So, maybe we should at least ask the question. (Helm's contract)

[HockeyinHD]

What does Helm have to do to earn his deal?

Everybody hates the deal. I hate the deal. Ok.

Setting all that aside, and just looking at this on a year to year basis, what do people think Helm has to do to make this year's installment of his deal palatable to them?

I'm thinking 18 goals, 40ish points, solid PK play... considering he makes 3.85, that seems like a fair ROI. Those are both, obviously, career high totals for him... but hell, he's got 3 and 1 through 3 games. He might be able to do it.

Click to read more...

 

[Ricelund]

I don't think anyone's afraid of the short-term implications of Helm's deal. It's the five-year term.

 

[njx9]

Get the team into the 2nd round.

I don't hate the deal for Darren Helm. I hate the deal because Darren Helm, even as a 40 point player, doesn't move the needle for this team. And he certainly doesn't move it for the next five years.

 

[Tatar Shots]

The issue was never Helm's play. The problem is signing role players long term when the team has plenty of prospect depth at forward and that money needed to be allocated to an impact defenseman. Yes I know there was no one available this year, but it's not a good excuse to get rid of cap flexibility for the next several years.

The main thing Helm has to do is stay healthy for the duration of the contract, which I'm not to optimistic about. if he does he should be around 35 points with solid defense for the first couple years which I guess 'justifies' his pay but doesn't really address what I think is the real problem of the contract.

 

[Frk It]

I'm thinking 18 goals, 40ish points, solid PK play... considering he makes 3.85, that seems like a fair ROI. Those are both, obviously, career high totals for him... but hell, he's got 3 and 1 through 3 games. He might be able to do it.

If he could do that he'd look at least worth his contract for this season. But his odds of maintaining that over 5 years is very poor.

 

[HockeyinHD]

If he could do that he'd look at least worth his contract for this season. But his odds of maintaining that over 5 years is very poor.

How about a corollary?

How many years does a player have to earn a deal to make the deal decent?

 

[HockeyinHD]

Get the team into the 2nd round.

I don't hate the deal for Darren Helm. I hate the deal because Darren Helm, even as a 40 point player, doesn't move the needle for this team. And he certainly doesn't move it for the next five years.

So even if he earns the deal it was a bad deal?

 

[njx9]

So even if he earns the deal it was a bad deal?

Just because it was a good deal on a per point basis doesn't mean it was a good deal for this team to make. Especially given that it wasn't a one year deal (which I'm guessing would've had far more appeal to people who've criticized the contract).

 

[HockeyinHD]

The issue was never Helm's play. The problem is signing role players long term when the team has plenty of prospect depth at forward

Do they, though? AA's already up. Mantha was bad last year, and barely better in TC. That's it for the NHL-readyish guys.

Past them you're talking about Turgeon (at least a year out), Svechnikov (two years+), Bertuzzi (at least one year), and maybe Sadowy (at least a year out).

I'm not sure Detroit is as bursting at the seams in propsects as they were in the Nyquist/Tatar/Jarnkrok/Pulkinnen etc class, and certainly not in the area of NHL-ready ones. I'm not sure having Helm (among others) signed to longer term deals creates much of a logjam because I'm not sure there are many logs.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Just because it was a good deal on a per point basis doesn't mean it was a good deal for this team to make. Especially given that it wasn't a one year deal (which I'm guessing would've had far more appeal to people who've criticized the contract).

So, let's say he earns the deal in 3-5 of the 5 years, do you still think it's a bad deal?

I suppose I'm trying to see if you don't actually care whether or not the deal works, you're annoyed they didn't do something totally different. You seem to be at least hinting at that.

 

[The Zermanator]

My gripe with this deal has nothing to do with Helm, really. He's worth 3.85, and he won't necessarily be horrible all of a sudden at 34.

My issue is more with Holland. Long term contracts can handcuff you down the road. They should only be offered to the players who have the leverage to command them. Helm does not. There's nothing wrong with offering a 3 yr deal followed by a 2 yr deal, and this option allows you to reconsider things after 3 yrs. He's reducing future flexibility by committing cap space way down the road to players like Helm, Abby, etc. If Helm wasn't willing to entertain less than 5 (no idea why since no one else would have offered that term IMO), or if Michigan kid Abby wasn't willing to commit at a reasonable rate for less than 7, then let them walk.

Nyquist 5 yrs, that's fine. DeKeyser 5 years, that's fine. Helm should never have gotten the commitment those two did, and Abby shouldn't have gotten even more of a commitment.

How about a corollary?

How many years does a player have to earn a deal to make the deal decent?

Every year, ideally.

 

[Claypool]

There are people here who just don't like Darren Helm. They don't like that he and his wife have a personal relationship with Ken Holland. They believe he represents what's wrong with current management philosophy of keeping veterans past their supposed expiration date. Even if he justifies his contract over the next five seasons, the anti-Helm crowd still believe a younger, more promising player should have been put in his place.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Pretty much agree with the OP. If he can average about 20g/40pts a season over the next 5 years then....contract earned IMO.

However on a side note...these big long contracts for role players...you think Holland is giving them out to get players to stay? Cuz....not many big UFA's want to be here. Nielsen is the biggest UFA we have grabbed since Hossa in like 08/09 correct?

 

[waltdetroit]

Helm in his first 2 yrs played with GRG but came up and played as a regular in the playoffs. That was bargain basement salary and he made a big difference with his speed & play. I am not going to complain that maybe he is making a bit more than he should now. Everything folks believe that his future will be, is truly speculation. He could be a late bloomer or a bust. Past performance is not a perfect indicator & his best years could be the next 3. I will wait until after year 3. If he does really well this year (I hope), there will be many options; keep him, maybe he will be in Las Vegas, or traded to WPG next year.

 

[Flowah]

There are people here who just don't like Darren Helm. They don't like that he and his wife have a personal relationship with Ken Holland. They believe he represents what's wrong with current management philosophy of keeping veterans past their supposed expiration date. Even if he justifies his contract over the next five seasons, the anti-Helm crowd still believe a younger, more promising player should have been put in his place.

Are we playing the put words in other people's mouths game? I could do the same for you and it wouldn't come out pretty.

Or perhaps when people say they think he won't be nearly as effective in the last 2-3 years of his contract that's exactly what they're worried about.

 

[Frk It]

How about a corollary?

How many years does a player have to earn a deal to make the deal decent?

Reasonable question, I suppose. I mean ideally the answer would be all years.

If he could put up ~35-40 points over 3 years, win over 50% of his draws and PK/defend well, and then not fall off a cliff in his last year or two... the contract could look ok, or not as bad as it seemed.

But even that would have him putting up a career best and then maintaining it over 3 consecutive years.

What are your thoughts?

 

[The Zermanator]

There are people here who just don't like Darren Helm. They don't like that he and his wife have a personal relationship with Ken Holland. They believe he represents what's wrong with current management philosophy of keeping veterans past their supposed expiration date. Even if he justifies his contract over the next five seasons, the anti-Helm crowd still believe a younger, more promising player should have been put in his place.

I've never really commented about Helm personally, only the contract (like I said, my issue's with Holland). Nor have I commented on the bolded specifically because it always seemed a bit tabloidish. But since you brought it up, wouldn't people be justifiably upset if there is a sliver of truth to it? That personal relationships are dictating term?

Although again, even if that is the case, I think the man offering the contracts is to blame. I don't know why anyone would blame Helm for signing on the dotted line for 5x3.85M. I would and I would be whipping boy #1 from day one.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Helm's contract is horrific for a couple reasons.

A. Wings made the same mistake by signing an almost 30 year old role player to a long term deal.
B. Helm's production was abysmal and he did nothing to justify his cap hit.

If you seriously think this three game sample size is in any way indicative of his future performances, you are gonna have a bad time.

Perhaps i should make a Justin Abdelkader topic highlighting how he has zero points through three games?

I believe you think that contract is "fine"

If Helm puts up 35 points this season, that will not make his contract any less abysmal. The Wings could have gotten 90% of his production by paying a prospect for 925k a season.

Factor in the state of the Wings, and it becomes even more ridiculous that Helm is still on the team.

It might be the organization's goal to tread water and waste as much cap space as possible on spare parts, but good luck getting any fan to agree with that philosophy.

 

[njx9]

So, let's say he earns the deal in 3-5 of the 5 years, do you still think it's a bad deal?

I suppose I'm trying to see if you don't actually care whether or not the deal works, you're annoyed they didn't do something totally different. You seem to be at least hinting at that.

I don't think we should be signing players who don't make us a better team. If Darren Helm at 40 points leaves us with the same record and season outcome as Darren Helm at 15 points, I don't think that's a useful way to spend money, assuming everything else was equal. If Darren Helm does move the team forward, then I think it was a good deal, and if he does it in more than 1 year of his contract, then I think it was a great deal.

I'm not sure what 'the deal works' means, in this case. If you think contracts should be based on points-per-dollar, then I think we're going to disagree at a fairly fundamental level.

 

[jkutswings]

My gripe with this deal has nothing to do with Helm, really. He's worth 3.85, and he won't necessarily be horrible all of a sudden at 34.

My issue is more with Holland. Long term contracts can handcuff you down the road. They should only be offered to the players who have the leverage to command them. Helm does not. There's nothing wrong with offering a 3 yr deal followed by a 2 yr deal, and this option allows you to reconsider things after 3 yrs. He's reducing future flexibility by committing cap space way down the road to players like Helm, Abby, etc. If Helm wasn't willing to entertain less than 5 (no idea why since no one else would have offered that term IMO), or if Michigan kid Abby wasn't willing to commit at a reasonable rate for less than 7, then let them walk.

Nyquist 5 yrs, that's fine. DeKeyser 5 years, that's fine. Helm should never have gotten the commitment those two did, and Abby shouldn't have gotten even more of a commitment.

Great post, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said.

The only detail I'd add, specifically in reference to Helm, is this:

Thus far in his career, his biggest asset has been his speed. That's an attribute that statistically tends to diminish over the years, so I don't think it's unreasonable to predict a decline as a 5-year contract unfolds.

But he's off to a fast start, so we'll see where this season goes.

 

[SirloinUB]

Interesting question and I see two ways of looking at it. You can let the contract guide your expectations (ie. must score 40 points since he is making 3.85 million) or you can let your knowledge of the individual guide your expectations.

I understand in the Salary Cap era output expectations are often driven by the individual’s share of the total salary cap but to me it would seem crazy to expect Helm to score 20 or more goals for the next 4 or 5 years. We also have to keep in mind that like it or not, part of the contract was earned on intangibles like team speed, PK ability and character. We also know Helmer has had injury troubles in his past but it would seem he has sorted through that.

In saying all that, I would expect Helm to put up 15 or more goals a season and 30 + points. If he can consistently bring that, make our team faster and eat some difficult minutes while staying healthy he has achieved everything one can actually expect from Helm regardless of the money his payed.

I would never argue that the above outputs are good value at 3.85 Million but I also don't believe its bad value. I think such an outcome would fall between an acceptable return for the money while still being a reasonably plausible expectation.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I will be the first to admit that the Helm contract is not a good one. That being said, he still brings an important role for this team. Now that he is back at the 3C spot, I predict we won't being hearing a lot of people complaining about Helm this year.

 

[Frk It]

Interesting question and I see two ways of looking at it. You can let the contract guide your expectations (ie. must score 40 points since he is making 3.85 million) or you can let your knowledge of the individual guide your expectations.

I understand in the Salary Cap era output expectations are often driven by the individual’s share of the total salary cap but to me it would seem crazy to expect Helm to score 20 or more goals for the next 4 or 5 years. We also have to keep in mind that like it or not, part of the contract was earned on intangibles like team speed, PK ability and character. We also know Helmer has had injury troubles in his past but it would seem he has sorted through that.

In saying all that, I would expect Helm to put up 15 or more goals a season and 30 + points. If he can consistently bring that, make our team faster and eat some difficult minutes while staying healthy he has achieved everything one can actually expect from Helm regardless of the money his payed.

I would never argue that the above outputs are good value at 3.85 Million but I also don't believe its bad value. I think such an outcome would fall between an acceptable return for the money while still being a reasonably plausible expectation.

When what you expect based on your knowledge of the individual doesn't match the expectation based on what they are being paid, you have issues.

 

[Dotter]

I don't think anyone's afraid of the short-term implications of Helm's deal. It's the five-year term.

That's the thing that confuses me why people hate the deal. If they like the deal now, why are they worried about it in 7 years when Ken Holland can probably easily bury the contract?

I don't think the salary cap hurts the team long term. I think, if anything, Helm's contract could prevent Ken Holland from trading for an overpaid defenseman.

In the next 7 years, contracts will be coming off the books opening up more money for replacements. I don't see Helm's contract as a problem long term. It's not hard to bury/get rid of if it ever comes to that.

I think that people are stuck on this without fully understanding it's an illusion. Stop worrying about Helm in 7 years and enjoy his game now.

EDIT:

Holland re-signed Helm 7 years, right? Or was it 5?

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I don't think we should be signing players who don't make us a better team. If Darren Helm at 40 points leaves us with the same record and season outcome as Darren Helm at 15 points, I don't think that's a useful way to spend money, assuming everything else was equal. If Darren Helm does move the team forward, then I think it was a good deal, and if he does it in more than 1 year of his contract, then I think it was a great deal.

I'm not sure what 'the deal works' means, in this case. If you think contracts should be based on points-per-dollar, then I think we're going to disagree at a fairly fundamental level.

Does anyone have any idea what the league average is for points-per-dollar and what that figure is for UFAs?