Dylan Larkin's Contract
- Thread starter Redder Winger
- Start date
- Status
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Hopefully Big E is a buy out candidate next summer, But knowing how Holland works i seriously doubt it.
Henkka
Registered User
Some modified comparables for Larkin.
I used a simple tool, the Nikolai Ehlers contract as a comparable.
That was worth 6M per year, 7 years, against this years 79.5M cap = 7.55% of cap.
Also contract values usually go like this:
1st year RFA 4.5M salary
2nd year RFA 5.0M salary
3rd year RFA 5.5M salary
4th year RFA 6.0M salary
-------
5th year UFA 7.0M salary
6th year UFA 7.0M salary
7th year UFA 7.0M. salary
So that's kind of the value growth table. Ehlers contract is not structured that way, but it gives a basics, if you change the term.
7-year average is that 6M, what Ehlers got. But other terms gives the ballpark:
1-year deal = 4.50M caphit
2-year deal = 4.75M caphit
3-year deal = 5.0M caphit
4-year deal = 5.25M caphit
5-year deal = 5.6M caphit
6-year deal = 5.83M caphit
7-year deal = 6.0M caphit (the real Ehlers one)
8-year deal = 6.125M caphit
I think Larkin deal is very near of this table. 4 years could still keep him as RFA, if I'm right? That would also drop on the 5.25M ballpark.
With both salary cap + term modified numbers, 7-year deals for Wennberg would be 5.34M and for Pastrnak 7.27M. 4-year deals for them with same modification would cut 12,5% of those values:
4-year modifications:
Pastrnak - 6.36M
Ehlers - 5.25M
Larkin - ???
Wennberg 4.675M
7-year modifications
Pastrnak - 7.27M
Ehlers - 6.0M
Larkin - ????
Wennberg 5.34M
Where does Larkin fit ?
I used a simple tool, the Nikolai Ehlers contract as a comparable.
That was worth 6M per year, 7 years, against this years 79.5M cap = 7.55% of cap.
Also contract values usually go like this:
1st year RFA 4.5M salary
2nd year RFA 5.0M salary
3rd year RFA 5.5M salary
4th year RFA 6.0M salary
-------
5th year UFA 7.0M salary
6th year UFA 7.0M salary
7th year UFA 7.0M. salary
So that's kind of the value growth table. Ehlers contract is not structured that way, but it gives a basics, if you change the term.
7-year average is that 6M, what Ehlers got. But other terms gives the ballpark:
1-year deal = 4.50M caphit
2-year deal = 4.75M caphit
3-year deal = 5.0M caphit
4-year deal = 5.25M caphit
5-year deal = 5.6M caphit
6-year deal = 5.83M caphit
7-year deal = 6.0M caphit (the real Ehlers one)
8-year deal = 6.125M caphit
I think Larkin deal is very near of this table. 4 years could still keep him as RFA, if I'm right? That would also drop on the 5.25M ballpark.
With both salary cap + term modified numbers, 7-year deals for Wennberg would be 5.34M and for Pastrnak 7.27M. 4-year deals for them with same modification would cut 12,5% of those values:
4-year modifications:
Pastrnak - 6.36M
Ehlers - 5.25M
Larkin - ???
Wennberg 4.675M
7-year modifications
Pastrnak - 7.27M
Ehlers - 6.0M
Larkin - ????
Wennberg 5.34M
Where does Larkin fit ?
Last edited:
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,041
- 8,792
I think it'll be about $6M per year. It's just a question of 6 or 7 or 8 years, depending on how long Dylan and his agent are willing to commit (since I'd be very surprised if the Wings didn't want to jump straight to an 8 year deal).
Henkka
Registered User
I don't think the term really matters. Larkin will never be a high-production player, so with also shorter term, his caphit won't skyrocket. His value is in zone-entries and preventing opposite points, which doesn't go that well on salary.
I could think Larkin will be underpaid his whole career, like Datsyuk was. He is a great guy to have.
If Larkin signs for $6M does that mean Ras is pretty much a guarantee to start the season with Detroit? That would leave ~$700k of "before regular season" LTIR to spend but Ras makes over $800k. So Witkowski would have to start the season in the AHL while Ras starts with us in order to make Ras's contract fit under the cap.
Of course Kronwall will more than likely be out for a good part of the season at some point, but will this cap situation force Holland to give Ras a chance?
Of course Kronwall will more than likely be out for a good part of the season at some point, but will this cap situation force Holland to give Ras a chance?
People keep forgetting the cap keeps going up, and that guys that put up 60+ on a regular basis is worth 5 million now, and that is with out the room for growth. Were paying Larkin a touch now and figuring he will be at worst a 70 point guy on a good wings team in years 4 through 8 at the least. Larkin at 6 right now when the money doesnt matter and it's better going to him then some old vet, is worth it when were making playoff runs and our possible 1C is making only 6 million when the cap is near 90 million. The past two years combined I think it went up over 6 million if I'm correct. That jump alone goes well over his contract.
You pay now because every year when the cap raises, it only looks better and better.
My honest belief is Mantha took the 2 year bridge, so Larkin can get his money now and Mantha knows the money available in two years will be insane. You dont give this option to both of these guys at around the same time or you could be paying both 7 to 8 a year.
The 8 million dollar guys now signed those contracts years ago when the cap was mid 60's to 70's.
That's why guys like JVR just signed for 7 million. If your telling me you rather pay JVR 7 and not Larkin, your lost. Let alone in 5 years from now when Larkin is in his true prime for less then JVR at 35 years old?
You pay now because every year when the cap raises, it only looks better and better.
My honest belief is Mantha took the 2 year bridge, so Larkin can get his money now and Mantha knows the money available in two years will be insane. You dont give this option to both of these guys at around the same time or you could be paying both 7 to 8 a year.
The 8 million dollar guys now signed those contracts years ago when the cap was mid 60's to 70's.
That's why guys like JVR just signed for 7 million. If your telling me you rather pay JVR 7 and not Larkin, your lost. Let alone in 5 years from now when Larkin is in his true prime for less then JVR at 35 years old?
I'm not trying to pick, but what do you consider a high end production player. I think 68 points as a 21 year old on one of the worst teams in the NHL. On a team where his best skill is transition and speed and plays with a defense that cant get him the puck. While also having a terrible ans below average shooting average. If he even hit league average on his shooting % he is mid 70's so what's high production... 70's, 80's, 90's? Honestly just curious on what your opinion on the matter?
seriously....
Naturally getting a bit better with age/experience, a normalized shooting %, at least a league average power play (will happen under disco dan), and getting some actual ice time when the opposing team has their goalie pulled (which never happened at all this year... prob so he couldn't pad stats for this contract) means he should pretty consistently score 70 points or so. If thats not a high production player than I dont know what is.
Larkin was #23 in even strength points last season, a head of guys like Kuznetsov, Tavares, Crosby and Matthews.
Larkin on a good team with a power play is easily an 80+ point player.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
There is literally only 1 person right now who has earned his money and earns a pay day, and thay is Dylan Larkin. The best part is most people think 6 is perfect, and 7 is slightly high now and underpaid at 24 plus and somehow, in some way, that is an overpay.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 15,937
- 10,483
I thought I read somewhere, maybe here somewhere, that Dylan was looking for a 4 or 5 year deal and no more than 5. If I'm GM, I would go for 8 at anywhere between 5.5-7.0 (probably in the middle somewhere).
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
I read an article that said 5 years, but we should be pushing for max deal or as close to it as we can get.
Scheifele 8 years x 6.175 mil
Ehlers 7 years x 6.00 mil
Monahan 7 years x 6.35 mil
Larkin doesn’t have better numbers than any of these guys, we should be able to get him at 7-8 years at a good AAV.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
There are positives and negatives with every term. 7-8 years means re-signing him when he's right in the middle of his prime, when the team should be much better and he's UFA. I can see why Winnipeg and even Calgary wanted to go max term, they had a window opening up and needed to avoid re-signing key pieces the next several years. For us? There's no immediate cup window. Tons of cap space will open up in the next 4-5 years. We could still land top picks in the next 1-2+ drafts. We don't know yet where Larkin fits into the puzzle. If he's our #1C, signing him 8 years at 6 million will be a steal. If he's our #2C and someone like Hughes take the bulk of PP minutes? Not as much of a steal.
Henkka
Registered User
Also, Term-adjusted and vs. Total cap -adjusted (against current 79.5M cap) figures for Scheifele would be 6.8M and Monahan would be 6.9M. I would also include MacKinnon and Pastrnak in here.
Cap-adjusted figures:
Monahan, 7 years, 6.94M
Pastrnak, 7 years, 6.87M
MacKinnon, 7 years, 6.86M
Scheifele, 7 years, 6.81M
Ehlers, 7 years, 6.0M
No chance for Larkin with those better figures. That Ehlers is very near. Larkin has worse production, but plays at center and has more ice-time. That's what has some value.
I could see 8 years, 6.1M is a max for Larkin. We can't fit a higher cap number easily for next season. Everything under that is ok, both short-term and long-term.
I think we'll see one of these:
4-year-deal, 5.2M
5-year deal, 5.6M
or
8-year deal, 6.1M
Last edited:
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,055
- 7,277
worth noting that Larkin is the only player on this list that lead his team in scoring before signing his contract
Agalloch
EliteProspects
As a Habs fan, I would trade you Schlemko (cap hit 2.1) for him and a pick 3rd or 4th round pick).
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
8 year deal means the next deal he signs he will be 30 when he takes the ice, so that’s not the middle of his prime.
A 3-4 year deal would be where you are negotiating with him in the middle of his prime.
Your last point is a good point I didn’t consider though, role could change on the team in time.
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,041
- 8,792
CBS is saying it might end up being a 5 year deal:
Red Wings' Dylan Larkin: Could land five-year extension
Hopefully there's nothing behind that, and it's for longer term.
Red Wings' Dylan Larkin: Could land five-year extension
Hopefully there's nothing behind that, and it's for longer term.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
Scheifele’s deal was only 2 years ago, cap hasn’t gone up that much since.
Plus he was a year older than Larkin currently so an 8 year deal for him actually bought an extra year of UFA as opposed to what Larkin would get.
Henkka
Registered User
79.5M / 73M = 1.089 multiplier x 8/7 year multiplier (1.021) = 1.112 Total Value multiplier I used.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
I believe it’s about an 8% increase?
So with Scheifele.. 6.125 x.08 = .490
So the adjustment would be about 500k. But Scheifele also had better numbers and his deal included an extra year of UFA.
So to me the absolute cap on a max deal with Larkin should be 6.5 mil, and I would shoot for something at 6.0-6.25.
If Larkin wants 5 years, it's probably because he wants to get PAID later, right?
You might have to give a little more now to get max term then.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
Correct, I mean if he wants to go right up to as close to UFA as he can... I get it.
But it doesn't mean we should treat RFA years as UFA years to make him happy. The system is designed like it is so you take advantage of the RFA years as much as you possibly can.
obey86
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2009
- 8,013
- 1,274
I don’t have a problem with a 5 year deal. That would take him through what, age 26? Signing him to a 7 year deal after that would take him to age 33, which would be a perfect time to let him walk IMO. Probably a few years past his prime but not old enough yet to be a worthless player.
If you sign him to a 8 year deal now he’s 29 at the end of the contract. I don’t want to let Larkin walk at age 29 and I don’t want to sign him to a 7
year deal at that age either, which he could surely get as an UFA if he hadn’t significantly declined.
- Status
