Toggle sidebar

Speculation: What would you pay Larkin on an extension?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd pay him whatever he wants. If he walks, the team is five+ years out,and that's assuming there are no negative repercussions from dumping* your captain, and the only semi-decent C the team has drafted in the last 15 years. Screwing around with him over a million dollars or whatever would be unbelievably short-sighted.

That said, I'm not even slightly concerned that the deal will be bad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zaronji, ColdToiletSeats and Gniwder
If DBoss walks, then Bert probably walks, and so do Suter and Ned. That alone makes him worth $9M/season.

Probably best to sign him during the season, and not let him test free agency. Other than the RFA kids, Fabbri is the only player signed past next season. If D-Boss walks, Fabbri is 1C.
 
kliq said:
Regardless of what you feel or the stats that you are using, this just isn’t how it works in the NHL. Zero chance Larkin signs for what you want to give him. On the open market he will get 9mil or more. Again, look at Hayes as an example of an overpaid UFA. UFA just get overpaid, it’s simply a reality.
Click to expand...
UFAs do, and if Larkin wants 9 million, let him walk, he wouldn't live up to that contract. That's Backstrom/Stamkos money, a level of play Larkin has never been at, or even close to.

Beyond every reason why things could be bad later, it makes no sense to try to pay a player what they're worth in the cap world. From a strictly cap stand point, the best world is paying Larkin the bare minimum he's willing to accept for the longest he's willing to accept that amount. Paying him based on 37 games of production in over a nearly 500 game career is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Shaman464 said:
UFAs do, and if Larkin wants 9 million, let him walk, he wouldn't live up to that contract. That's Backstrom/Stamkos money, a level of play Larkin has never been at, or even close to.

Beyond every reason why things could be bad later, it makes no sense to try to pay a player what they're worth in the cap world. From a strictly cap stand point, the best world is paying Larkin the bare minimum he's willing to accept for the longest he's willing to accept that amount. Paying him based on 37 games of production in over a nearly 500 game career is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

That one of the dumbest or may be the dumbest shit i read on this board and you need to keep in mind that the Oaf posts here, so that's an accomplishment. It's not like you have a choice to pay 9 mio to Larkin or to Stamkos. You have a choice between paying 9 mio to Larkin or Vincent f***ing Trochek. Or being Buffalo Sabres for next 10 years hoping to trade your first line center for a hope of picking a second line winger in the back of the first round. But yeah shooting percentage is not sustainable I get it.

You still win Cup by overpaying good players, it is hard to it without them
 
  • Like
Reactions: newfy
DoMakc said:
That one of the dumbest or may be the dumbest shit i read on this board and you need to keep in mind that the Oaf posts here, so that's an accomplishment. It's not like you have a choice to pay 9 mio to Larkin or to Stamkos. You have a choice between paying 9 mio to Larkin or Vincent f***ing Trochek. Or being Buffalo Sabres for next 10 years hoping to trade your first line center for a hope of picking a second line winger in the back of the first round. But yeah shooting percentage is not sustainable I get it.

You still win Cup by overpaying good players, it is hard to it without them
Click to expand...

You win cups by underpaying great players, and you go into cap hell by overpaying them when they leave their RFA contracts and you need to overpay them. Also, this isn't a thread on what Larkin is worth, its what you'd pay. And its bad business to pay players what they are worth in the cap world. By the time Larkin's contract up they will also need to pay Bert, and Suter, and Ned, Hronek and Seider are on the radar. And if Detroit will be anywhere near playoff ready likely another center and defender need to be added to the roster. Add to that a likely flat, to anemic rise in the cap, the Wings will still need to save pennies where they can.
 
RRhoads said:
Stevie got Stamkos to sign for 8.5. Should be less for Larkin. 7.0-7.5 is my guess
Click to expand...

When Stammer signed, it would be comparable to a 9.7 million a year or so contract when Larkin will be signing an extension. I'm not saying Larkin should make Stamkos money, but looking at raw numbers doesnt really make sense either. They use percentage of the cap taken up, not the raw numbers when theyre discussing deals
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaronji, Ed Ned and Leddy, The Zetterberg Era and 1 other person
I could live with 9M/yr, though it seems like a lot. Would prefer 8.5 or even 8 if we can get it. Can't see him signing for anything less than 8.
 
Number1RedWingsFan52 said:
Hope this is meant to be :sarcasm: Yzerman got Stamkos for $8.5 mill here in tax free Florida, Thinking he'd get Larkin for around $7.0 mill to $7.5 mill is :laugh: and plain ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Tax free Florida is mostly a myth in terms of sports teams, where they pay state taxes for half their games, and in any non-American's case he pays both US and home country taxes, where state taxes would reduce his tax bill to both national governments.
 
Shaman464 said:
UFAs do, and if Larkin wants 9 million, let him walk, he wouldn't live up to that contract. That's Backstrom/Stamkos money, a level of play Larkin has never been at, or even close to.

Beyond every reason why things could be bad later, it makes no sense to try to pay a player what they're worth in the cap world. From a strictly cap stand point, the best world is paying Larkin the bare minimum he's willing to accept for the longest he's willing to accept that amount. Paying him based on 37 games of production in over a nearly 500 game career is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

For the record, I never said we should offer 9mil, I said 8x8. As far as it being Stamkos level money, thats not exactly true as its not apples to apples. You can't compare what Stamkos was paid in 2016 to what Larkin will be paid in 2023 as its all relative to what the cap is. In 2016 the cap was 71.4 million, this year its 82.5mil, contact matters. Not to mention, Tampa has a huge advantage with salaries with the tax exemptions there. Yes, in a perfect world you want guys to give hometown discounts, but in reality you can't guarantee it. Maybe if we had center depth we could let him walk, but if it does in fact walk our 1C becomes Pias Suter. Thats a problem.

There is a 0% change he signs for 7mil x 5 years......0%.
 
Shaman464 said:
Tax free Florida is mostly a myth in terms of sports teams, where they pay state taxes for half their games, and in any non-American's case he pays both US and home country taxes, where state taxes would reduce his tax bill to both national governments.
Click to expand...
Michigan state tax is flat 4.25%, so for $8M salary that's $340k if he had to pay taxes on every game. If Stevie let's Larkin walk because of $340k difference then he needs to find a new job.
 
Shaman464 said:
You win cups by underpaying great players, and you go into cap hell by overpaying them when they leave their RFA contracts and you need to overpay them. Also, this isn't a thread on what Larkin is worth, its what you'd pay. And its bad business to pay players what they are worth in the cap world. By the time Larkin's contract up they will also need to pay Bert, and Suter, and Ned, Hronek and Seider are on the radar. And if Detroit will be anywhere near playoff ready likely another center and defender need to be added to the roster. Add to that a likely flat, to anemic rise in the cap, the Wings will still need to save pennies where they can.
Click to expand...

I disagree. From people you listed, only Seider and Bert need to be paid. And I'd rather let go Bert than Larkin.
 
Shaman464 said:
Tax free Florida is mostly a myth in terms of sports teams, where they pay state taxes for half their games, and in any non-American's case he pays both US and home country taxes, where state taxes would reduce his tax bill to both national governments.
Click to expand...
41 games Tampa+2 games Florida+1 game Dallas+1 game Nashville+1 game Vegas. That's 46 games tax free out of a 82 game schedule still not bad.
 
Number1RedWingsFan52 said:
I'd say anywhere from 8 x 8.0 to 8 x 8.5 should get it done.
Click to expand...

I can see him getting more than that. Like @newfy said people need to get more familiar with percentage of the cap.

I think Larkin is pretty reasonably in the lower 9s, just hoping Stevie can sell him on the team deal and yes for those that pause here I consider Larkin on 8 X 8.5 a team friendly deal when I threw that out there. I know he had no state tax, but what Yzerman sold those guys was on being great together and what he needed with the cap to do that. Hedman and Stamkos talked about it a lot. I guess we will see the sales pitch in a big way, both Larkin and Bertuzzi are eligible to be talked to on that. Driving Larkin's number down should also help Bertuzzi's much talked about contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: odin1981, Ed Ned and Leddy and Winger98
Shaman464 said:
UFAs do, and if Larkin wants 9 million, let him walk, he wouldn't live up to that contract. That's Backstrom/Stamkos money, a level of play Larkin has never been at, or even close to.

Beyond every reason why things could be bad later, it makes no sense to try to pay a player what they're worth in the cap world. From a strictly cap stand point, the best world is paying Larkin the bare minimum he's willing to accept for the longest he's willing to accept that amount. Paying him based on 37 games of production in over a nearly 500 game career is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

No, it isn’t. Stamkos got that 8.5M 5 years ago with no state tax and the Lightning able to add an extra year at 8.5M. Had he signed elsewhere, that’s a 10-12m contract for 7 years.

You can’t pick a holy shit hometown discount contract and use it as the baseline. Yzerman played hardball and got a 12m player to sign for 8.5x8.
 
Shaman464 said:
You win cups by underpaying great players, and you go into cap hell by overpaying them when they leave their RFA contracts and you need to overpay them. Also, this isn't a thread on what Larkin is worth, its what you'd pay. And its bad business to pay players what they are worth in the cap world. By the time Larkin's contract up they will also need to pay Bert, and Suter, and Ned, Hronek and Seider are on the radar. And if Detroit will be anywhere near playoff ready likely another center and defender need to be added to the roster. Add to that a likely flat, to anemic rise in the cap, the Wings will still need to save pennies where they can.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not. It’s not bad business to pay great players what they are worth. It is, and always has been, bad business to fall in love with players who are not your core pieces. The Wings collapsed because they were foolish on contracts with guys like Abdelkader and Helm who were never going to be worth the money. It was not because they signed Zetterberg or Datsyuk to whatever.

Chicago won three cups with pretty different rosters because they held onto the important pieces and excised the extras.
 
The Zetterberg Era said:
I can see him getting more than that. Like @newfy said people need to get more familiar with percentage of the cap.

I think Larkin is pretty reasonably in the lower 9s, just hoping Stevie can sell him on the team deal and yes for those that pause here I consider Larkin on 8 X 8.5 a team friendly deal when I threw that out there. I know he had no state tax, but what Yzerman sold those guys was on being great together and what he needed with the cap to do that. Hedman and Stamkos talked about it a lot. I guess we will see the sales pitch in a big way, both Larkin and Bertuzzi are eligible to be talked to on that. Driving Larkin's number down should also help Bertuzzi's much talked about contract.
Click to expand...
Well what i did say earlier for Larkin in the 8 x $9,000,000 to 8 x $9,500,000 range was more in line with what Dylan Larkin will probably receive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom