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

[Bender]

I probably post this every couple of weeks, but here we go again…

The Avs will not trade Mikko Rantanen.

You can stop dreaming of a Mikko trade. It’s not even up for discussion, has never even been slightly reported or speculated upon by anybody in the media.

The Avalanche are trying to win another Stanley Cup. MacKinnon will be 30 years old a year from now. The window is closing.

Mikko will be an Avalanche player until the end of the playoffs. He will either extend or walk as a free agent, with my money heavily betting on him re-signing.

Extends or walks. Nothing in between.

Yeah it's going to be this exactly. The time to trade him - had they entertained it was last summer.

It's not going to happen during the season so endless discussions about it are useless.

 

[MarkT]

I mean that's not a realistic case scenario I don't think... But even I think Lindgren sucks though and his contract is up after this season. So you'd have to plan on essentially deciding whether you think Laf for Mikko and the cap space are worth it. Which granted I've been a vocal Laf slater the last few years, but I don't love adding Laf to the team. I just don't think he does anything great. But who knows, maybe there's a chance he's a great compliment to someone like Mackinnon.

Yeah Lindgren is having an off year, which is why I picked him for my scenario - New York probably would be happy to move him.

And in the offseason it would be Laf at 7.45 + whatever we can get with the 6M+ we're not giving to Mikko. That could easily end up being significantly more points than Mikko if those 6M go to a forward. And if they go on defense or in goal, it's harder to make an apples to apples comparison, but would still be compensating for his loss in a sense.

In any case, you were talking like replacing his numbers is unrealistic. I just showed you how it could be done. If you want I'll try to find a different trade partner, but I'll admit I'm not very good at finding trade scenarios that people on this board would think are both fair and realistic.

Yeah it's going to be this exactly. The time to trade him - had they entertained it was last summer.

It's not going to happen during the season so endless discussions about it are useless.

But it's fun!

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't presenting it as a realistic trade proposal.

So then what are we even doing lol

 

[MarkT]

So then what are we even doing lol

I was just checking to see whether it was even possible to replace Rantanen's numbers at his current cap hit.

 

[ABasin]

Okay, let's say it's to the Rangers for Lafreniere and Lindgren. Based on last season that's 57 points from Laf and 17 from Lindgren, so we're up to 74. Then we acquire Jake Evans (24 points last season) and we're up to 98 with 725k remaining of Mikko's current cap hit.

I'm not presenting that as a realistic trade proposal, by the way, just as a proof of concept of how you could replace Mikko's numbers by committee.

It's actually more cap space than that (I made the same omission recently, @Pierce Hawthorne pointed it out to me). In addition to one player taking Rantanen's roster spot, You'd also get back $2M at least, given the current roster spots that the two extra guys will take up.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Yeah Lindgren is having an off year, which is why I picked him for my scenario - New York probably would be happy to move him.

And in the offseason it would be Laf at 7.45 + whatever we can get with the 6M+ we're not giving to Mikko. That could easily end up being significantly more points than Mikko if those 6M go to a forward. And if they go on defense or in goal, it's harder to make an apples to apples comparison, but would still be compensating for his loss in a sense.

In any case, you were talking like replacing his numbers is unrealistic. I just showed you how it could be done. If you want I'll try to find a different trade partner, but I'll admit I'm not very good at finding trade scenarios that people on this board would think are both fair and realistic.

I mean pure numbers/points don't really replace everything. We could replace Mikko's points with(this year) Duchene's 29pts and Granlunds 30pts and that would not be beneficial to the team imo.

 

[Pokecheque]

It’s unreal how underrated Mikko is on this board. Or not underrated but underappreciated

Agreed.

 

[AslanRH]

If there is one thing we know about takes filled with certainty, it ain't certain

Just a few months ago there were a ton of posts with the certainty that Nuke would never step on the ice for the Avs again

 

[The Abusement Park]

Agreed.

I understood the move Mikko camp in the beginning. And in the right scenario I still get it. But holy… it’s getting absurdly out of hand right now.

 

[MarkT]

I mean pure numbers/points don't really replace everything. We could replace Mikko's points with(this year) Duchene's 29pts and Granlunds 30pts and that would not be beneficial to the team imo.

Huh? How would that not be beneficial? Are Mikko's points magical somehow where they are worth more than points scored by someone else?

If you're making a point about usage, sure, but then we could just look at even strength points per 60 instead.

 

[Pokecheque]

I was just checking to see whether it was even possible to replace Rantanen's numbers at his current cap hit.

No. Not in any way that's realistic.

 

[LOFIN]

I think the really underappreciated part of this discussion is what playing with Rantanen does to MacKinnon for an example. Would MacKinnon still be on pace for 125 points if Rantanen wasn't playing with him? Even if they don't play on the same line, the PP is still a thing. Not sure he would. It's impossible to just take two players that score at half the clip and then say "yeah they will replace his production".

Like @AvBuff said on the other thread, we KNOW what Rantanen does for this team. Bringing in other people to replace what he is doing is a complete unknown.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Huh? How would that not be beneficial? Are Mikko's points magical somehow where they are worth more than points scored by someone else?

If you're making a point about usage, sure, but then we could just look at even strength points per 60 instead.

Because not all players are created equal? Would you take Lehky’s 50pts or Granlunds 60pts? Would you rather Kerfoots 40pts or Gourde’s? LOC’s 25pts or Gagners 25pts?

I’m just saying that replacing Mikkos points on paper is an easy task. But does just adding a bunch of 50pt scorers doesn’t necessarily mean the teams better.

 

[Jasenr]

I think the really underappreciated part of this discussion is what playing with Rantanen does to MacKinnon for an example. Would MacKinnon still be on pace for 125 points if Rantanen wasn't playing with him? Even if they don't play on the same line, the PP is still a thing. Not sure he would. It's impossible to just take two players that score at half the clip and then say "yeah they will replace his production".

Like @AvBuff said on the other thread, we KNOW what Rantanen does for this team. Bringing in other people to replace what he is doing is a complete unknown.

This exact post

They have built chemistry over years and it benefits both. Thats worth 25 mil for sure.

There is this supposedly generational talent called McJesus in Edmonton who is under both Mack and Mikko in points. Why isnt he by himself with whover beside him producing more points..

 

[RoyIsALegend]

 

[CobraAcesS]

View attachment 944120

It's crazy he's still in the lead even with that slump.

 

[ABasin]

The issue here is that any Rantanen trade at this point will be heavily futuret based unless somehow they could pull off a sign and trade mid season, which is just unrealistic. We may get a decent depth piece in a trade, but overall you'd be hoping that whatever prospect/s you get can end up top 6 top line guys. I think from a management POV it makes way more sense to keep Mikko and try and find lightning in a bottle with cheap depth guys(based on where we are in this saga), because that's a far easier task than trading/losing Mikko not adequately replacing him and then being down a top 10 player.

I don’t disagree, and suspect that’s what they’ll do.

But still, how many times do you bang your head against the wall, doing the same thing?

Wait, I know! They just need to draft good young players that they can plug into the lineup as depth! Voila!

…
…
…

Oh, damn……

 

[Jasenr]

It's crazy he's still in the lead even with that slump.

I cant believe Mikko is up there with all the falling down he does

 

[The Abusement Park]

I don’t disagree, and suspect that’s what they’ll do.

But still, how many times do you bang your head against the wall, doing the same thing?

I know! They just need to draft good young players that they can plug into the lineup as depth! Voila!

…
…
…

Oh, damn……

I guess in the end what has the potential to be more franchise altering? A)Trading Mikko for a 1st, William Eklund, and Zetterlund. But Eklund doesn't develop properly and becomes a frustrating Wolski like player

B) signing Mikko 8x12.5

I would think worst case would be scenario A. You lose a top 10 player for essentially nothing and have to bank on that 1st becoming an integral piece going forwards and that's only on ice. There's going be a big hit with casual fans as well from a business and PR side.

Now obviously both scenarios come with plenty of up and downsides, but it's pretty clear that most GM's would take the risk with the guy that they know works at an elite level in their org and system.

 

[EdAVSfan]

I think a Rantanen trade sets the team back significantly, at least in the short term. Is it possible that it helps in the long run? Yes, POSSIBLE.

The reality is, if you get a Rantanen replacement in a trade, he’s going to be inferior. Probably by a decent margin.
So that means that the extra guys you get for the cap have to be significant improvements on the players they’re replacing.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

I think a Rantanen trade sets the team back significantly, at least in the short term. Is it possible that it helps in the long run? Yes, POSSIBLE.

The reality is, if you get a Rantanen replacement in a trade, he’s going to be inferior. Probably by a decent margin.
So that means that the extra guys you get for the cap have to be significant improvements on the players they’re replacing.

The only way a Rantanen trade wouldn't set the team back is if they got back a guy like Brady Tkachuk, or if they had managed to swing a deal for a guy pre-breakout like Necas in the off-season

 

[EdAVSfan]

The only way a Rantanen trade wouldn't set the team back is if they got back a guy like Brady Tkachuk, or if they had managed to swing a deal for a guy pre-breakout like Necas in the off-season

Sure, but I think even Brady is a downgrade to Rantanen. So you’re relying on the added cap space to significantly improve another roster spot to make up the difference.
That’s not always easy. Especially in UFA where anyone worthwhile is overpaid.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Sure, but I think even Brady is a downgrade to Rantanen. So you’re relying on the added cap space to significantly improve another roster spot to make up the difference.
That’s not always easy. Especially in UFA where anyone worthwhile is overpaid.

Oh definitely, I'm just talking about an immediate, significant drop off. I think the boat has sailed on trading him for anything that would recoup value

 

[Jasenr]

The only way a Rantanen trade wouldn't set the team back is if they got back a guy like Brady Tkachuk, or if they had managed to swing a deal for a guy pre-breakout like Necas in the off-season

In that case the replacement would be put to first line and needs to have chemistry with Mack. So why bother with this trade when points are already there.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Sure, but I think even Brady is a downgrade to Rantanen. So you’re relying on the added cap space to significantly improve another roster spot to make up the difference.
That’s not always easy. Especially in UFA where anyone worthwhile is overpaid.

A noticeable one at that.