Confirmed with Link: Wings sign Larkin to 5 year deal (6.1 AAV)

[DRW204]

First low salary year is opt out protection, second low salary year is expiration protection.
I can't really speculate on the ntc, probably Larkin not wanting to be a rental or wanting to control his fate in that case.

only UFA years can have NTC/NMC

 

[Frk It]

I don't see what the problem is? Sure, maybe the last 2-3 seasons of his deal he would be overpaid after a decline but who cares? I'd rather overpay him at ages 33, 34, and 35 than let a great player (in this hypothetical scenario) walk in free agency at age 29 (after an 8 year deal now) or sign him to big money through age 37 - as those would be the 2 other most likely scenarios.

The stats in your contract year dictate your next deal in a big way.

Therefore you would typically rather negotiate a UFA deal with someone at 29 than 25. There are exceptions, but 25 is more typically going to be your “prime years”.

Everyone ages/progresses differently, though. Larkin may have similar numbers at 25 and 29.

 

[Shaman464]

If they wanted a team with 6 rookies on it we'd be watching it.

Well, based on their last half decade of decisions, what they want is likely not the best course of action.

 

[Shaman464]

I'd rather overpay him at ages 33, 34, and 35 than let a great player (in this hypothetical scenario) walk in free agency at age 29 (after an 8 year deal now) or sign him to big money through age 37 - as those would be the 2 other most likely scenarios.

As Frk pointed out his track record at the end of this contract is much more likely to be ending on an upward trend, which gives Larkin more leverage. And one of the biggest handcuffs on this team is that it is overpaying 33, 34 and 35 year olds.

 

[SCD]

Detroit has a pretty good track record with contract value with their captains going back to Yzerman. All could have taken more on the open market, yet have stayed with the club for their entire career. I expect no different from Larkin.

 

[obey86]

As Frk pointed out his track record at the end of this contract is much more likely to be ending on an upward trend, which gives Larkin more leverage. And one of the biggest handcuffs on this team is that it is overpaying 33, 34 and 35 year olds.

We have no idea how Larkin is going to do with his age 27 season vs his age 29 season and to pretend we do is stupid. And to base a contract decision 5-7 years down the road on something so specific that we have no idea about is even more dumb. Maybe he craps out at age 26 due to an injury? Maybe he takes his game to another level over the contract and becomes a superstar? Maybe he's only a 40 point player from here on out it's a good thing we didn't sign him for 8 years and 8 million a year? Maybe he has a down year at age 27 and then rebounds a year later? WHO KNOWS. Kind of funny that your previous post to me said "I am glad your crystal ball is working" when you're the one acting like you have a crystal ball right now.

Claude Giroux and Anze Kopitar just had their best seasons ever at ages 30. Brad Marchand turned into a star at age 29. Johan Franzen was a 4th liner at age 27 and a 30 goal scorer at age 29. Eric Staal was supposedly washed up a few years ago and now at age 32 just scored 42 friggin goals. There are plenty of opposite examples where players are better at age 27 than age 29 as well. But you can tell the future so specifically that you know Larkin's age 27 season will be better than his age 29 season. Ok.

 

[Frk It]

A New Look at Aging Curves for NHL Skaters (part 1)

 

[obey86]

A New Look at Aging Curves for NHL Skaters (part 1)

I don't care about the average league wide.....we're talking about a specific player, in a specific circumstance, in a specific year. It's like trying to time the stock market and find the right time to "buy low", but 5-7 years in advance. Yeah, good luck with that, it's futile.

 

[Shaman464]

I don't care about the average league wide.....we're talking about a specific player, in a specific circumstance, in a specific year. It's like trying to time the stock market and find the right time to "buy low", but 5-7 years in advance. Yeah, good luck with that, it's futile.

Except because of the cap you have to take calculated risks. The chances of a player peaking after 29 is low. The chances of a player being worth a contract they signed at 29 at 34+ is even lower. The chances other teams will try to out bid Detroit for Larkin when he hits the market, and the maximum contract length only takes him to 35 is very good. You're right, he could peak at 32. He could also have peaked this season. But, when you're trying to best utilize a limited number of dollars to get the most value out of a team, betting on a 27-35 year old is a MUCH safer bet than 29-37 year old. And that right there adds a ton of value to Larkin when he hits UFA. In the end, Larkin's contract is kind of the worst bet you can make, it doesn't really eat into his UFA, and it doesn't leave any team control for them to leverage into a new contract. So you can talk about all the exceptions you like, but its very likely that this means Larkin costs more at the end of this contract than he would otherwise, and vastly increases the chances he walks.

 

[KJoe88]

Time to buy a Larkin jersey.

 

[obey86]

Except because of the cap you have to take calculated risks. The chances of a player peaking after 29 is low. The chances of a player being worth a contract they signed at 29 at 34+ is even lower. The chances other teams will try to out bid Detroit for Larkin when he hits the market, and the maximum contract length only takes him to 35 is very good. You're right, he could peak at 32. He could also have peaked this season. But, when you're trying to best utilize a limited number of dollars to get the most value out of a team, betting on a 27-35 year old is a MUCH safer bet than 29-37 year old. And that right there adds a ton of value to Larkin when he hits UFA. In the end, Larkin's contract is kind of the worst bet you can make, it doesn't really eat into his UFA, and it doesn't leave any team control for them to leverage into a new contract. So you can talk about all the exceptions you like, but its very likely that this means Larkin costs more at the end of this contract than he would otherwise, and vastly increases the chances he walks.

LOLZ, you're not making ANY sense man.

#1 bolded: YOU are the one who wants him to be a free agent at age 29, not me. It's 2025, the Red Wings are Stanley Cup contenders and one of the best teams in the league. Dylan Larkin is age 29 and a star 75+ point, 2 way center, one of the better players in the game, but he's a free agent. So you're just going to let him walk instead of signing him to another big/long deal? No you're not. You're not stupid. You're going to re-sign him, even though you're admitting that at age 34+ he's likely not going to be worth it. So why do you want the Wings to have to choose between letting a 29 year old free agent walk, or (as you put it) signing him to a deal where he's not going to be worth it at 34+? Seems stupid.

#2 bolded: Yes, I agree with you that betting on a 27-35 year old is a MUCH safer bet than betting on a 29-37 year old; which is exactly why it's great that Larkin has a 5 year deal and not a 7 year deal so he can re-sign at age 27 and not age 29. Again, this proves my point of view, not yours.

 

[Oddbob]

People are seriously complaining about this contract, man alive, just have to complain about something, right? Who cares if this takes him to UFA, what does that matter, his next contract will be a bigger money contract anyway, if he continues putting up 60 pts with good 2 way player. 6.1 in todays marketplace is what players get for 60 pts, heck, even Christian Dvorak just got 6 years X 4.5 for 37 pts so 1.6 more for 20+ more pts is quite nice. Also, his next contract will be due, with all are bad contracts gone, like Dekeyser, Nielsen and Ericsson, and Abby will only have 1 or 2 left and the cap will obviously be much higher in 5 years from now.

 

[Shaman464]

LOLZ, you're not making ANY sense man.

#1 bolded: YOU are the one who wants him to be a free agent at age 29, not me. It's 2025, the Red Wings are Stanley Cup contenders and one of the best teams in the league. Dylan Larkin is age 29 and a star 75+ point, 2 way center, one of the better players in the game, but he's a free agent. So you're just going to let him walk instead of signing him to another big/long deal? No you're not. You're not stupid. You're going to re-sign him, even though you're admitting that at age 34+ he's likely not going to be worth it. So why do you want the Wings to have to choose between letting a 29 year old free agent walk, or (as you put it) signing him to a deal where he's not going to be worth it at 34+? Seems stupid.

#2 bolded: Yes, I agree with you that betting on a 27-35 year old is a MUCH safer bet than betting on a 29-37 year old; which is exactly why it's great that Larkin has a 5 year deal and not a 7 year deal so he can re-sign at age 27 and not age 29. Again, this proves my point of view, not yours.

#1 Contrived scenario that misses the point of that part. It gives Detroit the better position to negotiate because other teams are less likely to want to buy years of decline at a large price tag. At 27 a team is not likely to buy too many years of decline. At 29-30 they are going to likely have half a contract of that. It makes him wanting to explore the market and get overpaid less likely than a Tavares-esque move that he can make at 27.

#2 Its safer for other teams meaning that they can afford to gamble and overpay them to pull him away from the Wings. It doesn't prove your point at all.

 

[Shaman464]

People are seriously complaining about this contract, man alive, just have to complain about something, right? Who cares if this takes him to UFA, what does that matter, his next contract will be a bigger money contract anyway, if he continues putting up 60 pts with good 2 way player. 6.1 in todays marketplace is what players get for 60 pts, heck, even Christian Dvorak just got 6 years X 4.5 for 37 pts so 1.6 more for 20+ more pts is quite nice. Also, his next contract will be due, with all are bad contracts gone, like Dekeyser, Nielsen and Ericsson, and Abby will only have 1 or 2 left and the cap will obviously be much higher in 5 years from now.

But there will be Zadina, Mantha, Bert, Cholo, Ras, etc etc that will bite into what they save. Don't pretend that their contracts magically disappear and they all go to just Larkin, the Wings have many other players that will need major raises in the next half decade.


My biggest problem with this contract is that its a move done so that Holland doesn't have to make a roster move before camp. And that only exists because they signed Vanek. Instead of taking the long view and giving himself the flexibility to buy 3 more years of Larkin's services cheap, he signed a retread that doesn't make the team a lot better, but does likely mean that they have a slightly worse draft pick.

 

[vladdy16]

But there will be Zadina, Mantha, Bert, Cholo, Ras, etc etc that will bite into what they save. Don't pretend that their contracts magically disappear and they all go to just Larkin, the Wings have many other players that will need major raises in the next half decade.


My biggest problem with this contract is that its a move done so that Holland doesn't have to make a roster move before camp. And that only exists because they signed Vanek. Instead of taking the long view and giving himself the flexibility to buy 3 more years of Larkin's services cheap, he signed a retread that doesn't make the team a lot better, but does likely mean that they have a slightly worse draft pick.

...and also helps mentor our plethora of young players through what is expected to be a rocky season.

Larkin deal looks great to me. I'd wager he'll perform well above a 6mil standard for at least 2, if not 4 of those 5 years. And it will be interesting to see if he develops the necessary tools to be a gamechanging player 6 years from now, as some wear and tear mounts, and his substantial speed advantage comes back to earth.

 

[Oddbob]

But there will be Zadina, Mantha, Bert, Cholo, Ras, etc etc that will bite into what they save. Don't pretend that their contracts magically disappear and they all go to just Larkin, the Wings have many other players that will need major raises in the next half decade.


My biggest problem with this contract is that its a move done so that Holland doesn't have to make a roster move before camp. And that only exists because they signed Vanek. Instead of taking the long view and giving himself the flexibility to buy 3 more years of Larkin's services cheap, he signed a retread that doesn't make the team a lot better, but does likely mean that they have a slightly worse draft pick.

Yes, but not all of those players are getting big time money either. Honestly, Bertuzzi is hyped up a lot by some in the Wings forum, but I honestly don't think he will be more than a 15 goal 3rd line pest type player, so he won't be getting much imo. Also, in the case that any of those players are all stars needing massive money, that is an awesome thing, not something to be worried about. None of our current contracts will stop us from signing massive contracts to any of them when/if needed. Look at TB, they have so many players, that they are/were in a worried position about how to keep everyone, which is what we should want as fans.

Your second part is just fan(s) here and everywhere speculation and nothing else, because we don't know that Larkin wanted more than 5 and if the Wings were even willing to go as far as 8. From all I have read, Larkin wanted 5 or 6 years and I haven't read anywhere saying he wanted 8. I too hoped for 8, but not worried one bit about it being shorter.

 

[Shaman464]

Your second part is just fan(s) here and everywhere speculation and nothing else, because we don't know that Larkin wanted more than 5 and if the Wings were even willing to go as far as 8. From all I have read, Larkin wanted 5 or 6 years and I haven't read anywhere saying he wanted 8. I too hoped for 8, but not worried one bit about it being shorter.

Actually HSJ said a while back that the sticking point was 5 vs 6 years sounding like the Wings wanted 5 with a lower average.

 

[Claypool]

My biggest problem with this contract is that its a move done so that Holland doesn't have to make a roster move before camp. And that only exists because they signed Vanek. Instead of taking the long view and giving himself the flexibility to buy 3 more years of Larkin's services cheap, he signed a retread that doesn't make the team a lot better, but does likely mean that they have a slightly worse draft pick.

There's nothing to suggest Vanek's contract impaired Larkin's contract negotiations in any way. Doing so is complete speculation on your part.

 

[waltdetroit]

Are you suggesting they made this deal and built in a mechanism to make it easier to trade Larkin near the end, during his prime?

I was just wondering why the last year's pay was lower. I am not familiar with all the reasons contracts are written. The NTC in just the last year plus the lower salary was new to me.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The stats in your contract year dictate your next deal in a big way.

Therefore you would typically rather negotiate a UFA deal with someone at 29 than 25. There are exceptions, but 25 is more typically going to be your “prime years”.

Everyone ages/progresses differently, though. Larkin may have similar numbers at 25 and 29.

If we're realistic about our rebuild, the team is likely to be much better in 8 years than it is in 5 years. In 8 years, Larkin could be surrounded by prime Zadina, Hronek, Cholowski, Hughes, Lefreniere, Berggren, he could be going on deep playoff runs, he could have a cup, he could have a Smythe.. THAT'S when you don't want to negotiate, otherwise you end up paying a Toews (i.e. a Larkin) like he's an offensive superstar.

But all of this is speculation. Larkin could settle in as a 60 point player, no further improvement. The team could become a contender within 2-3 years and earn Larkin one of those massive contracts in 5 years. There are potential upsides and downsides to any contract term. I do find it somewhat odd that reactions to this contract makes it seem like 5 years is a short-term contract.

Personally I'm okay with not jumping at the gun to go as long-term as possible with Larkin right at this moment. Still a lot of unknowns about the future, and we will have lots more young players coming in, and if we notice that the team is improving and the rebuild is progressing fast; we can sign guys like Zadina/Rasmussen/etc to those 8-year deals and save money on them. You're never going to have 100% of the roster being underpaid. Some you will have to pay accordingly.

 

[rangersblues]

Good news is they signed Larkin. Bad news is they are 3.2 million over the cap. How can a team with so little talent be over the cap? They could sign the rest if the players for league minimum. Hopefully a couple of more years of Holland leads to a first overall draft pick or 2 and they clean house. This is worse than the dead wing era before they drafted Stevie.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I like that we are discussing the possibility a young player on the team may be so good that he gets a frustratingly big payday at the end of his contract.

 

[Frk It]

If we're realistic about our rebuild, the team is likely to be much better in 8 years than it is in 5 years. In 8 years, Larkin could be surrounded by prime Zadina, Hronek, Cholowski, Hughes, Lefreniere, Berggren, he could be going on deep playoff runs, he could have a cup, he could have a Smythe.. THAT'S when you don't want to negotiate, otherwise you end up paying a Toews (i.e. a Larkin) like he's an offensive superstar.

But all of this is speculation. Larkin could settle in as a 60 point player, no further improvement. The team could become a contender within 2-3 years and earn Larkin one of those massive contracts in 5 years. There are potential upsides and downsides to any contract term. I do find it somewhat odd that reactions to this contract makes it seem like 5 years is a short-term contract.

Personally I'm okay with not jumping at the gun to go as long-term as possible with Larkin right at this moment. Still a lot of unknowns about the future, and we will have lots more young players coming in, and if we notice that the team is improving and the rebuild is progressing fast; we can sign guys like Zadina/Rasmussen/etc to those 8-year deals and save money on them. You're never going to have 100% of the roster being underpaid. Some you will have to pay accordingly.

FWIW I was just speaking in general terms with that post since Obey was asking why negotiate with someone at 29.

 

[waltdetroit]

Good news is they signed Larkin. Bad news is they are 3.2 million over the cap. How can a team with so little talent be over the cap? They could sign the rest if the players for league minimum. Hopefully a couple of more years of Holland leads to a first overall draft pick or 2 and they clean house. This is worse than the dead wing era before they drafted Stevie.

The "darkness under Harkness" was like Mordor & it lasted more than 10 years w/o hope.
We at least have hope & prospects

 

[Bondurant]

Plenty of cash to pay his folks to unremodel the dungeon.