[Signing] Wings sign Larkin to 5 year contract ($6.1M AAV)

[sureLoss]

Chris Johnston
@reporterchris
Dylan Larkin's five-year extension with #redwings carries a $6.1M AAV.

Craig Custance @CraigCustance
More details on Dylan Larkin contract. Breakdown by year:

18-19: $1 million signing bonus. $5.75 million base
19-20: $7 million base
20-21: $4.75 million
21-22: $6.75 million
22-23: $5.25 million (no-trade clause)

[bigrangy]

Did they only buy 1 year of UFA?

Also it sure seems like I can give up on Tkachuk signing for less than Monahan on an 8 year deal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

They really had no choice here.

[sureLoss]

Yeah the Wings only bought 1 year of UFA.

Also looks like Zetterberg is very questionable this season:

Helene St. James @HeleneStJames
"I am anxious to know where Henrik Zetterberg is at. He’s a bit of an unknown as far as health. Have talked to his agent - he has had tough summer. He hasn’t been able to train anywhere near where at past summers. I'm hoping he'll play." - Ken Holland

[Vinny01]

Pretty brutal should have gone bridge deal.

[powderjunkie]

I thought the league asked teams to stop lockout proofing contracts? I guess it's at least less obvious...

[bigrangy]

Also I wonder how full the NTC is in year 5. This reeks of a Stamkos/Tavares deal.

[Geeoff]

5 year feels kinda awkward to me. Too long to be a bridge. Too short to save money long-term. Good player though. He will probably lead the Wings in scoring this year

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I thought the league asked teams to stop lockout proofing contracts? I guess it's at least less obvious...

I think the big problem the league had was with signing bonuses in the potential lockout year(s).

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

I think the big problem the league had was with signing bonuses in the potential lockout year(s).

Well they lose a lot of their leverage in negotiations if players are already paid in full for the season

[Enoch Root]

This contract is puzzling. The Wings are rebuilding. So why shorten it to save money? Better to pay a little more to get another year or 2, no?

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This contract is puzzling. The Wings are rebuilding. So why shorten it to save money? Better to pay a little more to get another year or 2, no?

Maybe Larkin just doesn't want to stay that long. Could be a lot of different reasons.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Larkin's a beast. Lead the team in scoring while playing with two 30 point players on his wing. I'm sure the Wings wanted to sign him to an 8 year contract but having him locked up at that cap hit for half a decade is great value.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This contract is puzzling. The Wings are rebuilding. So why shorten it to save money? Better to pay a little more to get another year or 2, no?

You are correct, but Larkin obviously wanted to become a UFA at a time when it benefits him greatly. For the Wings to add a few years to the deal is not just adding $18M or so to the deal, as adding two years really affects the age that Larkin becomes a UFA which could cost him 10's of millions of dollars.

In some respect, Johnny did the same.

When (or I guess if) he becomes a UFA, he'll be young enough to have very good leverage to get as maximum deal. if he was 2 years older, it would have affected his negotiating power.

Players are signing deals that don't cover many of their UFA years when they are younger, unless a team really overpays a lot.

The Wings really had no choice here.