Dylan Larkin's Contract

[Tatar Shots]

What comes to player ages, going long-term with Mantha is now.

Larkin is 22-year old at next summer. Do a 3-year then and after that bridge he is 25-year old. Then push for 8 years in his prime, until he is 32.

Mantha is 24-year old at next season start. Time to push for 8 years is now. Then we lock him to his prime years from 24 to 31.

Larkin would only have 1 RFA year left if you signed him for 3 years. That sounds extremely and unnescarily dangerous. If you believe in him there is no reason not to go long term

 

[Reddwit]

But when were the words 'Nyquist' and 'revered' ever in the same sentence to begin with? He's always been a complimentary scoring winger, albeit one with a short window of overachievement.

People were expecting big things from Nyquist after his first and second seasons. His contract was well received. There has been plenty of talk over the years about how he can put up 60-70 points, etc.

 

[Goalie guy]

Yeah he is really showing that big money out there on the ice. Face it guys even the players we thought where going to be game changers are nothing more than low 2nd high 3rd line role players.

 

[Mlotek]

Not really. 50 point players get 5-6 million in this league. Larkin is pretty likely to hit that number.

He is playing 18+ minutes a game so that is pretty likely. 40 points is like the bare minimum a forward will score playing that much ice-time. It is not so much about skill as ice-time. Very very few players getting 18+ minutes won't be on pace to break 40.

And lets be honest, if you are getting 18+ minutes a game (unless your playing well over your skill level like Abdelkader or Ott) there is no reason why you shouldn't be above the 50 point pace.

 

[jkutswings]

There isn't a player on earth I'd sign to an 8 year deal. There's just way too many reasons things could go wrong over that long a timeframe.

5 years? Sure, for the better younger players. But I'd happily take the risk of paying more later, because a guy broke out and became a great player, than yet another instance of locking up a player, then having half the contract (or more) turn into a paperweight.

Honestly, at this stage of the competitive cycle, I'd sooner risk losing Mantha after 4-5 years, than risk having yet another albatross of a deal on the books.

 

[Frk It]

There isn't a player on earth I'd sign to an 8 year deal. There's just way too many reasons things could go wrong over that long a timeframe.

5 years? Sure, for the better younger players. But I'd happily take the risk of paying more later, because a guy broke out and became a great player, than yet another instance of locking up a player, then having half the contract (or more) turn into a paperweight.

Honestly, at this stage of the competitive cycle, I'd sooner risk losing Mantha after 4-5 years, than risk having yet another albatross of a deal on the books.

That's just not a good way to operate. RFA years are cheaper than UFA years. By offering a contract that combines both you can get good value.

Let's say you have a 22 year old promising player. If you offered them a 5 year contract, that would take them right to UFA. So you might save money on the first 5 years, then that dude is cashing in at 27 when he hits UFA. Alternatively you could offer him a 8 year deal at 22 that takes him to 30 where the split is 5 RFA/3UFA years, where you stand better odds to get value in the long run. Some of the best deals in the league where given out in this manner.

Your last sentence I wholeheartedly disagree with, and if we had a GM operating that way I'd be very against it. A lot of why we are where we are is because we are risk averse, so I don't think being even more risk averse is going to make things better. You just have to make smarter gambles, not stop gambling altogether.

Giving a 7-8 year deal to Mantha or Larkin is a smart gamble. Rushing to give Abdelkader a 7 year deal after he scores 20 goals for the first time in his life is stupid.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Yeah. I'm going to wait to see if he gets there.
He hasn't done it yet.
Last year he got 32 points - 3 whole more than Athanasiou - who wasn't worth 2x$2.2M to most of this board.

I'm fine with 4x$4M
Or $3x$3.5M or something right now.

If we get to March and Larkin looks like a dynamic player on his way to 50+ points, great.

But so far, Larkin has spent more of his career being mediocre than good.

Well we're talking long-term here. And even if Larkin doesn't hit 50+ the way he's playing is extremely encouraging. If we got 3x3.5 there's a possibility the next contract is 8x8 or similar.

What comes to player ages, going long-term with Mantha is now.

Larkin is 22-year old at next summer. Do a 3-year then and after that bridge he is 25-year old. Then push for 8 years in his prime, until he is 32.

Mantha is 24-year old at next season start. Time to push for 8 years is now. Then we lock him to his prime years from 24 to 31.

Doubt Mantha takes 8 years at this point. Larkin would be a no-brainer to go 6+ years if he is willing. I think the key is getting value on their next contract. Either way go play it you're going to pay on the contract after. At 31/32 they could have just had their peak years and you pay top dollar.

 

[Winger98]

Statistically, their peak production years are likely to be in the very near future. When they hit their late20s/early30s their production will have plateaued or decreased a bit and you're paying more for their likely consistency, experience (past accomplishments), and maybe a more rounded game. Other than guys on the Crosby/Malkin/Karlsson level, I think there is a lot of good argument to be made for signing good players until they are 29-31, and then dealing them with a year or so left on their deals.

 

[Redder Winger]

Well we're talking long-term here. And even if Larkin doesn't hit 50+ the way he's playing is extremely encouraging. If we got 3x3.5 there's a possibility the next contract is 8x8 or similar.


Doubt Mantha takes 8 years at this point. Larkin would be a no-brainer to go 6+ years if he is willing. I think the key is getting value on their next contract. Either way go play it you're going to pay on the contract after. At 31/32 they could have just had their peak years and you pay top dollar.

GMs need to stop obsessing about getting players on bargains.
Pay them what they're worth.
If Larkin is only worth $2-3M today, there's no guarantee he's worth $8 or $9M in 4-5 years.

He he demonstrated that sort of dynamic play on a regular basis, I don't see rush to sign him to a long-term deal.

Over the last two games, Larkin has been pretty awful (outside of the third period last night, when he seemed a little angry)

And if you go look at his assists this year, a lot of come from simply throwing pucks near the front of the net. So I'm not all convinced this point-per-game thing is anywhere near sustainable.
He's still not playing as well as he did in the first half of his rookie season.

 

[Frk It]

GMs need to stop obsessing about getting players on bargains.

I don't know if I can disagree with a sentence any more than this.

 

[Redder Winger]

Statistically, their peak production years are likely to be in the very near future. When they hit their late20s/early30s their production will have plateaued or decreased a bit and you're paying more for their likely consistency, experience (past accomplishments), and maybe a more rounded game. Other than guys on the Crosby/Malkin/Karlsson level, I think there is a lot of good argument to be made for signing good players until they are 29-31, and then dealing them with a year or so left on their deals.

I agree with you.
But our kids in this age group haven't accomplished what guys like Toews and Kane and Crosby and Malkin did.

Let's see where these kids are at the end of the season.
If Larkin is sporting 20-30-50 numbers and looking good at C, then maybe you pull the trigger on a long-term deal.
If Mantha is 30-20-50 and looking engaged, then sure, You consider a long term deal.

Everyone should look at Alexander Wennberg's contract.
6x4.9M
Wennberg, better than Larkin considerably to this point in his career, went 13-46-59 last year.

 

[Redder Winger]

I don't know if I can disagree with a sentence any more than this,

Why don't you tell me how many cups Detroit has one since Holland's brilliant capdiving contracts kicked in?
How many times have they been to the finals?
How many times in the conference finals?
ZERO.

Pay a player what he's worth.
You can get your bargains with rookies and veterans looking to re-establish themselves.

You don't get your bargains on your stars. That ass-backwards.

Pay them what they're worth.
Don't get cute.
Manage on the up-and-up.

If you can convince them to take less to keep a team together, great.
But don't try to outsmart everyone with deals that overpay early and hopefully save money later on an eight year deal.

If Holland's wrong, he won't be the guy here dealing with the repercussions.
And we have enough bullshit contracts as it is.

 

[Frk It]

Why don't you tell me how many cups Detroit has one since Holland's brilliant capdiving contracts kicked in?
How many times have they been to the finals?
How many times since the conference finals?
ZERO.

Pay a player what he's worth.
You can get your bargains with rookies and veterans looking to re-establish themselves.

You don't get your bargains on your stars. That ass-backwards.

Pay them what they're worth.
Don't get cute.
Manage on the up-and-up.

If you can convince them to take less to keep a team together, great.
But don't try to outsmart everyone with deals that overpay early and hopefully save money later.

If Holland's wrong, he won't be the guy here dealing with the repercussions.
And we have enough bull**** contracts as it is.

"Deals that overpay early and hopefully save money later" is how you get Roman Josi for 4 million dollars, Pacioretty for 5 million, Seguin for 5.75 million, Scheifele for 6.125 million, etc.

As I said before, it's about smart gambles vs not smart gambles. Banking on improvement in the future can be a very smart practice, as we have seen numerous times. Just because we have some bad contracts doesn't mean every contract will become bad.

 

[Redder Winger]

"Deals that overpay early and hopefully save money later" is how you get Roman Josi for 4 million dollars, Pacioretty for 5 million, Seguin for 5.75 million, Scheifele for 6.125 million, etc.

As I said before, it's about smart gambles vs not smart gambles. Banking on improvement in the future can be a very smart practice, as we have seen numerous times. Just because we have some bad contracts doesn't mean every contract will become bad.

And I'm already seeing Larkin, who scored 32 points last year, talked about as a $6M cap hit guy in this thread.
So where's the bargain?

Tyler Seguin produced and was paid for his production at a young age.
He had a 29 goal, 67=point season.
He followed it up with a 16-16-32 in 48 game season.

He earned his money. That wasn't a gamble.
He was paid for his production.

Scheifele is probably more along the lines of what you're talking about.
But he had two successive years at center and showed improvement.

I'd like to see one successful year at center from Larkin before I commit to an 8 year deal over $5M.

I'm not sure he's cut out to be a top 6 C at this stage.
I'm not sure how good he is at the Wing anymore either.

I don't know what we have, based on his body of work.
Do you?

Why rush in to another long-term commitment with no body of work?

This is the same team, you might remember, that was afraid of committing more than $1.9M a year for 2 years to Athanasiou - because he hadn't proved anything yet.

 

[taylorjonl]

"Deals that overpay early and hopefully save money later" is how you get Roman Josi for 4 million dollars, Pacioretty for 5 million, Seguin for 5.75 million, Scheifele for 6.125 million, etc.

I have to leave for work but how many bad contracts are handed out early with this hope of saving money later? I think it is too early to start talking about giving any of our players term, especially after the last two stinkers. At this point to me give everyone 1 year deals so they have some motivation to actually try, don't give them job security.

 

[jkutswings]

That's just not a good way to operate. RFA years are cheaper than UFA years. By offering a contract that combines both you can get good value.

Let's say you have a 22 year old promising player. If you offered them a 5 year contract, that would take them right to UFA. So you might save money on the first 5 years, then that dude is cashing in at 27 when he hits UFA. Alternatively you could offer him a 8 year deal at 22 that takes him to 30 where the split is 5 RFA/3UFA years, where you stand better odds to get value in the long run. Some of the best deals in the league where given out in this manner.

Your last sentence I wholeheartedly disagree with, and if we had a GM operating that way I'd be very against it. A lot of why we are where we are is because we are risk averse, so I don't think being even more risk averse is going to make things better. You just have to make smarter gambles, not stop gambling altogether.

Giving a 7-8 year deal to Mantha or Larkin is a smart gamble. Rushing to give Abdelkader a 7 year deal after he scores 20 goals for the first time in his life is stupid.

I understand what you're saying, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, from the standpoint that:

1) I think players pan out to that degree less often than you do, and

2) This franchise in particular has had significantly below average returns on investment with long term deals.

My money is on Larkin having a career where a 5x5 deal would be about right, assuming they somehow add more good players to help him, so the odds of losing 1-2 years of value are less a risk than a kid I consider to be a volatile player, ending up being not at all worth a 7-8 year deal. I could see maybe a little more for Mantha, but again, I'd sooner expect the bottom to drop out once Hank retires, than the kids rising to the occasion to such a degree that they're the new All Stars on bargain long-term deals.

I think the next few years will not be very friendly to Red Wing production stats, and until more pieces are in place for rebuilding, I just don't see anybody earning a contract like that.

 

[Frk It]

I have to leave for work but how many bad contracts are handed out early with this hope of saving money later? I think it is too early to start talking about giving any of our players term, especially after the last two stinkers. At this point to me give everyone 1 year deals so they have some motivation to actually try, don't give them job security.

Not a ton of examples I can think of, but yeah it can cut both ways. RNH is probably a good example of a guy who is overpaid from assumed improvement that hasn't really come as hoped.

 

[Frk It]

I understand what you're saying, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, from the standpoint that:

1) I think players pan out to that degree less often than you do, and

2) This franchise in particular has had significantly below average returns on investment with long term deals.

My money is on Larkin having a career where a 5x5 deal would be about right, assuming they somehow add more good players to help him, so the odds of losing 1-2 years of value are less a risk than a kid I consider to be a volatile player, ending up being not at all worth a 7-8 year deal. I could see maybe a little more for Mantha, but again, I'd sooner expect the bottom to drop out once Hank retires, than the kids rising to the occasion to such a degree that they're the new All Stars on bargain long-term deals.

I think the next few years will not be very friendly to Red Wing production stats, and until more pieces are in place for rebuilding, I just don't see anybody earning a contract like that.

It's all situational. You have to factor in age, the player, and many other things.

5 year deal at the end of this season doesn't make sense for Larkin. You either do a bridge deal of ~3 years like Henkka said, or you go long term for 7-8 years. 5 year deal would mean his deal expires with him as a UFA. GM's avoid giving out deals to 20-23 year olds where that expire with them being a UFA for a reason. You basically only do that as a last resort.

 

[jkutswings]

It's all situational. You have to factor in age, the player, and many other things.

5 year deal at the end of this season doesn't make sense for Larkin. You either do a bridge deal of ~3 years like Henkka said, or you go long term for 7-8 years. 5 year deal would mean his deal expires with him as a UFA. GM's avoid giving out deals to 20-23 year olds where that expire with them being a UFA for a reason. You basically only do that as a last resort.

Then I'd do bridge deals 99.9% of the time, because 7-8 years is almost never worth it in today's NHL.

 

[Frk It]

Then I'd do bridge deals 99.9% of the time, because 7-8 years is almost never worth it in today's NHL.

Ok, well then have fun negotiating contracts with 25 year olds that include 50% or more UFA years right after their prime seasons hit (usually between ages 22-25).

 

[BinCookin]

Question: If we signed Larkin to a bridge of 3.5-4.5 Mil. Who thinks Larkin is worth 7-8 Million in 3-4 years??

Because if he isnt worth that much... where are these "savings" from an 8 year deal?

 

[jkutswings]

Ok, well then have fun negotiating contracts with 25 year olds that include 50% or more UFA years right after their prime seasons hit (usually between ages 22-25).

Which would be a nightmare...if the heavy majority of those 25 year olds tended to have numbers that supported massive pay increases. But that's statistically not the case, otherwise every team in the league would have 3-4 players that deserved to go to the All Star game every year.

I'd shell out both cash and term for the players that light up the league right away, and be very picky about anybody else, because it's not frequent for NHL players to go from several years of mediocre play, to skyrocketing their production. It happens more often with defensemen as late bloomers, but if I suddenly have an elite defenseman on my hands, that's a different argument, and I'm counting my lucky stars, and paying him whatever it takes.

 

[Henkka]

I don't think case Larkin will be a problem. He is not that skilled that he is gonna explode any moment. But he could be a very valuable defensive player.

Ugliest thing what has happened lately in NHL was Buffalo giving that 10M straight on to Eichel. Jack was a non-factor against the worst Wings I've ever seen. There was absolutely no need for this high caphit. His former advanced stats are quite average. Why not getting a steal?

10M is the max of his maximum, when guy hasn't shown anything that he is nearing his maximum. Better than average offensive player and pp-"specialist" running one of the worst powerplays. It was just a scale contract, oh he was a 2nd overall, we have to pay him the maximum behing McDavid! Horrible.

Good luck with that anchor. It will never be a steal, at best just market priced. Huge risk if he fails and unneeded pressure on his shoulders.

 

[Syckle78]

Question: If we signed Larkin to a bridge of 3.5-4.5 Mil. Who thinks Larkin is worth 7-8 Million in 3-4 years??

Because if he isnt worth that much... where are these "savings" from an 8 year deal?

Unless their is a huge increase to the cap and subsequent increase to player compensation Larkin probably tops out around 6-6.5m down the road. And that's if he progresses at a decent clip.

 

[Syckle78]

I don't think case Larkin will be a problem. He is not that skilled that he is gonna explode any moment. But he could be a very valuable defensive player.

Ugliest thing what has happened lately in NHL was Buffalo giving that 10M straight on to Eichel. Jack was a non-factor against the worst Wings I've ever seen. There was absolutely no need for this high caphit. It's the max of his maximum, when guys hasn't shown anything that he is nearing his maximum. Better than average offensive player and pp-"specialist" running one of the worst powerplays. It was just a scale contract, oh he was a 2nd overall, we have to pay him the maximum behing McDavid! Horrible.

Good luck with that anchor. It will never be a steal, at best just market priced. Huge risk if he fails and unneeded pressure on his shoulders.

Lol Eichel is better than average, eh?