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

[KJoe88]

Wonderful young players? Zadina hasn’t played an NHL game yet. Lol. Are they all Stanley cup champions too already?

You’re just trying to pick a fight and completely find a way to sway whatever nonsense you’re spewing in your favor.

You stated we had no talent. I gave you names that depicts otherwise. Now, you deviate from that argument and portray them as worthless players by diminishing their value. Can’t have it both ways, lmao.

I’m not going to argue with someone who is so fixated on believing is right by ignoring logical stances and stats provided from other posters that proves Larkin is good player with promising backup.

 

[Konnan511]

I hope he gets 100pts a year. I hope I’m wrong about him. I think he is a lot of hype. Because we don’t have much going on so we over value our roster talent. Sound familiar?

There are a lot of hills to die on in this sub, but this is not one of them newcomer. If you want to find a hill to die on I'd recommend a Hossa/Franzen debate or a good timey Holland bash/defend argument. Picking apart Larkin isn't a smart choice.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

There are a lot of hills to die on in this sub, but this is not one of them newcomer. If you want to find a hill to die on I'd recommend a Hossa/Franzen debate or a good timey Holland bash/defend argument. Picking apart Larkin isn't a smart choice.

If you want to pick apart Larkin's game. Feel free. He's not a perfect young C. That's why he got 5x6.1 and not 8x12.5

However... Larkin is also not Teemu Pulkkinen or Tomas Jurco or Jan Mursak where he's getting his tires pumped by just Detroit.

He's not AA where, by gum, if the Wings just gave him 20 minutes a night, he'd score 80 points.

Dylan Larkin is rightfully viewed as the Wings best chance at a true 1C on this roster. His established floor now is 60 points. If he does nothing but generate 60 points a year with continually improving defense... he's worth 6.1 and more.

Signing him to this contract is a bet that he's not going to top out at 60 points. That we haven't seen the best of Dylan Larkin yet.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Wonderful young players? Zadina hasn’t played an NHL game yet. Lol. Are they all Stanley cup champions too already?

What is your barometer for "good" or "great", anyway? You are all over the place.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

What is your barometer for "good" or "great", anyway? You are all over the place.

-AA is great,
-Larkin is overrated
-Zadina hasn't even played at the NHL level yet so how good could he be?

Three I've gleaned so far.

 

[Konnan511]

If you want to pick apart Larkin's game. Feel free. He's not a perfect young C. That's why he got 5x6.1 and not 8x12.5

However... Larkin is also not Teemu Pulkkinen or Tomas Jurco or Jan Mursak where he's getting his tires pumped by just Detroit.

He's not AA where, by gum, if the Wings just gave him 20 minutes a night, he'd score 80 points.

Dylan Larkin is rightfully viewed as the Wings best chance at a true 1C on this roster. His established floor now is 60 points. If he does nothing but generate 60 points a year with continually improving defense... he's worth 6.1 and more.

Signing him to this contract is a bet that he's not going to top out at 60 points. That we haven't seen the best of Dylan Larkin yet.

I'm already on your side good sir

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Personally I think/hope 60 pts is his floor.

But I don't know that 1 season of doing something = established floor.

I don't necessarily think so either in general... but by giving him a 5x6.1 contract, the Wings obviously do. Also, he did it on a god-awful team and he did it without a crazy shooting percentage or his linemates having a crazy shooting percentage. Everything he did just seems sustainable. Like he was getting assists because he was gaining the zone and maintaining possession. He was simply doing hockey plays.

It wasn't something like David Clarkson where it was clear as day he wasn't going to score 30 again. Dylan Larkin was just in the right place to drive the play. It wasn't like Abby where he got 20 goals because Pavel Datsyuk could bank it in off his ass.

So maybe his floor isn't established at 60 points... but there is a much higher probability than not that he lands over the every year.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'm already on your side good sir

That you are, my good man.

 

[Frk It]

I don't necessarily think so either in general... but by giving him a 5x6.1 contract, the Wings obviously do. Also, he did it on a god-awful team and he did it without a crazy shooting percentage or his linemates having a crazy shooting percentage. Everything he did just seems sustainable. Like he was getting assists because he was gaining the zone and maintaining possession. He was simply doing hockey plays.

It wasn't something like David Clarkson where it was clear as day he wasn't going to score 30 again. Dylan Larkin was just in the right place to drive the play. It wasn't like Abby where he got 20 goals because Pavel Datsyuk could bank it in off his ass.

So maybe his floor isn't established at 60 points... but there is a much higher probability than not that he lands over the every year.

It was just a phrasing thing I think, NBD. I know what you mean.

 

[newfy]

If you want to pick apart Larkin's game. Feel free. He's not a perfect young C. That's why he got 5x6.1 and not 8x12.5

However... Larkin is also not Teemu Pulkkinen or Tomas Jurco or Jan Mursak where he's getting his tires pumped by just Detroit.

He's not AA where, by gum, if the Wings just gave him 20 minutes a night, he'd score 80 points.

Dylan Larkin is rightfully viewed as the Wings best chance at a true 1C on this roster. His established floor now is 60 points. If he does nothing but generate 60 points a year with continually improving defense... he's worth 6.1 and more.

Signing him to this contract is a bet that he's not going to top out at 60 points. That we haven't seen the best of Dylan Larkin yet.

It would be disapoointing if larkin didnt improve much at all from this season but if he ends up a 65 point two way center consistently, that deal isnt even bad from a numbers stand point. It might not be amazing but it wouldnt be like Holland got fleeced, especially as the cap goes up.

If he gets playing with some more legit talent and his PP points become halfway decent, hes a 70 point center last year. What will he be like even 2 years from now when hes dishing to Zadina and a prime Mantha on the PP with Rasmussen out font of the net? I think that PP production will increase and he'll be a 70 point guy pretty easy

 

[Hammettf2b]

at first I wasn't too thrilled of only buying 1 UFA year, but the more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it because I don't see Larkin leaving the team.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

at first I wasn't too thrilled of only buying 1 UFA year, but the more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it because I don't see Larkin leaving the team.

Way I see it is we get Larkin for 5 years for a reasonable amount. If he explodes into a top 5 C, we pay him like a top 5 C and we are happy with it. If he keeps on keeping on, he gets the 90-100M equivalent cap % of a deal like Kuznetsov's (7.8)

And if he gets hurt or turns to complete trash, we either can re-sign him for cheap or let him go.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Way I see it is we get Larkin for 5 years for a reasonable amount. If he explodes into a top 5 C, we pay him like a top 5 C and we are happy with it. If he keeps on keeping on, he gets the 90-100M equivalent cap % of a deal like Kuznetsov's (7.8)

And if he gets hurt or turns to complete trash, we either can re-sign him for cheap or let him go.

agreed

 

[ArGarBarGar]

at first I wasn't too thrilled of only buying 1 UFA year, but the more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it because I don't see Larkin leaving the team.

Not to mention you are going to have to expose him to the potential of free agency at some point, so if he really doesn't want to be here you are just delaying his departure by a couple seasons.

If the team loses Larkin to free agency at all, that is a major indictment on the organization.

 

[Heaton]

Not to mention you are going to have to expose him to the potential of free agency at some point, so if he really doesn't want to be here you are just delaying his departure by a couple seasons.

If the team loses Larkin to free agency at all, that is a major indictment on the organization.

If the team is still garbage in 5 years I'll be more worried about that than Larkin potentially leaving.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

If the team is still garbage in 5 years I'll be more worried about that than Larkin potentially leaving.

They may not even be garbage, but Larkin wants to leave, anyway.

There are a myriad of reasons why Larkin would want to leave, but I don't think any of them can happen if the organization does a good job in the next five years.

 

[njx9]

If he explodes into a top 5 C, we pay him like a top 5 C and we are happy with it.

I keep seeing this, and I think it misses the mark. Of course no one will care if we're paying Larkin at McDavid levels, if he's playing at McDavid levels. The problem with that is if Zadina and Mantha and Hronek and whoever we pick this year are all stars, too. Suddenly you're blowing up your cap on a handful of guys, when you had every chance to lock one of them up at a cheaper hit. It's not Larkin's contract alone, it's Larkin's contract along with whatever other deals we have to give out, especially as the team continues to go forward-heavy.

While I'd be ecstatic with their 2015 season, I'd rather not turn into the post-2015 Blackhawks, who probably could've done more after that one season, if they'd managed Toews' and Kane's 2010 extensions better (like they did with Keith's).

It will be doubly sad if we gave up the chance to spend a bit more elsewhere for a few years when the team is actually competitive in order to sign Thomas bloody Vanek, so that we can finish the season with 80 points instead of 75 points.

 

[newfy]

I keep seeing this, and I think it misses the mark. Of course no one will care if we're paying Larkin at McDavid levels, if he's playing at McDavid levels. The problem with that is if Zadina and Mantha and Hronek and whoever we pick this year are all stars, too. Suddenly you're blowing up your cap on a handful of guys, when you had every chance to lock one of them up at a cheaper hit. It's not Larkin's contract alone, it's Larkin's contract along with whatever other deals we have to give out, especially as the team continues to go forward-heavy.

While I'd be ecstatic with their 2015 season, I'd rather not turn into the post-2015 Blackhawks, who probably could've done more after that one season, if they'd managed Toews' and Kane's 2010 extensions better (like they did with Keith's).

It will be doubly sad if we gave up the chance to spend a bit more elsewhere for a few years when the team is actually competitive in order to sign Thomas bloody Vanek, so that we can finish the season with 80 points instead of 75 points.

Youre basically just saying that the wings have so much talent they cant afford to keep it all. If thats the case they will be contending for the cup. 5 all stars in a cap league means a top 5 team in the league. Sure it would be better to have an extra million or two to save some space but theres also plenty of guys coming off the books in the near future that will lead to big space on the cap

 

[njx9]

Youre basically just saying that the wings have so much talent they cant afford to keep it all. If thats the case they will be contending for the cup. 5 all stars in a cap league means a top 5 team in the league. Sure it would be better to have an extra million or two to save some space but theres also plenty of guys coming off the books in the near future that will lead to big space on the cap

As I said:

While I'd be ecstatic with their 2015 season, I'd rather not turn into the post-2015 Blackhawks, who probably could've done more after that one season, if they'd managed Toews' and Kane's 2010 extensions better (like they did with Keith's).

 

[Winger98]

I keep seeing this, and I think it misses the mark. Of course no one will care if we're paying Larkin at McDavid levels, if he's playing at McDavid levels. The problem with that is if Zadina and Mantha and Hronek and whoever we pick this year are all stars, too. Suddenly you're blowing up your cap on a handful of guys, when you had every chance to lock one of them up at a cheaper hit. It's not Larkin's contract alone, it's Larkin's contract along with whatever other deals we have to give out, especially as the team continues to go forward-heavy.

While I'd be ecstatic with their 2015 season, I'd rather not turn into the post-2015 Blackhawks, who probably could've done more after that one season, if they'd managed Toews' and Kane's 2010 extensions better (like they did with Keith's).

It will be doubly sad if we gave up the chance to spend a bit more elsewhere for a few years when the team is actually competitive in order to sign Thomas bloody Vanek, so that we can finish the season with 80 points instead of 75 points.

Kane's extension is fine. Since he's signed that deal he's put up 106, 89, and 76 points. Toews has some nice intangibles...or something...maybe by the end of his contract putting up 55 points for $10.5m won't seem so out of line.

Yeah, I'm having some fun poking Chicago with a stick over this after all of the crap I had to hear about how great Toews was when the team around him was great.

 

[newfy]

As I said:

They could have but they just got suckered into drafting 2 guys branded as their franchise at the same time. Crosby and Malkin were the same thing. Franchise players who came up at the same time, the teams were forced to pay them the same amount. Kane was worth the deal but Toews wasnt. When Larkin is extending, Zadina will likely be the only potentially huge extension before then. I really dont see it being much of an issue. You dont get in trouble locking up your stars, esepcially when theyre still young. The wings cap issues right now are the Dekeysers, Ericcsons and the like cashing in above their pay grade. Paying a goalie 6 million because he won a cup is whats hurting them plus paying Seabrook.

In hindsight, maybe Toews and Kane should've only signed for 9 million, but that 3 million in savings doesnt change the fact that Crawford is overpaid and an olympic level dman can barely play anymore

At the end of the day though, you take those 3 cups and run. People said after their first cup that they were cooked cap wise but still won again. Who knows if the Hawks are completely done or if a retool can get them back into contention.

 

[Flowah]

As I said:

Right. There's 2 real cost saving measures in the cap era. Either you constantly infuse your lineup with unproven, young, depth players who cost next to nothing surrounding your core guys who are paid FMV. Or you get discounts on as many of your core guys as possible by taking risks on long contracts before they've fully proven themselves.

They both have risks and upside.

 

[jkutswings]

I think the underlying question behind questioning this contract is...

... Would another team pay Larkin this much?

And, based on his career arc thus far, I would say it's an overwhelming yes. Holland isn't overpaying anybody here. Does Dylan still have things to work on? Certainly, and it's not a lock that he's the final answer at 1C by any means. But he's a good player, and it's a reasonable deal.

 

[obey86]

I keep seeing this, and I think it misses the mark. Of course no one will care if we're paying Larkin at McDavid levels, if he's playing at McDavid levels. The problem with that is if Zadina and Mantha and Hronek and whoever we pick this year are all stars, too. Suddenly you're blowing up your cap on a handful of guys, when you had every chance to lock one of them up at a cheaper hit. It's not Larkin's contract alone, it's Larkin's contract along with whatever other deals we have to give out, especially as the team continues to go forward-heavy.

While I'd be ecstatic with their 2015 season, I'd rather not turn into the post-2015 Blackhawks, who probably could've done more after that one season, if they'd managed Toews' and Kane's 2010 extensions better (like they did with Keith's).

It will be doubly sad if we gave up the chance to spend a bit more elsewhere for a few years when the team is actually competitive in order to sign Thomas bloody Vanek, so that we can finish the season with 80 points instead of 75 points.

Doesn't this potentially go both ways though? If Zadina, Mantha, Hronek, etc all blow up into all stars and demand big contracts and Larkin stagnates and is "only" a 60 point center...wouldn't it be a good thing we didn't sign him to a 7.5/8 million a year contract for a longer term? I guess my point is that both types of contracts could be beneficial or detrimental down the road and no one (at this point, 5-8 years out) really has any idea what is likely to happen.

 

[Henkka]

Doesn't this potentially go both ways though? If Zadina, Mantha, Hronek, etc all blow up into all stars and demand big contracts and Larkin stagnates and is "only" a 60 point center...wouldn't it be a good thing we didn't sign him to a 7.5/8 million a year contract for a longer term?

This has pretty much happened in Toronto for Nazem Kadri, and could as well happen to us with Larkin. Our higher drafted kids could just overtake him as more talented players. Kadri is currently second liner and Babcock has started matching against opposite team top lines as a defensive top center.

Kadri after 2014-15 season:
250 games, 64+88=152, 0.61 points/game, 16:44 AVG TOI.

Larkin after 2017-18 season:
242 games, 56+84=140p, 0.58 points/game, 17:32 AVG TOI.