• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
amato

Next contracts for the young guns

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Nuge is actually a good comparable.

He signed that after his 3rd year and he'd had 2 out 3 years where he was a 50+ pt. player (and only played 62 games in one of those years) and the 3rd year was the lockout year but his 24 pts would be around 50 or just below if equated to a whole season. To me that was definitely a record to demand 6 mill. People are really down on RNH now, but that wasn't the case early in his career.

He outproduced Larkin in every compareable year (though he might get more than RNH's 3rd year tally of 56 pts. this year). Plus Larkin had that down 2nd year.

And just thinking of the Nuge's dropoff, such would be the gamble of signing Larkin to a similar deal. i like me some Larkin, but maybe we should go bridge deal here for cap reasons and with Larkin's last year, I still think there's some uncertainty with him.

Thank you @PavelValerievichDatsyuk.

This is exactly my point. 

If Larkin truly ends up being a 1C by age 25 (after bridge contract). I have no issue paying him 10 million for 8 years. He's clearly earned it at that point. But to give  him 6 million x 8 years as a 21 year old with 1.5 years of good hockey is a terrible gamble.  

Money shouldn't be an issue when you're trying to keep your superstar, but it should definitely be an issue when you're trying to sign an unproven player long term. 

Anyways, unless Holland has done a 180, I'm fairly certain he will be conservative about Larkin, AA, and Mantha. Larkin will get the better $$ and term simply  because he's a center but I don't see it being a day and night difference. 

And I vaguely remember Oilers fans wanting to sign Nuge-Hopkins much like Wings fans are wanting to sign Larkin long term today. Not looking so good currently. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Thank you @PavelValerievichDatsyuk.

This is exactly my point. 

If Larkin truly ends up being a 1C by age 25 (after bridge contract). I have no issue paying him 10 million for 8 years. He's clearly earned it at that point. But to give  him 6 million x 8 years as a 21 year old with 1.5 years of good hockey is a terrible gamble.  

Money shouldn't be an issue when you're trying to keep your superstar, but it should definitely be an issue when you're trying to sign an unproven player long term. 

Anyways, unless Holland has done a 180, I'm fairly certain he will be conservative about Larkin, AA, and Mantha. Larkin will get the better $$ and term simply  because he's a center but I don't see it being a day and night difference. 

And I vaguely remember Oilers fans wanting to sign Nuge-Hopkins much like Wings fans are wanting to sign Larkin long term today. Not looking so good currently. 

I’m wanting to sign Larkin to that kinda deal whatsoever. Just something I see coming out of negotiations.

Oilers fans still want Nuge around, despite his dropoff, When he pops up in trade talks. Maybe cause Chiarelli would f*** up the trade royally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Nuge is actually a good comparable.

He signed that after his 3rd year and he'd had 2 out 3 years where he was a 50+ pt. player (and only played 62 games in one of those years) and the year he wasn't, was the lockout year, but his 24 pts would be around 50 or just below if equated to a whole season. To me that was definitely a record to demand 6 mill. People are really down on RNH now, but that wasn't the case early in his career.

He outproduced Larkin in every compareable year (though he might get more than RNH's 3rd year tally of 56 pts. this year). Plus Larkin had that down 2nd year.

And just thinking of the Nuge's dropoff, such would be the gamble of signing Larkin to a similar deal. i like me some Larkin, but maybe we should go bridge deal here for cap reasons and with Larkin's last year, I still think there's some uncertainty with him.

Yeah I forgot he actually did pretty well for awhile. Pretty sure he was the original player offered to NJ in their trade, but they insisted on Hall. Smart move, but it showed that his stock had fallen. Couple years before that they probably would have taken him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickazz said:

What does size have to do with anything? Didn't know NHL paid based off of height and weight. Nyquist scored 27 and 28 goals consecutively and still got a fair bridge contract. His hype was huge; maybe you've forgotten. A lot of Larkin's hype is theoretical unlike Nyquist or Tatar's who had legit consistent production for a few years.

Are we talking about locking his actual calibre? or potential? because the two are different things. 

It's not. Holland has taken his last 5 RFAs to arbitration. He doesn't blindly go with what other GMs do. That's probably the one big thing I like about the guy. He's good about his RFAs. Always has been. 

He's not going to overpay (if he thinks it's an overpayment even if it isn't compared to what other GMs have done) for Larkin. 

Ummm no. Larkin's ceiling, potential and pedigree is much higher than those guys were ever considered. Yes Nyquist had hype about possibly becoming a "Zetterberg-lite". That's nothing compared to a potential #1 centerman who plays a complete 200ft game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Nuge is actually a good comparable.

He signed that after his 3rd year and he'd had 2 out 3 years where he was a 50+ pt. player (and only played 62 games in one of those years) and the year he wasn't, was the lockout year, but his 24 pts would be around 50 or just below if equated to a whole season. To me that was definitely a record to demand 6 mill. People are really down on RNH now, but that wasn't the case early in his career.

He outproduced Larkin in every compareable year (though he might get more than RNH's 3rd year tally of 56 pts. this year). Plus Larkin had that down 2nd year.

And just thinking of the Nuge's dropoff, such would be the gamble of signing Larkin to a similar deal. i like me some Larkin, but maybe we should go bridge deal here for cap reasons and with Larkin's last year, I still think there's some uncertainty with him.

Except that deal was signed 5 years ago. Judging for market inflation he would have received 7.5-8m today. Making Larkin's 6x8 deal seem quite reasonable.

For every Nugent-Hopkins there's a Nathan MacKinnon. 

Anyways here's hoping for 3 bridge deals but I wouldn't be surprised to see Larkin sign long-term.

 

Edited by Son of a Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of a Wing said:

Ummm no. Larkin's ceiling, potential and pedigree is much higher than those guys were ever considered. Yes Nyquist had hype about possibly becoming a "Zetterberg-lite". That's nothing compared to a potential #1 centerman who plays a complete 200ft game. 

 

So we pay him $6 million x 8 for ceiling, potential and pedigree while we paid Nyquist for 27, 28 goals and actual production? 

Sometimes I’m glad Ken Holland is the GM for this team.

Now I’m positive I prefer a bridge deal if that’s truly what the thought process is.

Hell take Larkin to arbitration if it comes down to it.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kickazz said:

So we pay him $6 million x 8 for ceiling, potential and pedigree while we paid Nyquist for 27, 28 goals and actual production? 

Sometimes I’m glad Ken Holland is the GM for this team.

Now I’m positive I prefer a bridge deal if that’s truly what the thought process is.

Hell take Larkin to arbitration if it comes down to it.

Have you honestly not noticed a trend league-wide where teams have starting locking up their players for their core years coming right off entry -level? You're acting like this is some crazy unprecedented thing that has never happened before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Son of a Wing said:

Have you honestly not noticed a trend league-wide where teams have starting locking up their players for their core years coming right off entry -level? You're acting like this is some crazy unprecedented thing that has never happened before. 

And have you not noticed that Ken Holland has NOT done that? And taken almost all his RFAs to arbitration if they demand  pay he doesn’t agree with.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kickazz said:

And have you not noticed that Ken Holland has NOT done that? And taken almost all his RFAs to arbitration if they demand  pay he doesn’t agree with.

And he usually settles ahead of or outside the hearing anyways. Mrazek wanted 5 million per, Holland was offering 2.85. They settled on 4. Tatar wanted 6 if I remember correct, Holland offered 5 for 5 years, and they settled at 5.3 for four.

So by those numbers, Larkin probably won’t lose much money if Holland takes him to arbitration. And arbitration can strain player/GM relationships. That’s a risk to take for certain ones, but Larkin is a franchise cornerstone for the future. Don’t bow to a ridiculous amount, but if your not that far apart, then avoid it.

Holland plays hardball with his young future guys but throws money and term at vets and older UFAs. That’s gotta stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of a Wing said:

Except that deal was signed 5 years ago. Judging for market inflation he would have received 7.5-8m today. Making Larkin's 6x8 deal seem quite reasonable.

For every Nugent-Hopkins there's a Nathan MacKinnon. 

Anyways here's hoping for 3 bridge deals but I wouldn't be surprised to see Larkin sign long-term.

 

Agreed to this part. I was responding to chaps asking what he'd done to deserve 6 mill. Was comparing there situations as young guys 3 years in the league being locked up long term, not really the dollar amounts.

And I do agree that that would slot Dylan at around 6 million. I just don't think you commit 8 years of 6 mill to a guy that had such a sophmore slump like his last year.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LoveMyRedWings56 said:

Larkin and Mantha aren't old enough for salary arbitration you need to be 24 years old, Only AA qualifies for arbitration.

No, age is not the criteria, number of pro years it is. Example: You come in at age 18, after 4 years your are eligible, at 22.

AA came in at 19, is in his 4th year, so he is eligible, at 23.

Larkin came in at 19, too. But he is only in his 3rd year, so not arbitration eligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good topic.

AA is going to be a problem. Might be the reason why his name was floated in some rumors. I dont expect him to sign for anything less than 4 million per. In fact I expect him to be traded because of this. I just hope in brings back a quality Dman.

As for Mantha and larkin you are talking our leading G scorer and points guys. The building blocks for our franchise for the next 12+ years. You get them signed long term. I would offer Mantha 7 years at 5 mill per and Larkin 8 years at 5 million. Little high for now but should become a steal in a couple years. It also keeps the expiration dates seperate down the road when it comes time to resign them down the road.

Now that what I would do. Is that what I think happens? No. I expect AA to be moved, Mantha to get low-balled and become a hold out, and Larkin to take a 3 year bridge deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kickazz said:

If we give Larkin an 8 year deal now, it will run till he's 29. And at 29 he'll likely get another max term deal which we will have to pay him a lot more money. 29 is still considered prime. Pretty sure Z and Dats scored their highest totals around that age. And also the time Z got his long term contract. 

Better to give him a 4 year deal now and assess him. Once he's 25 give him a max deal till he's 33. By then his prime is over and we'll probably end up saving money and won't have to necessarily be stuck with him till he's 37 years old; paying him god knows what.

Trust me my scenario works in our favor. We dont need to give this guy 2 max contracts till his late 30s or 40s if we don't need to. 

Not 4 years (or 5-6). 2-3 years or 7-8. Though I would expect Larkin (or his agent at least) to push for 4-6. 3 years he would still be RFA at the end. While I wouldn't expect that to lower the hit of his next deal too much, it would at least eliminate most of the risk of losing him. 4+ and he would be unrestricted. 4-6 years he would still be young enough to look for a big deal if things weren't going well with our rebuild.

If you could get 7 or 8 years at $6M or less, I think it'd be worth it. It's some risk to be sure, but I don't think that's that much more than what he'd get for 3 years. And depending on what we do with the cap in those years, there some risk in the bridge deal as well.

And we wouldn't give him another max term deal unless he earned it, especially not one for "a lot more money". Sure, if he plays like Zetterberg over the next 8 years we would, as we would if he plays like that until he's 32-33. But if he ends up more of a Filppula/Tatar level, we'll let him go or trade him.

 

42 minutes ago, The Datsyukian Deke said:

No, age is not the criteria, number of pro years it is. Example: You come in at age 18, after 4 years your are eligible, at 22.

AA came in at 19, is in his 4th year, so he is eligible, at 23.

Larkin came in at 19, too. But he is only in his 3rd year, so not arbitration eligible.

And in case anyone wants to be further confused:

Mantha and AA are basically the same age, both signed their ELCs in the same year, both need 4 years pro for arbitration, both started in GR the same year, both got their first call-up to the Wings in the same year, and for the most part been full-time for the last two. So why is AA eligible while Mantha is not? Because Mantha was born after after September 15th, the NHL considers him a year younger rather than just over a month. So he was considered 19 for his first year in GR, while AA was considered 20. 19 year olds need 10 NHL games to count as a season.

So there you go. Half the battle is over, if you believe anything Flint has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

I really cannot believe Buffalo gave Eichel that extension! $10M cap hit? Seriously? This does not bode well for us! There goes our cap space.

Using that example, I see both Larkin and Mantha 8x8.  AA 3yrs x $5M minimum. There goes any hope of attracting a UFA. Green may even be out of reach. Ugh, these GM's, isn't this why we had the first lockout?

That really was a stupid contract. At least McDavid earned his contract by winning a Hart, Eichel is being paid purely on his accomplishments in junior and what people think he can do which is not the way it should be IMO. He's really done nothing that impressive yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kliq said:

That really was a stupid contract. At least McDavid earned his contract by winning a Hart, Eichel is being paid purely on his accomplishments in junior and what people think he can do which is not the way it should be IMO. He's really done nothing that impressive yet. 

 

He’s also getting paid more than he should because Buffalo is desperate and could not afford to lose him. I’m sure they justify it by what people think he can do. 

He does have 166 points in 197 games so far though (around a point per game this year), playing for some bad teams. I’m not the biggest Eichel fan by any means and I’m not defending handing him that contract, that’s a lot of money. But it’s not unrealistic to think he could live up to it, imo. They just need to get some talent around him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, amato said:

 

He’s also getting paid more than he should because Buffalo is desperate and could not afford to lose him. I’m sure they justify it by what people think he can do. 

He does have 166 points in 197 games so far though (around a point per game this year), playing for some bad teams. I’m not the biggest Eichel fan by any means and I’m not defending handing him that contract, that’s a lot of money. But it’s not unrealistic to think he could live up to it, imo. They just need to get some talent around him. 

100% agree with the bold, he very well could. My issue, is I don't like the idea of paying players for potential. For every McDavid, Matthews etc. there is a Stefan, Faloon, and Daige. They should at least do something significant first.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not taking anyting away from Larkin, Mantha or AA, but leading this team in scoring is not a huge feat.  I hope that they re-sign at a reasonable rate.  I think my original guess of $3.5M seems too low now after loking around at other comparable scorers coming of/or just came off ELC's, so I hope we can keep it mid-range.  Even with $22M+ available if we give those three $6M-$8M respectively, and Green $4M-$5M, we'd be right back on top of the cap list, with the same team...worse without Mrazek and Tatar actually...

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something what could pretty realistic IMO, but it only gives up $3.6-ish in cap space, so no JT.

 

...and this is IF the cap goes up to $79M. Still no guarantee that'll happen.

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this