Speculation: What would you pay Larkin on an extension?

[jaster]

Except not all unrestricted free agents get paid the same..

Your approach seems to suggest the opposite.. because he is a UFA he gets x amount of dollars regardless of whether he is worth it..

That's not anyone's approach. The reality is that there is a difference between the amount of money a player commands when there are RFA years included in the contract, vs when there are not. That's it. The two scenarios are apples to oranges, and when people talk about them like they are both apples, well, we have a very misunderstood fruit basket.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

That's not anyone's approach. The reality is that there is a difference between the amount of money a player commands when there are RFA years included in the contract, vs when there are not. That's it. The two scenarios are apples to oranges, and when people talk about them like they are both apples, well, we have a very misunderstood fruit basket.

I'd say the second the RFA/UFA dichotomy is mentioned, its forming part of an opinion.

Most of the comparables of Larkin to (Hughes/Kaprizov as examples) were based on age, talent and ability. Some posters then brought forth contract status as contrary evidence to talent or ability(RFA vs UFA)

Ideally, they would have forgone that approach and only compared based on talent.

I don't believe based on talent or ability he, DL, is worth more than 8m x 8 years. If he was a more talented UFA he would be worth more.. 9, 10, 12m etc

 

[Frk It]

I'd say the second the RFA/UFA dichotomy is mentioned, its forming part of an opinion.

Most of the comparables of Larkin to (Hughes/Kaprizov as examples) were based on age, talent and ability. Some posters then brought forth contract status as contrary evidence to talent or ability(RFA vs UFA)

Ideally, they would have forgone that approach and only compared based on talent.

I don't believe based on talent or ability he, DL, is worth more than 8m x 8 years. If he was a more talented UFA he would be worth more.. 9, 10, 12m etc

Contracts that have more RFA years are cheaper than contracts that have less RFA years. Because RFA years are designed to be cost controlled. Supply vs demand. Years of my contract where other teams can bid for my services cost more. Years of my contract where only 1 team can negotiate with me cost less.

Therefore a more talented player negotiating a deal that consists of 75% RFA years might get paid the same as someone less talented but negotiating a deal that consists of 75% UFA years. (This is actually fairly common).

So you saying players just get paid based on who is the most talented, and that's all that matters.. that is simply not true.

These are more or less facts, not opinions.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'd say the second the RFA/UFA dichotomy is mentioned, its forming part of an opinion.

Most of the comparables of Larkin to (Hughes/Kaprizov as examples) were based on age, talent and ability. Some posters then brought forth contract status as contrary evidence to talent or ability(RFA vs UFA)

Ideally, they would have forgone that approach and only compared based on talent.

I don't believe based on talent or ability he, DL, is worth more than 8m x 8 years. If he was a more talented UFA he would be worth more.. 9, 10, 12m etc

But you don’t “forgo” RFA vs UFA. It’s literally something that depresses contract values for younger players vs older players.

Guys like Stutzle, J Hughes, B and M Tkachuk would be getting more than the contracts they did if they didn’t eat up RFA years. It’s not an opinion that RFA years lower an AAV. It’s a fact.

You are making a bad faith argument by removing that context. The argument to make is the argument Yzerman is focusing in on. What were other similar Cs making as a portion of the cap% as a UFA. Flat contract numbers are a fine ass madness to try to stick to when everyone on earth knows the cap is gonna shoot up by 10-15m in the next 5-7 years

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Except not all unrestricted free agents get paid the same..

Your approach seems to suggest the opposite.. because he is a UFA he gets x amount of dollars regardless of whether he is worth it..

But it doesn’t.

RFAs are ridiculously tied to comparables because only one team can feasibly negotiate for their services. Sure, you can do offersheets but those are rare for a reason. So the meager amount of leverage a player and his agent have is “my guy is performing better than this other guy who made X or playing at a similar level to this guy making Y”

When you’re an unrestricted FA, the team will still zero in on the comparables, but if another team wants that player’s services more… they can just come in with a higher bid. Comparables are still used by teams and agents… which is why you saw so many “1D” players sign for 8x9.5m pretty much one after another. But if another team wanted Seth Jones more than Chicago.. they would have paid more.

It’s also why the Wings drew the line and Hossa signed for around 7M because they didn’t want anyone making more than Lidstrom.

 

[jaster]

I'd say the second the RFA/UFA dichotomy is mentioned, its forming part of an opinion.

Most of the comparables of Larkin to (Hughes/Kaprizov as examples) were based on age, talent and ability. Some posters then brought forth contract status as contrary evidence to talent or ability(RFA vs UFA)

Ideally, they would have forgone that approach and only compared based on talent.

I don't believe based on talent or ability he, DL, is worth more than 8m x 8 years. If he was a more talented UFA he would be worth more.. 9, 10, 12m etc

Well, the other two guys fleshed this out before I came back to this. But yeah, you can't compare contracts based only on talent when the two contracts have asymmetrical foundations/structures. That's not at all opinion, that is literally how contracts work in the NHL.

You believing Larkin is not worth X, Y, or Z is fine. But if you are trying to use another player's contract, one that included RFA years, as a direct comparable, you are undermining your own argument.

 

[Shaman464]

Most of what's being discussed doesn't matter for what Larkin is worth. What matters is where Larkin sees himself in the lineup vs where Yzerman sees him. Right now its pretty clear Yzerman sees Larkin as his 2nd line center over the life of his contract. Paying a 2nd line center 9 million would get Yzerman a free pair of clown shoes.

 

[jaster]

Yzerman [in] a free pair of clown shoes.

 

[norrisnick]

Most of what's being discussed doesn't matter for what Larkin is worth. What matters is where Larkin sees himself in the lineup vs where Yzerman sees him. Right now its pretty clear Yzerman sees Larkin as his 2nd line center over the life of his contract. Paying a 2nd line center 9 million would get Yzerman a free pair of clown shoes.

We just sending out wingers for the top line then?

If Yzerman sees Larkin as a 2C he best get on top of finding a 1C.

And if this spins right back into a Horvat discussion as if there were a material difference in 1C vs 2C capabilities between Larkin and Bo I've got some suggestions on where to store those clown shoes...

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Most of what's being discussed doesn't matter for what Larkin is worth. What matters is where Larkin sees himself in the lineup vs where Yzerman sees him. Right now its pretty clear Yzerman sees Larkin as his 2nd line center over the life of his contract. Paying a 2nd line center 9 million would get Yzerman a free pair of clown shoes.

What.

View attachment 642571

Oh, @FlashyG, were have you come from, where have you gone?

 

[Shaman464]

What.


Oh, @FlashyG, were have you come from, where have you gone?

There have been a glut of recent articles on the Larkin contract talks which have clearly stated that Yzerman sees Larkin as a second line center.

We just sending out wingers for the top line then?

If Yzerman sees Larkin as a 2C he best get on top of finding a 1C.

And if this spins right back into a Horvat discussion as if there were a material difference in 1C vs 2C capabilities between Larkin and Bo I've got some suggestions on where to store those clown shoes...

Being the best center on a team doesn't make you a first line center. And there have been many articles linked in this thread where Detroit media sources have clearly and unequivocally said that Yzerman sees Larkin as a 2nd line center.

 

[norrisnick]

There have been a glut of recent articles on the Larkin contract talks which have clearly stated that Yzerman sees Larkin as a second line center.



Being the best center on a team doesn't make you a first line center. And there have been many articles linked in this thread where Detroit media sources have clearly and unequivocally said that Yzerman sees Larkin as a 2nd line center.

I'm sure Yzerman has been open, honest, and forthright with them regarding his opinions on Larkin's role on the team. As much as some would like to believe that Khan or HSJ or whoever speak with the voice of Yzerman, I find that a shaky position at best.

 

[Shaman464]

I'm sure Yzerman has been open, honest, and forthright with them regarding his opinions on Larkin's role on the team. As much as some would like to believe that Khan or HSJ or whoever speak with the voice of Yzerman, I find that a shaky position at best.

Its a much stronger position than "some rando on HFboards says". The fact that Detroit's sports media, which has always had a cozy relationship with the org, is lining up behind the narrative that Larkin isn't a first line guy isn't some massive coincidence.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

There have been a glut of recent articles on the Larkin contract talks which have clearly stated that Yzerman sees Larkin as a second line center.



Being the best center on a team doesn't make you a first line center. And there have been many articles linked in this thread where Detroit media sources have clearly and unequivocally said that Yzerman sees Larkin as a 2nd line center.

Well good for Yzerman. Optimally, that’s what he wants. Because if Larkin is centering your 2nd line, you’ve got a f***in hell of a team. However… until such time that they acquire that player, Larkin is their 1C.

The Red Wings are a better team now and in the future with Dylan Larkin making 8.5-9M and being slightly overpaid for that role than letting him walk over that small amount or even trading him for some rental price. He’s a damn good hockey player that we’re realistically talking about being overpaid by a total of 6-8 million over 8 years if he signed at 9M

 

[Shaman464]

Well good for Yzerman. Optimally, that’s what he wants. Because if Larkin is centering your 2nd line, you’ve got a f***in hell of a team. However… until such time that they acquire that player, Larkin is their 1C.

The Red Wings are a better team now and in the future with Dylan Larkin making 8.5-9M.

They aren't a better team paying him that much, they just aren't a worse team for having him walk for nothing. That being said what's coming out of Detroit media is that Yzerman is not just negotiating with Larkin right now but with the whole group of young players who will need contracts soon. It seems he wants to show he won't balk and pay whatever is being demanded, which is a breath of fresh air after Holland.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

They aren't a better team paying him that much, they just aren't a worse team for having him walk for nothing. That being said what's coming out of Detroit media is that Yzerman is not just negotiating with but with the whole group of young players who will need contracts soon. It seems he wants to show he won't balk and pay whatever is being demanded, which is a breath of fresh air after Holland.

Well no f***ing shit. Anyone with eyes saw how he handled it in Tampa. What the hell is with this brigade that are shitting their fruit of the looms about Yzerman bending over backwards for Larkin?

He’s literally played hardball at every single negotiation he’s handled and if he were bending over for Larkin, the deal would have been signed a year ago.

And yes, they are a better team holding onto Larkin than they are letting him walk, even if they got a 1st and a prospect for him.

 

[norrisnick]

Its a much stronger position than "some rando on HFboards says". The fact that Detroit's sports media, which has always had a cozy relationship with the org, is lining up behind the narrative that Larkin isn't a first line guy isn't some massive coincidence.

I wouldn't categorize "never asking any questions and thereby never actually giving out any information" as cozy. Just lazy.

 

[norrisnick]

They aren't a better team paying him that much, they just aren't a worse team for having him walk for nothing. That being said what's coming out of Detroit media is that Yzerman is not just negotiating with Larkin right now but with the whole group of young players who will need contracts soon. It seems he wants to show he won't balk and pay whatever is being demanded, which is a breath of fresh air after Holland.

This is turning into a semantics shitshow.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I wouldn't categorize "never asking any questions and thereby never actually giving out any information" as cozy. Just lazy.

I also don't get this. I don't need the media like HSJ or Kulfan or any of them "asking the hard questions". In fact, I just don't mind beat writers just reporting the news coming from the team. A New York or Toronto media of jackasses does nothing for me. HSJ isn't wonderful at her job or anything... but I know teams at this point are just gonna do what they'll do and if it's bad enough the national media will light them up.

 

[norrisnick]

I also don't get this. I don't need the media like HSJ or Kulfan or any of them "asking the hard questions". In fact, I just don't mind beat writers just reporting the news coming from the team. A New York or Toronto media of jackasses does nothing for me. HSJ isn't wonderful at her job or anything... but I know teams at this point are just gonna do what they'll do and if it's bad enough the national media will light them up.

I'm not looking for an antagonistic relationship. Just, you know... when there are things that clearly would be potentially interesting for us consumers of sports and sports media to know it might behoove them to ask a question now and then.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'm not looking for an antagonistic relationship. Just, you know... when there are things that clearly would be potentially interesting for us consumers of sports and sports media to know it might behoove them to ask a question now and then.

The way I see it, that's what things like The Athletic are for. I know that people like HSJ, Kulfan, Monarrez, etc? They're garbage and I don't need them trying to act like Walter Cronkite. Frankly, when it comes to sports for me... especially after the pandemic, it's literally just entertainment. We have a 24 hour news cycle and 99.9% of things that are worth asking immediately break over Twitter anyway. Asking a question and being stonewalled is not of any use to me.

 

[Frk It]

Most of what's being discussed doesn't matter for what Larkin is worth. What matters is where Larkin sees himself in the lineup vs where Yzerman sees him. Right now its pretty clear Yzerman sees Larkin as his 2nd line center over the life of his contract. Paying a 2nd line center 9 million would get Yzerman a free pair of clown shoes.

I would need to know what the range is for 2C's, what the range is for 1C's, and what the specific $$ amount Yzerman is offering and refusing to go above, in order to make this type of claim.

 

[norrisnick]

I would need to know what the range is for 2C's, what the range is for 1C's, and what the specific $$ amount Yzerman is offering and refusing to go above, in order to make this type of claim.

Especially in light of what Yzerman gave Copp last summer.

Ran some fun numbers.

Larkin and Copp have similar non-offense related skills. For the sake of this, lets call everything that isn't offense a wash.
Larkin this season is scoring at .935 PPG
Copp this season is scoring at .553 PPG
Larkin scores 69% (Nice) more than Copp
Copp's $5.625M AAV contract times 1.69 equals????

$9,510,624

No intrinsic value whatsoever... I just find this amusing.

 

[jkutswings]

I'd like to see the list of players that meet all of the following criteria:
* Significantly better qualified than Larkin as a 1C
* Willing to sign with or be traded to Detroit
* Is part of a team willing to lose/trade said player
* If a trade, is part of a trade that includes assets Detroit is willing to part with

Is Dylan a top 5 center? Hell no. But it's not like we've already found the magic wand to get a better option here. And while I'm not opposed to acquiring Horvat depending on the price, he's certainly NOT a noticeable cut above Larkin if it comes to gaining one by losing the other.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Well, the other two guys fleshed this out before I came back to this. But yeah, you can't compare contracts based only on talent when the two contracts have asymmetrical foundations/structures. That's not at all opinion, that is literally how contracts work in the NHL.

You believing Larkin is not worth X, Y, or Z is fine. But if you are trying to use another player's contract, one that included RFA years, as a direct comparable, you are undermining your own argument.

This is alot of back and forth here, but, is their any recent free agent comparable you feel is safe bring up when discussing Larkins value and bect contract.

Of course in the end what we say dosent mean a thing, but for arguements sake on this message board, let's discuss..

This may be the best approach