veteran level, are players that should be getting massive, long term contracts. None of those guys are players who should be getting top dollar in FA. I haven't complained about Vanek's deal at all, because like Richards', it's only one year. It sucks that he's another guy blocking AA or Mantha, but for a year, who cares (and he's moveable). Helm's contract is a travesty, in comparison.

I'd add that I'm not pressing for a sell off and a tank-to-the-bottom, but that if your team is going to be mediocre anyways, it might as well be mediocre while you play guys who have a shot at making it not mediocre in the future, rather than signing high priced (in term or AAV) FAs who won't add more than 1 or 2 wins (and 0 in the playoffs) anyway.

I think with Nyquist and Tatar, and the board in favor of trading one, it has more to do with the redundancy of, specifically, scoring wingers on the roster vs. a lack of top-3 D than with simply too many complementary players.

We also may be using a different definition of complementary players here. Normally I use the term to specifically describe offensive players who only play on scoring lines and who can provide a lot of offensive value when put on a line with a guy who "drives the line" (i.e. Datsyuk of Zetterberg in their primes), but not capable of being that guy who drives a line themselves. Nyquist and Tatar are perfect examples. And in that sense, every team in the league has complementary players, even Cup winners. So I think they always have a place on any roster.

As for being willing to jettison all of them, I presume you mean that none of them are untouchable (as opposed to being willing to turnover 9 or 10 forwards at once), in which case I agree. But I'd only want to see them jettisoned if we're upgrading somewhere else on the roster. And I think it's a lot harder to upgrade via trades and free agency than a lot of people want to believe. I also think most people undervalue roster continuity and chemistry. In other words, we shouldn't move players or not re-sign them just for the sake of change. Unless that change is pretty clearly making the team better.

In sum, I don't like the Helm contract, and I don't like what I fear his usage will be. But in a vacuum I have no problem with him on this team. No matter how good or bad your club is, you are going to want guys with speed, guys who forecheck, guys with experience, and guys who carry some cultural continuity (assuming the club has a good culture, which the Wings supposedly do).
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->