Mikko Rantanen Part IV - Baby Got Back

[avsfan09]

This season and the last one?

The last one where we went to game seven of the second round and missed ot on a call that’s very ambiguous and could reasonably be argued either way? The guy who put three good goalies into the system? Or this season where he solved our biggest problem. Offensive depth...,

 

[avsfan09]

I didn't say sakic wasn't being fair. I have no idea what he's offering, so I can't speculate on that. I just know that we FINALLY have a good team. Probably the best in a long time. It would be a failure if we squander that.

Well I can can’t disagree with that. I’m just saying the jury is out as to whether we’ve squandered anything.

 

[avsfan09]

People are making this too stark. The point of this was to simply warn about sacrificing the present in order to preserve the future. That's all. There's truth to it, and there's no reason you can't "do both" to some degree.

I guess what I would argue or the distinction I’d make is that someone’s sacrificing a little of the present can set you up in a significantly better situation in the future. You can go in all the time and gamble. Or you can learn to build the odds in your favour through patience. Impulsiveness ruins more franchises than being calculated.

 

[wayninja]

Well I can can’t disagree with that. I’m just saying the jury is out as to whether we’ve squandered anything.

That's fair enough.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

"forcing them to sit out"

What a choice of words. Why is it on the team to move that 800k towards Rantanen's position rather than Rantanen moving 800k towards theirs? It's not hard to make an argument that paints Rantanen as the bad guy because every extra dollar he takes is one less dollar the Avs can spend on other players on the team.

There's such a thing as a cap. Any money they don't spend on Rantanen isn't just lining the owner's pocket - it's theoretically going to other players. Yes, they're not currently spending to the cap, but they'll be pretty close once Rantanen signs, and they'll definitely be facing cap issues during Rantanen's contract length.

Yes it is lining the owners pockets when year after year we’re bottom feeders for spending. . We’ve been a bottom feeder for spending for more than a decade now. You say we’ll be close to the cap. When this is the second time this has happened in less than a decade, I don’t know what to say. It’s embarrassing to be a fan of this team

 

[Raucherhusten]

Yes it is lining the owners pockets when year after year we’re bottom feeders for spending. . We’ve been a bottom feeder for spending for more than a decade now. You say we’ll be close to the cap. When this is the second time this has happened in less than a decade, I don’t know what to say. It’s embarrassing to be a fan of this team

Then just stop!

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

An extra 500k- 1m for our stars players Ian going to kill the team. An extra 1-5m for all of our stars will not put this team over the edge.

Then just stop!

Cool response

 

[Avs_19]

Liut should start sending Sakic clips of Burakovsky's preseason "highlights" at this point. "You really want this on your top line?"

 

[MarkT]

I was with you up until here. This simply doesn't wash. If you are ok with Rantanen sitting to set some precedent on future contract negotiations, then that is precisely what you are doing.

I'm not trying to make this black and white. I'm not advocating that we simply open the vault and tell Mikko to take whatever he wants. This all started with my statement that management should be flexible. As in not rigid. As in they should bend upwards if it means Mikko playing. There's a limit though, and that limit is where our differences in philosophy come in.

I don't value each year of a contract equally. If most of the team inexplicably retires and you have all rookies/free agents in year 8.... it's not as valuable as this year.



And I prefer the option with the greatest number of good years. If the next 4 years can be good, but we possibly, but not necessarily have problems after that, I'm ok with that. Lots of things can change in 4 years.

So as far as I can see, you believe because the future is uncertain, there's no point in trying to make specific plans for it, and should instead focus mostly on the present, which is more certain. In terms of day-to-day life I actually agree with that. But the contracts and a hockey team with a salary cap is a controlled environment. There's limits to how many things can and will go wrong and ways to decrease the chances of failure and increase the chances of success. In any case, when you're signing a long-term deal, you are making a decision that will affect the future, so you need to at least make some assumptions about what that future will be like. A smart GM will look at as many possibilities as he can, then offer a contract that will lead to the most likely chance of success for every year of the contract.

Honestly, the thinking that "we'll deal with that when/if it happens" or "that sounds like a X years from now problem" is exactly what causes teams to fail in the long term. Toronto right now appears to be epitome of that line of thinking, and I won't be shocked to see them struggling before the end of many of the contracts they've handed out.

The good news is I think we've narrowed things down to the key differences between our thinking. If I'm right about that, I'm not sure there's much more "bickering" to do

Are you considering what that lost year will do to future years? You seem to think it will get other players to happily fall in line and take whatever scraps are offered, with no adverse effects. It could just as easily fall the other way, and show players that they need to get as far away from this team as possible. It could also end up with Rantanen publicly requesting a trade to an organization that values him more appropriately, which would lead to a reduced return. Even if he does sign to play next year, there is the possibility that the chemistry is gone...leading to mediocre seasons from all concerned. Or worse...we go a season without Rants, find out that MacK is the passenger on that line and watch him drop back to the 60 point range, and pay Rants even more next year (very unlikely this is true).

We may not know exactly what the offers are from either side, but Rants does. And if it comes down to his reputation being hammered by the greed angle, I am quite sure he would be willing to tell his buddies what the real numbers are. And depending on what they are, that could very well go either way...them agreeing that he is greedy (and telling him so, which could lead to him caving), or them siding with him that the team is trying to screw him, which could make them less likely to negotiate what the team considers a "fair" deal the next time they are up. Or even requesting trades out themselves if it is bad enough.

Best case is sign a deal that all are happy with. Second best case is a deal where one side or the other is a bit unhappy but not to the point of burning bridges. After that, bridges are being burnt. A lost season or a deal that leaves either side hurting too much cannot have much chance of being a successful outcome.

Why is this a reply to me? I never advocated letting Rantanen sit the whole year out.

And not sure if it was you or not, but someone keeps saying that a RFA only has two options. Sign with the team that owns their rights, or sit. There are other options: Sign an offer sheet, and while these may not be common...there was one signed this year, and reports of many more offered and turned down. Or sign to play overseas, and a player of Rantanen caliber would command a damn good salary in the KHL, and pretty good in the SHL or Liiga as well...not sure how much money other leagues have...DEL pays well I think, as does Swiss. And the tax situations might even make lower salaries more palatable, though only KHL really has the cash to match and NHL, and only some teams.

Yeah that was me. Sorry, I should have said "essentially" two options. An offer sheet is not actually within their control - they have to rely on other teams making them an offer they actually want to accept. it is technically an option though, you're right.

As for Europe, this article (Report: List of 30 highest-paid KHLers revealed - Sportsnet.ca) says the highest paid player in the KHL was making 5.5M in 2016. If he's willing to play in Europe for even 7 million, why wouldn't he just sign at that number with the Avs? European clubs can offer even remotely the same compensation as the Avs can, so going to Europe is only an option if the dispute is not about money. But yes, it's an option, but not a good one, especially long-term.

Yes it is lining the owners pockets when year after year we’re bottom feeders for spending. . We’ve been a bottom feeder for spending for more than a decade now. You say we’ll be close to the cap. When this is the second time this has happened in less than a decade, I don’t know what to say. It’s embarrassing to be a fan of this team

I honestly don't know what to tell you. You seem to have some scars you need to work through. I remember the bottom feeder years too, but I personally believe ownership is currently willing to spend to the cap if necessary. The rumored offers to Panarin confirm that. It may have been embarrassing to be an Avs fan at times in the past (Tyler Arnason comes to mind), but not now. Definitely not now.

 

[nightonthesun]

It’s embarrassing to be a fan of this team

I read everything you wrote and the only thing that is remotely embarrassing is all of the flippant negativity, and from a position of relative ignorance no less. We are all making little more than educated guesses at what's happening. But at the end of the day, this could happen to any team in the league. And besides that ... It's just sports. Why feel ashamed? Sheesh

 

[crue7]

Yo Mikko! Hello? Pls reply...

 

[Foxtail]

Really cause Aho, who IMO is probably Rantanen's best comp, signed for 8.4M. Similar stats with no supporting cast. Rantanen gets to fly shotgun with MacKinnon. Having a top tier player to play with doesn't help your cause when talking stats. Because let's be real MacK helps his numbers. Aho doesn't have that luxury.

I still maintain the most fair number on a 6-7 year deal is 8.8-9.2M.

This ^ and Aho.is more valuable because well... hes a # 1 center. People don't seem to realise how good Aho is.

Sakic's offers of 8.4 and 8.7 are more than fair and I don't see him budging so man up and sign now Mikko.

 

[Foxtail]

I hate to say it but.... The fact this is getting out into the media now isn't a great sign. Things are probably starting to turn a tad nasty as both sides are growing increasingly more frustrated with the other side.

To me this has the looks of something that spills into November.



And, for the record. I am on Sakics side here. Marners contract is such an outrageous outlier compared to everyone else and the fact Liut keeps using that as his comparable isn't really negotiating in good faith IMO. While I think 8.4-8.75 is low, it is much closer to what I think Mikko should get(9.25M is my magic number now) then what Liut seems to think he is deserving of.

And 9.25 is Marner money and Lebrun stated the Avs weren't going that high.
6 × 8.7 seems like the sweet spot

 

[Tweaky]

Why is this a reply to me? I never advocated letting Rantanen sit the whole year out.

Thought it was you, but if not, my apologies. Whoever did say it can pretend I was replying to them on that point

One thing about the KHL salaries though is that they are taxed at just 13% in Russia. Not sure about Jokerit. According to one agency, the Euro and Asian league salaries are reported using net figures...so after taxes, pensions, and even agent fees. Tax Information – 2112HockeyAgency.com And while the 2016 KHL salaries topped out at $5.5M for Kovy, it was reported that Radulov turned down $7M to return to the NHL to chase a cup. But hey, I just said it was an option, not necessarily a great one. There are some other benefits as well: closer to home, shorter travel for all but KHL, shorter season, less likelihood of injury (generally less violent).

 

[BleedWell]

Thought it was you, but if not, my apologies. Whoever did say it can pretend I was replying to them on that point

One thing about the KHL salaries though is that they are taxed at just 13% in Russia. Not sure about Jokerit. According to one agency, the Euro and Asian league salaries are reported using net figures...so after taxes, pensions, and even agent fees. Tax Information – 2112HockeyAgency.com And while the 2016 KHL salaries topped out at $5.5M for Kovy, it was reported that Radulov turned down $7M to return to the NHL to chase a cup. But hey, I just said it was an option, not necessarily a great one. There are some other benefits as well: closer to home, shorter travel for all but KHL, shorter season, less likelihood of injury (generally less violent).

Rantanen's KHL rights are owned by AK Bars Kazan. The same team offered him(by russian reporter) 4mil for playing there this season. Since taxes are so low there everyone who is saying Rantanen loses 8 million or so if he sits this season should think again.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

So as far as I can see, you believe because the future is uncertain, there's no point in trying to make specific plans for it, and should instead focus mostly on the present, which is more certain. In terms of day-to-day life I actually agree with that. But the contracts and a hockey team with a salary cap is a controlled environment. There's limits to how many things can and will go wrong and ways to decrease the chances of failure and increase the chances of success. In any case, when you're signing a long-term deal, you are making a decision that will affect the future, so you need to at least make some assumptions about what that future will be like. A smart GM will look at as many possibilities as he can, then offer a contract that will lead to the most likely chance of success for every year of the contract.

Honestly, the thinking that "we'll deal with that when/if it happens" or "that sounds like a X years from now problem" is exactly what causes teams to fail in the long term. Toronto right now appears to be epitome of that line of thinking, and I won't be shocked to see them struggling before the end of many of the contracts they've handed out.

The good news is I think we've narrowed things down to the key differences between our thinking. If I'm right about that, I'm not sure there's much more "bickering" to do



Why is this a reply to me? I never advocated letting Rantanen sit the whole year out.



Yeah that was me. Sorry, I should have said "essentially" two options. An offer sheet is not actually within their control - they have to rely on other teams making them an offer they actually want to accept. it is technically an option though, you're right.

As for Europe, this article (Report: List of 30 highest-paid KHLers revealed - Sportsnet.ca) says the highest paid player in the KHL was making 5.5M in 2016. If he's willing to play in Europe for even 7 million, why wouldn't he just sign at that number with the Avs? European clubs can offer even remotely the same compensation as the Avs can, so going to Europe is only an option if the dispute is not about money. But yes, it's an option, but not a good one, especially long-term.



I honestly don't know what to tell you. You seem to have some scars you need to work through. I remember the bottom feeder years too, but I personally believe ownership is currently willing to spend to the cap if necessary. The rumored offers to Panarin confirm that. It may have been embarrassing to be an Avs fan at times in the past (Tyler Arnason comes to mind), but not now. Definitely not now.

I say it how it is and call management cheap, have a different opinion than the rest of you and I get personally attacked on these boards..these boards are actually a joke.

The fact that we probably won’t be starting the year without Rantanen is EMBARRASSING after the season we just had. Especially if it’s over 500k-1m. Seriously giving an extra 5m in total to our top stars isn’t going to bankrupt us.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

I read everything you wrote and the only thing that is remotely embarrassing is all of the flippant negativity, and from a position of relative ignorance no less. We are all making little more than educated guesses at what's happening. But at the end of the day, this could happen to any team in the league. And besides that ... It's just sports. Why feel ashamed? Sheesh

No it doesn’t happen to any team in the league. Teams don’t just let their second best players sit over 1m multiple times in less than a decade.

I love how people are ignoring my points, but go straight to the point where I call this embarrassing and then get personally attacked for having a different opinion than the rest of the boards. Reminds me of the ror situation a lot. Get destroyed on these boards for wanting to pay him. Look who was right then

 

[BleedWell]

I say it how it is and call management cheap, have a different opinion than the rest of you and I get personally attacked on these boards..these boards are actually a joke.

The fact that we probably won’t be starting the year without Rantanen is EMBARRASSING after the season we just had. Especially if it’s over 500k-1m. Seriously giving an extra 5m in total to our top stars isn’t going to bankrupt us.

I say it how it is and call management cheap, have a different opinion than the rest of you and I get personally attacked on these boards..these boards are actually a joke.

The fact that we probably won’t be starting the year without Rantanen is EMBARRASSING after the season we just had. Especially if it’s over 500k-1m. Seriously giving an extra 5m in total to our top stars isn’t going to bankrupt us.

This.

If Sakic would be GM in Toronto, Montreal etc the media would have ripped him apart and rightfully so. This whole Rantanen saga has been an awfull mismanagement from Sakic.

 

[Zolik37]

This.

If Sakic would be GM in Toronto, Montreal etc the media would have ripped him apart and rightfully so. This whole Rantanen saga has been an awfull mismanagement from Sakic.

Media ripped Sakic for holding on Duchene for too long too and we all know how it turned out. Be patient season didnt start yet and Mikko isnt the only unsigned rfa left

 

[BleedWell]

Media ripped Sakic for holding on Duchene for too long too and we all know how it turned out. Be patient season didnt start yet and Mikko isnt the only unsigned rfa left

Yeah but we were trash with Duchene in the lineup. Different times.

Also Tampa will be a playoffs team without Point, Winnipeg will struggle with or without Laine or Connor because their lack of D. You have to also keep in mind that those teams are struggling with the cap.
We have a good thing going on and it is a safe bet to say that with Mikko in the line up we are a playoffs team and without him we are probably not. We also have all the cap space in the world. And if true that Mikko's ask is only 9,5mil per then Sakic is the one who's not doing his job.

 

[MarkT]

I say it how it is and call management cheap, have a different opinion than the rest of you and I get personally attacked on these boards..these boards are actually a joke.

The fact that we probably won’t be starting the year without Rantanen is EMBARRASSING after the season we just had. Especially if it’s over 500k-1m. Seriously giving an extra 5m in total to our top stars isn’t going to bankrupt us.

I know how that is - having a different opinion on these boards and getting personally attacked for it - been happening since I joined here.

That being said, I kind of have to laugh at anyone who says "I say it how it is" as if their perspective is the only valid perspective. Talk like that is just going to encourage people to treat you poorly.

Also, "embarassing" is a very subjective term. I'm not embarassed by it because I think I understand why it's happening. Maybe it's because I have a good understanding of how negotiations work in business, where they sometimes go right to the deadline. The deadline in this case is Dec 1, so in terms of negotiations in general it's not that strange to me that the deal's not done with more than two months to go before the deadline.

Finally, I think 5 million extra on the cap does have a pretty negative effect on the team. 5m is the salary of a very capable NHL player. Plus, it's not just our star players. If Sakic caves in to Mikko's demands (or seems to be), what's to stop every player - not just star players, from playing hardball with him and demanding an extra 500k? And that's assuming Mikko's camp is being reasonable. What if getting Mikko signed before the season means paying him 2 or 3 million more than they'd like to? Should they just give in then? See, for all we know, the Avs have already raised their offer by 500k or 1m and the Rantanen camp has rejected it. Plus, it's not just about money. Should we give Mikko a 4 year deal if that's what he's asking for? How about a 5 year deal in addition to the extra 1m? Do you see how it's not so simple?

 

[MarkT]

Yeah but we were trash with Duchene in the lineup. Different times.

Also Tampa will be a playoffs team without Point, Winnipeg will struggle with or without Laine or Connor because their lack of D. You have to also keep in mind that those teams are struggling with the cap.
We have a good thing going on and it is a safe bet to say that with Mikko in the line up we are a playoffs team and without him we are probably not. We also have all the cap space in the world. And if true that Mikko's ask is only 9,5mil per then Sakic is the one who's not doing his job.

What if it's 9.5 per for 4 years?

 

[BleedWell]

What if it's 9.5 per for 4 years?

It's not.
Mikko wants to be here and they know that if there is one term the Avs won't most definetely do it's the four year term because of the UFA status and Macks contract.
My personal opinion is that Mikko wants five years or three years and the Avs still want 6-8 years. So it is not just about the money.

 

[MarkT]

It's not.

My personal opinion is...

So you meant to say "I don't think it is", right?

 

[BleedWell]

So you meant to say "I don't think it is", right?

Well I think it is safe to say that a 4 year term is the most unlikely outcome don't you think?