Official 2018 Off Season *Rebuild* Thread

[kipwinger 8,524]

Am I the only one who doesn't think Martha is as good as he's portrayed around here?  I mean,  he's not bad or anything but I don't really see him as definitely a core guy. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

26 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Yep, this is pretty much how I see it playing out (assuming no trades). $6-6.5 x 6 for Larkin, $4-4.5 x 2 for Mantha. The others are easier to figure.

I don't think they go for full term with Larkin because the cold truth is the jury's still out on what he's going to be at the NHL level. Personally, I'm bullish on him, but I've been wrong about young players before....

Same idea with Mantha: he has all the potential in the world, but a 48-point season and inconsistent performance probably shouldn't get you a monster long-term deal in this day and age, even if your ceiling is really high.

Meh, agree to disagree on this one. I'd definitely go max term on Larkin. More years usually means lower cap hit, and we could really get him on a steal of a contract. I'd also go long(er) term on Mantha. Maybe not 6 years, but I'd definitely go longer than 2 years. I'd be okay with $6-6.5M for 7-8 years for Larkin and $5-5.5M for 4-6 years for Mantha.

36 minutes ago, Dabura said:

So max term is 8 years, right? I have this weird thing where it's set in my mind that it's 7, even though I "know" it's 8.

At any rate, I'm somewhat surprised by these two predictions, as I'd thought the $$$ would be bigger. I'd be interested to know if Matt Cane sees them signing these contracts with the Isles and Caps. If so, I guess it's less surprising to me. If not, and those are the offers that win bidding wars...wouldn't you expect the $$$ to be a little bigger? Maybe it's just me. *shrug*

8 years is the max for the Islanders / Capitals to re-sign Tavares / Carlson, and 7 years is the max for any other team. So I assume Matt Cane is projected both to be re-signed by their current clubs.

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think Martha is as good as he's portrayed around here?  I mean,  he's not bad or anything but I don't really see him as definitely a core guy. 

You're definitely not the only one. I'm notably pretty high on Mantha, but I've heard some people rag on him pretty hard every year since we've drafted him. He's a top 6 winger, that should be capable of scoring 30 goals (55-65 points), and to me, that's well worth $5-6M on a long term contract. People have to remember that this team is in shambles right now. Once we get things turned around, Mantha should be a very reliable goal scorer for this team for many years to come.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

50 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think Martha is as good as he's portrayed around here?  I mean,  he's not bad or anything but I don't really see him as definitely a core guy. 

I don't think he's a definite core guy, but I do see him as a guy with a pretty high ceiling.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Lou Lamoriello taking over for the Islanders. I betcha he get's Tavares re-signed...

[SwedeLundin77 460]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

You're definitely not the only one. I'm notably pretty high on Mantha, but I've heard some people rag on him pretty hard every year since we've drafted him. He's a top 6 winger, that should be capable of scoring 30 goals (55-65 points), and to me, that's well worth $5-6M on a long term contract. People have to remember that this team is in shambles right now. Once we get things turned around, Mantha should be a very reliable goal scorer for this team for many years to come.

If the coaching staff wasn't so abysmal with line jumbling and inconsistency, than Mantha would have been paired with Larkin and Athanasiou all season and the three of them would have all been better off for it. This isn't a knock on Z, just that whenever they had those 3 on the same line, it was usually pretty electric.

[LeftWinger 4,959]

AA - Larkin - Mantha should be a line that stays together. It was also a good line when Frk was on there in Mantha's place. Our coach stinks and we will see a ton more of it this season. No knock on Z, but he should not be relied upon to be our #1 C anymore. Hel, Abby or Glen should NEVER see anywhere NEAR top 6 minutes.  But this is not a Blashill BASHill thread.

I do believe with the right coach, Mantha will score 30-40 goals, AA would become the complete player we need and Larkin would become the 90 point #1 C.

There is ZERO logical reason that any ONE of Mantha, AA, Larkin or Frk should see anything less than top 6 minutes on our team. There is NO process to follow, you play your best players in the best positions and on the best lines and give them the most amount of icetime,

Edited May 22, 2018 by LeftWinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

25 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

AA - Larkin - Mantha should be a line that stays together. It was also a good line when Frk was on there in Mantha's place. Our coach stinks and we will see a ton more of it this season. No knock on Z, but he should not be relied upon to be our #1 C anymore. Hel, Abby or Glen should NEVER see anywhere NEAR top 6 minutes.  But this is not a Blashill BASHill thread.

I do believe with the right coach, Mantha will score 30-40 goals, AA would become the complete player we need and Larkin would become the 90 point #1 C.

There is ZERO logical reason that any ONE of Mantha, AA, Larkin or Frk should see anything less than top 6 minutes on our team. There is NO process to follow, you play your best players in the best positions and on the best lines and give them the most amount of icetime,

I get as frustrated with Blashill as anyone, but he's not near as bad as some people make him out to be. He's an average (maybe better than average) coach, coaching a very bad team. He's still relatively young and new to the league, and I fully expect to see him improve as the team improves. I love Larkin and Mantha, but no coach is going to turn them into perennial 90 point / 30-40 scorers. The only way that happens, is if we get a McDavid level player to play them with.

[joesuffP 1,746]

Next season will be Mantha’s real test. He’s heard all the criticism and said all the right things he just needs to decide what kind of player he’s going to be. The first 20 games of last season he looked like he was a legit high end offensive guy. If he doesn’t score around 30 goals it will be a disappointment in my eyes.

I’ve given up on AA. He looked terrible last season to the point where I don’t think it comes down to useage. Just not a high level hockey IQ. Blaming Blashill for everything wrong with the team is a cop out. He’s well respected around the league, had success elsewhere and has improved each year. I just don’t see the untapped potential in this roster that everyone else is watching. The vets are who they are and the young players are improving

[kipwinger 8,524]

I mean, I'm not saying he's a bad winger or anything.  But he hasn't done anything that Tatar or Nyquist didn't do in their first couple seasons.  He just has a higher draft pedigree and he's huge, so people think he's capable of more.  I'm just saying I haven't seen it yet.  And as a result, I'd be really hesitant to give him big money right now. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I get as frustrated with Blashill as anyone, but he's not near as bad as some people make him out to be. He's an average (maybe better than average) coach, coaching a very bad team. He's still relatively young and new to the league, and I fully expect to see him improve as the team improves. I love Larkin and Mantha, but no coach is going to turn them into perennial 90 point / 30-40 scorers. The only way that happens, is if we get a McDavid level player to play them with.

Is better than Babcock?

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I mean, I'm not saying he's a bad winger or anything.  But he hasn't done anything that Tatar or Nyquist didn't do in their first couple seasons.  He just has a higher draft pedigree and he's huge, so people think he's capable of more.  I'm just saying I haven't seen it yet.  And as a result, I'd be really hesitant to give him big money right now. 

Completely understand and completely disagree. I normally s*** on those who invoke the eyeball test to prove their point, but in this case I'm going for it. I absolutely see a player capable of 60 pts with 30+ of those being goals, and a guy who should flirt with 70 pts in a year or two. I have nothing to base this on other than what I see on the ice. He's a head above Tatar and Nyquist IMO even if the numbers don't reflect that yet. I'm very excited to see what a more mature 25-26 year old Mantha can do.

Edited May 22, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Is better than Babcock?

Probably. F*** Babcock!

[LeftWinger 4,959]

14 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think Martha is as good as he's portrayed around here?  I mean,  he's not bad or anything but I don't really see him as definitely a core guy. 

Ya Martha Ford is just as bad as her husband was.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

 

Hunter will be a great addition to any organization. It will be interesting to see where he ends up...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

 

Hunter will be a great addition to any organization. It will be interesting to see where he ends up...

Interesting. I didn't think Hunter was gonna leave.Which teams need a GM right now?

So now it's down to Dubas, Shanahan, and Babcock in the holy brain trust in Leaf land? Am I missing anyone?

[Dabura 12,207]

22 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Meh, agree to disagree on this one. I'd definitely go max term on Larkin. More years usually means lower cap hit, and we could really get him on a steal of a contract. I'd also go long(er) term on Mantha. Maybe not 6 years, but I'd definitely go longer than 2 years. I'd be okay with $6-6.5M for 7-8 years for Larkin and $5-5.5M for 4-6 years for Mantha.

I feel kinda dumb and dirty for taking the position I'm taking, because I'm basically walking back all that HYPE! I was feeling re: the way Larkin and Mantha were producing early in the season. (Then again, my opinions about everything Wings-related change with the wind.) To be clear: It's not that I don't still believe in their potential. I totally do. I'm just not 100% sold on Larkin being a player we need to lock up for eight years this summer and I'm not 100% sold on Mantha being a player we need to lock up for four-to-six years this summer. I get that it could be a risk worth taking, because if they do become top-tier players then those long-term deals would look brilliant. But will they become top-tier players? I'm not 100% convinced at this time. Mantha couldn't keep up his early-season pace and he finished with 24 goals and 24 assists. By post-Lidstrom Wings standards that's really good, especially for someone under the age of 25. But I don't think it's enough to justify five or six years. Maybe four.

With Larkin, it's more just the body of work. Had a great rookie season playing mostly on Zetterberg's wing, then he struggled mightily in his sophomore season, then he took a huge step forward this season. While I'm all about the statement he made this season, I need to see him truly crush it in a demanding top-line role for at least a full season. As it is, David Pastrnak (the guy I wanted us to take with that 2014 1st-round pick, FWIW) is a pretty good comparable and he got $6.6M x 6.

22 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

8 years is the max for the Islanders / Capitals to re-sign Tavares / Carlson, and 7 years is the max for any other team. So I assume Matt Cane is projected both to be re-signed by their current clubs.

thx! That distinction probably explains why I have it mixed up in my head.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

21 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

AA - Larkin - Mantha should be a line that stays together. It was also a good line when Frk was on there in Mantha's place. Our coach stinks and we will see a ton more of it this season. No knock on Z, but he should not be relied upon to be our #1 C anymore. Hel, Abby or Glen should NEVER see anywhere NEAR top 6 minutes.  But this is not a Blashill BASHill thread.

I do believe with the right coach, Mantha will score 30-40 goals, AA would become the complete player we need and Larkin would become the 90 point #1 C.

There is ZERO logical reason that any ONE of Mantha, AA, Larkin or Frk should see anything less than top 6 minutes on our team. There is NO process to follow, you play your best players in the best positions and on the best lines and give them the most amount of icetime,

Larkin and Mantha, yes. AA and Frk are not top 6 forwards. AA is a middle 6 winger who should not be given more minutes when he's cheating on defense (which happens a lot). I wouldn't even consider Frk a middle 6 F. He is a depth player, nothing more.

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 5/21/2018 at 11:12 AM, krsmith17 said:

Matt Cane just came out with his Free Agent predictions for this off-season.

Here are a few notables...

RFA's

Larkin - 6 years at $6,320,945

Mantha - 2 years at $4,503,347

Athanasiou - 2 years at $1,881,831

Bertuzzi - 2 years at $1,057,648

Frk - 1 year at $1,017,035

UFA's

Green - 5 years at $5,639,168

Tavares - 8 years at $10,734,881

Carlson - 8 years at $8,635,489

I'd prefer to get Larkin locked up for the max 8 years, but $6-6.5M would be a good deal for both sides. I'd also prefer to get Mantha locked up long term. Around $5-5.5M for 6 years would be what I'd like to see. I'd be okay with 3 of those deals for Athanasiou (1.75-2.25M), Bertuzzi ($1-1.5M) and Frk (1-1.25M).

I don't think Green will get close to that, but if he does, Holland better stay far away. 2-3 years max at a much lower cap hit. And again, if we're bringing Green back, he better be willing to move another defenseman.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q-Pnzfvmo_1hDlWu7WqJHVyTZqy15386jVESKSOf0V4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

Mostly agree with these.

8 year deals scare me, I would do 6 for Larkin.

I would sign Mantha to more than 2 years tho. He hasn't proven enough yet to justify 6 years, but I would go 4. 

AA and Bert I agree with.

I would go 2 years on Frk's deal. 

No way Green gets that deal on this team, nor should he. I would be willing to go no more than 3 years at no more than a 5.0 AAV.

 

[LeftWinger 4,959]

if we spend over $10M on Mantha and Larkin, we're in deep doo doo. TOO MUCH MONEY!

if that is the market, then the NHL is in deep doo doo

[krsmith17 7,191]

14 hours ago, Dabura said:

I feel kinda dumb and dirty for taking the position I'm taking, because I'm basically walking back all that HYPE! I was feeling re: the way Larkin and Mantha were producing early in the season. (Then again, my opinions about everything Wings-related change with the wind.) To be clear: It's not that I don't still believe in their potential. I totally do. I'm just not 100% sold on Larkin being a player we need to lock up for eight years this summer and I'm not 100% sold on Mantha being a player we need to lock up for four-to-six years this summer. I get that it could be a risk worth taking, because if they do become top-tier players then those long-term deals would look brilliant. But will they become top-tier players? I'm not 100% convinced at this time. Mantha couldn't keep up his early-season pace and he finished with 24 goals and 24 assists. By post-Lidstrom Wings standards that's really good, especially for someone under the age of 25. But I don't think it's enough to justify five or six years. Maybe four.

With Larkin, it's more just the body of work. Had a great rookie season playing mostly on Zetterberg's wing, then he struggled mightily in his sophomore season, then he took a huge step forward this season. While I'm all about the statement he made this season, I need to see him truly crush it in a demanding top-line role for at least a full season. As it is, David Pastrnak (the guy I wanted us to take with that 2014 1st-round pick, FWIW) is a pretty good comparable and he got $6.6M x 6.

As you should lol... Nah, I hear ya, I'd personally take the gamble on Larkin and Mantha though, because I feel the reward far outweighs the risk with these two.

8 years is a long term, but Larkin is only 21 years old (22 in two months). It's not like he's 25-26 and the contract would bring him into his mid 30's. He'd still only be 29 when the contract expired. I'd be hesitant to do 8 years with most 21 year olds, but Larkin is a workhorse, and the next Red Wings captain. Lock him up! I'd still do 6 years with Mantha without hesitation, but I do understand the concern from some people. The absolute minimum I'd go is 4 years though, which would bring him until he's 27. You want to lock these players up for as many of their prime years as possible. Locking both up until their 29 (Larkin - 8 / Mantha - 6) would be best case scenario in my opinion.

The thing is, they don't even need to become "top tier players" for these deals to work out in our favor though. $6-6.5M for Larkin and $5-5.5M for Mantha is pretty standard for top 6 forwards. Let's say we gave both the max ($6.5M / $5.5M), that would put Larkin as the 33rd and Mantha as the 75th highest paid forwards. Hardly top tier money. That's today. What about in 2, 4, 6 years from now? Those deals would be looked upon as massive steals. Which is why Holland would be wise to try to lock them up as long as possible. Which is also why, Larkin and Mantha would be wise to take shorter term deals... Mantha has already stated that he'd prefer to take a bridge deal because he's confident he has a lot more to prove. A short bridge deal for either, scares the s*** out of me though...

10 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

if we spend over $10M on Mantha and Larkin, we're in deep doo doo. TOO MUCH MONEY!

if that is the market, then the NHL is in deep doo doo

This is a bad take...

[marcaractac 3,963]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

As you should lol... Nah, I hear ya, I'd personally take the gamble on Larkin and Mantha though, because I feel the reward far outweighs the risk with these two.

8 years is a long term, but Larkin is only 21 years old (22 in two months). It's not like he's 25-26 and the contract would bring him into his mid 30's. He'd still only be 29 when the contract expired. I'd be hesitant to do 8 years with most 21 year olds, but Larkin is a workhorse, and the next Red Wings captain. Lock him up! I'd still do 6 years with Mantha without hesitation, but I do understand the concern from some people. The absolute minimum I'd go is 4 years though, which would bring him until he's 27. You want to lock these players up for as many of their prime years as possible. Locking both up until their 29 (Larkin - 8 / Mantha - 6) would be best case scenario in my opinion.

The thing is, they don't even need to become "top tier players" for these deals to work out in our favor though. $6-6.5M for Larkin and $5-5.5M for Mantha is pretty standard for top 6 forwards. Let's say we gave both the max ($6.5M / $5.5M), that would put Larkin as the 33rd and Mantha as the 75th highest paid forwards. Hardly top tier money. That's today. What about in 2, 4, 6 years from now? Those deals would be looked upon as massive steals. Which is why Holland would be wise to try to lock them up as long as possible. Which is also why, Larkin and Mantha would be wise to take shorter term deals... Mantha has already stated that he'd prefer to take a bridge deal because he's confident he has a lot more to prove. A short bridge deal for either, scares the s*** out of me though...

This is a bad take...

Sometimes I read a take so bad I have to immediately go to sleep. This was one of those times.

[paulwoodsfan 52]

Whatever we do with Mantha and Larkin (and other young players), please please no more NTCs. Those are the scourge of the NHL.

Edited May 23, 2018 by paulwoodsfan
punctuation

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, paulwoodsfan said:

Whatever we do with Mantha and Larkin (and other young players), please please no more NTCs. Those are the scourge of the NHL.

I have no problem giving a NTC / NMC to a star player, it's when you give them to mid-level players that I have issue with. If Holland wants to offer Larkin a NTC to get his AAV down a bit, I have no problem with it. I don't think I'd give it to anyone else though. The fact that Nielsen, Nyquist, Abdelkader, Helm, Kronwall, Ericsson, DeKeyser and Daley all have some form of NTC / NMC is ridiculous.

[kickazz 5,459]

13 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

if we spend over $10M on Mantha and Larkin, we're in deep doo doo. TOO MUCH MONEY!

if that is the market, then the NHL is in deep doo doo

The f***? Stop saying doo doo.

 

[SwedeLundin77 460]

14 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

if we spend over $10M on Mantha and Larkin, we're in deep doo doo. TOO MUCH MONEY!

if that is the market, then the NHL is in deep doo doo

Spending 10 million on rising stars who will put up 100 points (at least) combined is perfectly fine. Larkin just put up 60+ points and he's still improving... the way I see it, that's the market. For around every 10 points you put up, it's a million if you're a key player. That's the trend I've seen, generally. Now, spending 10 million on 2 goalies... that's just asinine. Thank goodness that's over and hopefully, Holland learned his lesson on that one.