Mikko Rantanen Part IV - Baby Got Back

[cgf]

Okay but we never have the full story and I’m always sceptical about rumours like that. To me a good deal is 6 years in the 9 million range.

No doubt, and numerically I'm not far off...I think Mikko has every justification for a ~9.5 x 5 deal; so settling for a similar AAV, while giving up just 1 extra UFA year on the cheap (which a 6th year at under 10M will undoubtedly be for Mikko), should be a reasonable compromise.

But Mark was defending those public #s, so my responses were focusing on the Clark #s, rather than what I suspect the unreported reality is.

Did Clark say the front office intentionally gave him those numbers? I must have missed that in his articles.

Did Dater say that Liut intentionally gave him the 9.5per # that he reported? No, but even before he implied it in response to Kento, we could figure out who was getting their information from where

 

[Raucherhusten]

If you wanna play that game I can say that they only agreed to wait because Joe refused to negotiate and instead wanted to wait...and wait...and wait; hoping that eventually, public pressure would mount on Mikko the way it did Mitch because Joe didn't mind Mikko sitting out given that he had no ambitions of winning this year anyway

Meh, I think it's safe to say that this scenario is highly unlikely. He didn't wait with Sammy, or did he? Reasonable, slghtly risky long term deal that suits both sides. If Girard continues to get better over time then that's a team friendly contract. If not it becomes a bad one.

And if you think that Sakic doesn't wanne win asap then you are out of your mind. He just isn't the ALL IN kind of GM, and quite franky, that isn't a bad thing for now because we aren't an ALL IN team just yet.

 

[cgf]

Meh, I think it's safe to say that this scenario is highly unlikely. He didn't wait with Sammy, or did he? Reasonable, slghtly risky long term deal that suits both sides. If Girard continues to get better over time then that's a team friendly contract. If not it becomes a bad one.

And if you think that Sakic doesn't wanne win asap then you are out of your mind. He just isn't the ALL IN kind of GM, and quite franky, that isn't a bad thing.

True he did just pay Sammy whatever he wanted, deciding it was only his 2nd best player that he needed to try to strongarm into a sub-market deal. Girard has a ways to go before that is a fair value contract, much less a team-friendly one...though I do agree that he can get there in time, we need to stop glossing over his inconsistencies & growing pains.

No one is asking for him to go all in except you lot when you're strawmanning.

But our 2nd line was an obvious hole that prevented us from contending last season, that Joe refused to address despite having the means & opportunity last summer; and it wouldn't have required a GM to go all in to address that hole last summer...which, had he done, could've lead to Landy n MacK lifting the cup this past spring, not ROR.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

True he did just pay Sammy whatever he wanted, deciding it was only his 2nd best player that he needed to try to strongarm into a sub-market deal. Girard has a ways to go before that is a fair value contract, much less a team-friendly one...though I do agree that he can get there in time, we need to stop glossing over his inconsistencies & growing pains.

No one is asking for him to go all in except you lot when you're strawmanning.

But our 2nd line was an obvious hole that prevented us from contending last season, that Joe refused to address despite having the means & opportunity last summer; and it wouldn't have required a GM to go all in to address that hole last summer...which, had he done, could've lead to Landy n MacK lifting the cup this past spring, not ROR.

Haaaaa hindsight again.....

 

[Raucherhusten]

True he did just pay Sammy whatever he wanted, deciding it was only his 2nd best player that he needed to try to strongarm into a sub-market deal. Girard has a ways to go before that is even a fair value contract, much less a team friendly one...

No one is asking for him to go all in except you lot when you're strawmanning.

But our 2nd line was an obvious hole that prevented us from contending last season, that Joe refused to address despite having the means & opportunity last summer; and it wouldn't have required a GM to go all in to address that hole last summer...which, had he done, could've lead to Landy n MacK lifting the cup this past spring, not ROR.

Man, again with that "if we only had a 2nd line center" BS. Every.Single.Time.

And nobody said that Sammy got "whatever he wanted". What i'm trying to say here is there would have been a way to solve that situation last off-season if both sides had any interest in doing so. Unfortunatly they didn't. You can call me crazy but that was probably more on Mikko's camp as it was on our FO. Simply because he had more reasons to do so.

 

[cgf]

Haaaaa hindsight again.....

How can it be hindsight when I was saying it before the fact? Hindsight has just proven me to have been right

Man, again with that "if we only had a 2nd line center" BS. Every.Single.Time.

And nobody said that Sammy got "whatever he wanted". What i'm trying to say here is there would have been a way to solve that situation last off-season if both sides had any interest in doing so. Unfortunatly they didn't. You can call me crazy but that was probably more on Mikko's camp as it was on our FO. Simply he had more reasons to do so.

I guess this is where all of our disagreements stem from, as I don't think winning cups is BS. In fact, it's rather important to me given the grand opportunity presented to us.

I am saying Sammy got whatever he wanted...because he sure as s*** isn't worth that AAV yet.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

How can it be hindsight when I was saying it before the season?


I guess this is where all of our disagreements stem from, as I don't think winning cups is BS. In fact, it's rather important to me given the grand opportunity presented to us.

It is when you are including the "winning the cup" part. Show where you said before the season that we could win the cup if we would add a 2C.

 

[cgf]

It is when you are including the "winning the cup" part. Show where you said before the season that we could win the cup if we would add a 2C.

I can't because that's just not the way I phrase things; what I'm sure could be found, if the search function was better, would be me saying that the only major hole keeping us from contention, was the 2nd line.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I used to think Bleedwell was Dater. Now I realize he’s actually Dater’s bff Mike Liut.

 

[Raucherhusten]

How can it be hindsight when I was saying it before the fact? Hindsight has just proven me to have been right


I guess this is where all of our disagreements stem from, as I don't think winning cups is BS. In fact, it's rather important to me given the grand opportunity presented to us.

I am saying Sammy got whatever he wanted...because he sure as s*** isn't worth that AAV yet.

BS is that you bring that up every chance you get while most of us here think that even with a better 2nd line we might have had a better shot at beating the Sharks but would have been stopped by the Blues anyway.

Joe took a chance on Sammy. With that RFA dilemma only getting worse that wasn't a bad move. But i'm sure for you it was. Because, at least it seems that way, you always find a way to blame our FO no matter what they do.

 

[BleedWell]

and Joe didn't?

The first thing we heard him say about this negotiation at the start fo the summer was that he was waiting for some comparables to be established.

All day this!
It's funny that for many this just seams impossible to realize. Joe said him self that he is waiting for other comparables and then when Rantanen's best comparable sign Sakic says that doesn't count. That is just not very wise from Sakic.

 

[MarkT]

Did Dater say that Liut intentionally gave him the 9.5per # that he reported? No, but even before he implied it in response to Kento, we could figure out who was getting their information from where

Right, so you've made an assumption, and are now basing your opinion on that assumption as if it were a fact.
You don't know the front office intentionally leaked those numbers to Clark. And if they did, you don't know who in the front office leaked them, and you don't know why they did it. For all we know it was the janitor who leaked it.

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine.

 

[MarkT]

All day this!
It's funny that for many this just seams impossible to realize. Joe said him self that he is waiting for other comparables and then when Rantanen's best comparable sign Sakic says that doesn't count. That is just not very wise from Sakic.

Where's the quote of Sakic saying it doesn't count?

 

[cgf]

Right, so you've made an assumption, and are now basing your opinion on that assumption as if it were a fact.
You don't know the front office intentionally leaked those numbers to Clark. And if they did, you don't know who in the front office leaked them, and you don't know why they did it. For all we know it was the janitor who leaked it.

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine.

Nah, that's what you're doing to me now ;-) I'm just letting the range of most-likely-possibilities shape my opinions, that are as ever just that, opinions. And ones open to changing when confronted with new evidence that contradicts my previous hypothesis.

At no point in the process am I assuming that my read on a situation is fact.

 

[BleedWell]

Where's the quote of Sakic saying it doesn't count?

Isn't that obvious?
Otherwise Rant's 9,5 deal would be done already.

 

[Metallo]

When talking comparables many (including agents and front office) get stuck on a single comparable. Like “Marner is the closet comparable to Rantannen”.

However, in valuation this not how it works. You have to take into account numerous comparables and re-scaled them to the object of valuation (here Rantanen’s contract) according to many parameters like level of play, duration of the contract, age, UFA years, date of contract, etc.

In the end, that will give you a value range for sanity check, no more no less.

Getting stuck on a single comparable is not a good idea for both sides.

 

[BB88]

Do we know for a fact that this offer was made in September?

That's what the rumours have suggested, not 100% facts but the rumours we've heard.

 

[MarkT]

Nah, that's what you're doing to me now ;-) I'm just letting the range of most-likely-possibilities shape my opinions, that are as ever just that, opinions. And ones open to changing when confronted with new evidence that contradicts my previous hypothesis.

At no point in the process am I assuming that my read on a situation is fact.

You're not writing like that though. Here's what you said:

Less than 9M over greater than 6 years, would be a massive discount from Mikko. The #s the FO leaked to Clark are awfully close to the Drae contract, without much consideration for inflation (or market shifts) nor for Mikko's superior resume at the time of signing.

You didn't say "the #s I think/assume/believe/etc.. FO leaked to Clark...

You're writing as if your opinions are facts. That's my issue. It's something people do to make their arguments seem stronger than they actually are, and in my opinion it's a dishonest way to have a discussion. When giving an opinion, there are words you can use to show that.

Isn't that obvious?
Otherwise Rant's 9,5 deal would be done already.

No, it's not obvious unless you have an anti-Sakic bias. There's a million different possible reasons why he's not signed yet, and "Sakic saying Marner doesn't count" is just one of them, and it's one that there's no direct evidence for. If you're going to assume something is true, at least pick something with more evidence to support it.

That's what the rumours have suggested, not 100% facts but the rumours we've heard.

Right, and my issue is too many people in this thread are treating rumours and assumptions and opinion as fact, and then using those "facts" to condemn one side or the other.

 

[Goulet17]

I am still a little confused as to why the Avs offered Panarin a big, shorter term deal if they weren't prepared to offer Rantanen a big dollar AAV. I am not saying that this situation is on the Avs, as I just don't know. It likely is a situation in which both sides shoulder some responsibility.

The obvious difference between Panarin and Rantanen was UFA years versus RFA years and whether teams still can expect some form of reasonable bridge deal or a deal that has more cost certainty for RFA years. Dubas may have single handedly killed the notion of RFA bridge deals or reasonableness on RFA deals. Perhaps the expectation among agents now is that you pay UFA prices for RFA years when you are dealing with a youngish star.

 

[AvsWraith]

I am still a little confused as to why the Avs offered Panarin a big, shorter term deal if they weren't prepared to offer Rantanen a big dollar AAV. I am not saying that this situation is on the Avs, as I just don't know. It likely is a situation in which both sides shoulder some responsibility.

The obvious difference between Panarin and Rantanen was UFA years versus RFA years and whether teams still can expect some form of reasonable bridge deal or a deal that has more cost certainty for RFA years. Dubas may have single handedly killed the notion of RFA bridge deals or reasonableness on RFA deals. Perhaps the expectation among agents now is that you pay UFA prices for RFA years when you are dealing with a youngish star.

The difference, besides UFA vs RFA, is Panarin didn't really want to play here, he wanted to be in a big market. So, we had to make an over the top offer to try and lure him.

 

[oxenfree]

At this point, if you're denying the Avs' front office's pattern of nickel and dimeing their good young players into a salary structure in negotiations, you're just being willfully naive. And the thing is, it doesn't even work! They did it with ROR, never got a discount and lost a Conn Smythe winner. They did it with Barrie and did nothing for the length of his deal. They paid Duchene like he was their best player but didn't get a discount; he got exactly market value. Then they used that contract to poison other negotiations until MacKinnon, who they finally had over a barrel.

When they do this with Makar, are people going to finally realize the common denominator? It's not all meanie agents playing hardball with poor Grandpa Joe who just wants all his kids to have a nice Christmas. He has zero issue overpaying bad UFAs for depth and character. What's the problem with paying market value or (gasp) better for good RFAs who contribute skill and points and actual wins?

An extra 500k or million to Rantanen now shouldn't mean they have trouble signing other RFAs in the future; it means they'll have trouble filling out the roster with overpriced UFAs they should be avoiding anyway. For people concerned about precedent, the one they're setting right now is bad: even with their best player on a massive underpayment of a longterm contract, the Avs are still balking at paying their second-best player what he's worth. Do you think the players warn each other about producing too much lest they make their negotiations harder?

 

[Trinstin]

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.


Cool response

Yes it will. That's how you end up in Toronto's position. I am glad the Avs are sticklers when it comes to cap and if we have to eventually trade Rantanen (obviously worst case scenario) I'm confident they will get a good return.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I can't because that's just not the way I phrase things; what I'm sure could be found, if the search function was better, would be me saying that the only major hole keeping us from contention, was the 2nd line.

I do remember you and Hench (and a few others) mentioning that the Avs needed to go get a 2C but I don't remember anything about being a contender if they do so. The reason I find hard to believe you said that is you were still not sold on quite a few of our NHL kids even in a lower role than 2C, you were certainly writing about EJ regressing, Cole being not good enough, Z being inconsistent, and Girard not yet proven. You were not in love with Nemeth at the beginning of the season as well. That does not sound like a team that can contend to me not in the least.

 

[cgf]

When talking comparables many (including agents and front office) get stuck on a single comparable. Like “Marner is the closet comparable to Rantannen”.

However, in valuation this not how it works. You have to take into account numerous comparables and re-scaled them to the object of valuation (here Rantanen’s contract) according to many parameters like level of play, duration of the contract, age, UFA years, date of contract, etc.

In the end, that will give you a value range for sanity check, no more no less.

Getting stuck on a single comparable is not a good idea for both sides.

Agreed completely on this, but to do that usefully, we need to include not just marner, but also deals like Draisaitl, Matthews, Eichel, and some previous-gen winger-deals (using their cap%), to establish our upper limits...and not just the extra comps on the lowend, to have a useful dataset.

You're not writing like that though. Here's what you said:



You didn't say "the #s I think/assume/believe/etc.. FO leaked to Clark...

You're writing as if your opinions are facts. That's my issue. It's something people do to make their arguments seem stronger than they actually are, and in my opinion it's a dishonest way to have a discussion. When giving an opinion, there are words you can use to show that.

Oh come now, you should know me well enough by now to know that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I typed "that the FO leaked to Clark" instead of "that Clark reported". I typically includes tons of, "the way I see it"s or "from where I sit it looks like"s and most discussions on here (with anyone but the trolls I tease) end in some version of "...and that's a fair take, even if I still see it differently because of X"

Especially when I was only bringing those #s up in the context of people who were defending them...as my first response to Clark's article was a joke along the lines of 'gotta figure that was before Bargainbin weaponized his capspace to do the canes or Aho's agent a solid'

I try to separate you & your arguments from other folks' with a similar position; so please separate my posts from the ghosts with positions similar to mine. Especially since you & I have these essay contests with a regularity that I've only ever experienced before with ABasin...back when he was scolding me for being too optimistic in the early days of Rebuild 1.0...

 

[EdAVSfan]

I do remember you and Hench (and a few others) mentioning that the Avs needed to go get a 2C but I don't remember anything about being a contender if they do so. The reason I find hard to believe you said that is you were still not sold on quite a few of our NHL kids even in a lower role than 2C, you were certainly writing about EJ regressing, Cole being not good enough, Z being inconsistent, and Girard not yet proven. You were not in love with Nemeth at the beginning of the season as well. That does not sound like a team that can contend to me not in the least.

Cgf was most definitely considering us a contender with a quality 2nd line, which obviously requires a good 2C (like Kadri).

HOWEVER, he believed that to be the case IF the Avs D was intact (with Barrie) as he truly saw the competitive advantage it offered us.

That competitive advantage no longer exists. At least not for this year, unless something unordinary happens.