Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | The Slow Crawl to the Season

[expatriatedtexan]

I find it hard to believe that the Avs wouldn't be okay with 11.8 million AAV considering the player, the rising cap, comparables, and the fact they do not have enough assets to acquire players that would replace his production. Something doesn't add up

I agree.

First offer and response are usually just about setting the min/max. All true negotiations start from that point on, unless one side truly offends the other in the opening salvo (EL vs ROR).

I know Mikko's last contract situation was a bit tougher than many would have liked. However, looking back at this, I hope we can all see that the league was undergoing a transformation and Mikko just happened to be at the very forefront of RFAs getting paid for their true value. Two years previously, he would have not had a chance at 9.8M or whatever. So I kinda resented that for a long time, but this wasn't a unique situation and in fact the league has changed to this, I can't hold it against him.

So without knowing the actual numbers involved it's hard for me to tell what is going on here. But if someone is reporting the Avs have no interest in signing Mikko for 11.8-12.4, I have to think it's not the AAV but the TERM that is the issue.

 

[Vaslof]

When MacKinnon makes 12.6M and he's by far the better player, I can understand why 11.8M would be considered too much. Rants does have us by the balls in negotiations, but so did MacK and he didn't demand max AAV. Any team that caves in to overpayments ends up in trouble. Financially speaking the extra year at high AAV is worth a lot more when dealing in high AAV's. At like 36(?) it's not realistic to add much to his wealth. So an UFA offer would need to be about 2M AAV higher than ours to make up the difference, and that's just to match us. It should be assumed that he wants to stay here so other teams would have to beat our offer, maybe by another 1M AAV. So let's say we aim for only only 11M AAV, that offer could be beaten by anything over 14M AAV.

 

[LOFIN]

Here's the thing, Rantanen is a huge part of this team's offense, and his production will be hard to replace.

However, we won the Cup with depth, and Rants making more than 12M puts a stranglehold on that. So it's quite the dilemma

Ironic to be using the cup run against Rantanen, when he was our most productive forward

 

[Vaslof]

And Mikko also had 25 points that cup run so you can argue we don’t win without him.

But mind you 20 of those points were assists and apparently he benefits from the players around him so they don’t count.

This is the craziest message forum I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen such a hatred for a teams star player in any other sport ever in my life.

Sure, trade him for two average 60 point players and let’s see how many games we win.

Maybe you can go join the sane fans on Facebook or something.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

You’d think we would have learnt from the ROR trade to Buffalo. A young potential top 4 Dman, a player drafted 12th overall, a young potential top 6 forward and a pick.

None of those players lasted long with us and are all playing elsewhere. Meanwhile ROR has gone on to make an impact wherever he went. And he’s not half the player Rantanen is.

Or the Tkachuk trade. How’s that working out for Calgary?

If we were to even think of trading Rantanen we would have to get a stud 80 point forward, a young potential top 4 Dman, a top prospect and a top 10 pick.

Find me one situation where a team can offer that for Rantanen. It just won’t happen

I understand you my friend...but Calgary did not have MacKinnon and Makar as well as Tkachuk. ROR isn't half the player Mikko is? I take great exception to that. He's not today, but I feel you are taking what ROR could do on both sides of the puck during his prime and throwing it completely out of the window here.

That being said, I'm not a fan of trading Mikko. If we do, I hope it's during the summer as a sign and trade. IF (captilized both letters on purpose) the Avs were to trade Mikko, the time would have been summer '24. They didn't and as a result are much better off at this point probably considering him a rental and allowing him to walk vs trying to trade him at the deadline. That's why I suggest if negotiotions fall apart late January, the Avs should just ask Mikko about teams he would like to play for and start work on an 8-year sign and trade with that team to be completed as soon as the Avs finish their run.

 

[Pokecheque]

I think he's played ok recently, and generally speaking I would be surprised if he's moved, but we haven't already forgotten what a terrible start he had to the season have we? He was really not good in a lot of games. Lots of mistakes and goals against directly off those mistakes.

I think he's been mostly good, a few off-nights but IMO most of the time that's when the rest of the team is playing poorly. He's not a perfect defenseman by any means but there's no way the team can take him off the roster in a trade and not have something coming back as a replacement, because if they think they can get away with Manson or Malinski as the third-best defenseman on the team...

 

[Tommy Shelby]

Ironic to be using the cup run against Rantanen, when he was our most productive forward

That wasn't my point

My point is that depth wins cups. We can't move him and expect to replace his production, and we can't keep him and expect to have the depth required to win another

Therefore, it's a big dillemma

 

[Vaslof]

I think he's been mostly good, a few off-nights but IMO most of the time that's when the rest of the team is playing poorly. He's not a perfect defenseman by any means but there's no way the team can take him off the roster in a trade and not have something coming back as a replacement, because if they think they can get away with Manson or Malinski as the third-best defenseman on the team...

Yeah we have minimum D depth as is. We have four reliable guys. One injury and you'll have someone like CDH on the 2nd pair. If you trade Girard, then that is actually the best case scenario when everyone is healthy. Not a winning formula. I think we need to ADD a defenseman at the DL, not substract. I do like Malinski, but it's too early to pencil him in as a top four D.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

That wasn't my point

My point is that depth wins cups. We can't move him and expect to replace his production, and we can't keep him and expect to have the depth required to win another

Therefore, it's a big dillemma

The whole situation was drastically effected by Covid in my opinion. The Cap has been stuck and is just now starting to rise. The economy is still not stable and there is much unrest around the world. Just how quickly and how stable the growth in the cap will be is uncertain. That's why this is so difficult. We would normally have a better feel of future cap projections.

 

[Foppa2118]

I think he's been mostly good, a few off-nights but IMO most of the time that's when the rest of the team is playing poorly. He's not a perfect defenseman by any means but there's no way the team can take him off the roster in a trade and not have something coming back as a replacement, because if they think they can get away with Manson or Malinski as the third-best defenseman on the team...

I agree with that. I think the team made a choice to keep Girard last year, instead of going in a different direction, and the only way they'd move him is to upgrade on his #3 spot.

I was just speculating on what Kyper's comments on the Avs trading for a defenseman were about. The only two players they can trade to upgrade the top 4 are Girard or Manson, and I don't think they trade Manson, because they need Manson, and like Girard, the only way it makes sense to trade him, is to upgrade on him.

I also think it would be tougher to upgrade on Manson than Girard. They'd have to find a team with a better big, physical D man, that can skate, and handle the puck, who they're willing to part with. There's more puck handling D, or two way D that are good in transition, that could be an upgrade on G IMO.

But I think the most likely scenario is they keep G, and Kyper's comments were about overpaying for a solid two way #4/5 type that could play on the third pair, or the second if need be, and not look too out of place.

 

[MonsterMack]

I've never really paid attention to Alex Nylander. Would he be worth claiming?

 

[the_fan]

That wasn't my point

My point is that depth wins cups. We can't move him and expect to replace his production, and we can't keep him and expect to have the depth required to win another

Therefore, it's a big dillemma

Mikko gets you 50 goals. You trade him for 2 players who score 20 goals each, you still lose production and don’t gain depth. We will lose a Mikko trade unless we trade him for a winger that’s almost as good, like a Tkachuk or Marner or someone like that which won’t make sense because those players are also expensive

 

[Gumballhead]

I don’t think we win a Rantanen trade. We get nothing if he walks though. And if he signs a bloated long contract then that hurts us now and later. Franchise should just fold.

 

[the_fan]

The cap is gonna be about 100 mill in 2 years. Even if we sign Mikko to 13 mill contract we’ll be ok. Next year it will hurt, but in 2 years it’ll be fine

 

[RoyIsALegend]

I've never really paid attention to Alex Nylander. Would he be worth claiming?

God no.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

The cap is gonna be about 100 mill in 2 years. Even if we sign Mikko to 13 mill contract we’ll be ok. Next year it will hurt, but in 2 years it’ll be fine

How many "next year it will hurt"'s are you willing to take during MacKinnon's prime?

 

[Vaslof]

The cap is gonna be about 100 mill in 2 years. Even if we sign Mikko to 13 mill contract we’ll be ok. Next year it will hurt, but in 2 years it’ll be fine

Sure if it's a 2 year contract so we can give that to Makar in 2 years.

 

[BobRossColton]

Another interesting package I could think of, Nemec+Mercer?

 

[the_fan]

Sure if it's a 2 year contract so we can give that to Makar in 2 years.

Why? If the cap is 100 mill, you give Mikko 13(if not less) then you give Cale let’s say 14 mill, and MacK is at 12.6, you still have like 60 mill for rest of the team, and the cap will probably go up more

 

[Balthazar]

Why? If the cap is 100 mill, you give Mikko 13(if not less) then you give Cale let’s say 14 mill, you still have like 60 mill for rest of the team, but the cap will probably go up more

When the cap goes up it's not just the stars that go up, it's everyone on the team. You can't keep allowing all the new cap space to a single player like we did with Toews last year.

 

[the_fan]

When the cap goes up it's not just the stars that go up, it's everyone on the team. You can't keep allowing all the new cap space to a single player like we did with Toews last year.

60 mill is more than enough to give to other players and have a deep roster after signing Mikko and Cale to the salary I mentioned. We have everyone else locked up for a while

 

[expatriatedtexan]

60 mill is more than enough to give to other players and have a deep roster after signing Mikko and Cale to the salary I mentioned. We have everyone else locked up for a while

Spoken like a GM with only a year or so left.

 

[dahrougem2]

I've never really paid attention to Alex Nylander. Would he be worth claiming?

Slow and soft. No thank you.

 

[Vaslof]

Why? If the cap is 100 mill, you give Mikko 13(if not less) then you give Cale let’s say 14 mill, and MacK is at 12.6, you still have like 60 mill for rest of the team, and the cap will probably go up more

Why does Makar sign for that cheap? If Rantanen gets 13M and as you said the cap goes up for the next two years, then shouldnt Makar be more around 16-17M?

 

[the_fan]

Why does Makar sign for that cheap? If Rantanen gets 13M and as you said the cap goes up for the next two years, then shouldnt Makar be more around 16-17M?

I think 15 is a fair number for Cale. He seems like a type of person who would take a hometown discount