Michoulicious
Registered User
- Dec 9, 2014
- 7,702
- 8,539
Wouldn't shock me at all if he told Carolina he would consider an offer before the trade without actually ever seriously considering it.
Why would he tell them that? What would Rantanen have to gain by telling them that?Wouldn't shock me at all if he told Carolina he would consider an offer before the trade without actually ever seriously considering it.
This is why you’re the best devils advocate on the siteTo play devils advocate…
If we are to believe what Friedman speculated - that the Rantanen camp thought the Avs were using the Canes interest as a pressure tactic to get him to sign - then, it’s certainly feasible to assume that Rantanen called their “bluff” and said “sure I’d be interested in signing there”. The Avs, in turn, communicate that to the Canes and the Canes take that as there having a shot to sign him and move ahead with the trade.
In that scenario - the Avs just communicated what Rantanen told them, the Canes thought they had a shot and Rantanen thought he was calling a bluff…again all of this complete speculation
So, the Canes probably did have confidence they could sign him, potentially based on information gained from negotiation gamesmanship. They learned after the fact that the info they based the trade off of was false and were stuck in between and rock and a hard place.
I bet RBA and Tulsky thought they were keeping Rantanen long term, but found out quick, that was not the case and who knows whose fault that was. Hopefully they learned a lesson.
Why is Necas and Drury for Stankoven and draft capital so bad
Took a risk, didn’t pay off, immediately recognized it- and did their best to correct course.
That is life. Take calculated risks when you can, then make as best decisions as you can with the information you had at the time. Think he did a fine job.
They thought Colorado was bluffing with the trade, so they went along and told Carolina that they'd be open to signing.Why would he tell them that? What would Rantanen have to gain by telling them that?
I didn't really like it at the time, there are posts in the trade thread.There’s a lot of Monday morning QB’ing going on.
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE thought this was a great move by the Canes when it was done. If someone said otherwise at the time, I’ll give them credit but I wanna see receipts first.
Why is Necas and Drury for Stankoven and draft capital so bad
Took a risk, didn’t pay off, immediately recognized it- and did their best to correct course.
That is life. Take calculated risks when you can, then make as best decisions as you can with the information you had at the time. Think he did a fine job.
For me the situation is kinda like “do I want to go to Fred’s house three Saturday's from now?” Someone asks me that I go “yea maybe, I gotta see what I got going on but il probably let you know” Feigning interest not to be rude but I have no intention of going to Fred’s house. Fred’s house is weird, kinda small and smells like old malted 40 bottles and skittles (cause of the candles).
When the time comes to confirm whether I will be going to Fred’s, I got say “Nah man not really, I can think of at least 4 other places I’d rather be.”
It’s kinda like that. Now if Fred bought extra boneless chicken wings and that wine he knows I like to drink, that’s on him. I never confirmed my attendance.
To play devils advocate…
If we are to believe what Friedman speculated - that the Rantanen camp thought the Avs were using the Canes interest as a pressure tactic to get him to sign - then, it’s certainly feasible to assume that Rantanen called their “bluff” and said “sure I’d be interested in signing there”. The Avs, in turn, communicate that to the Canes and the Canes take that as them having a shot to sign him and move ahead with the trade.
In that scenario - the Avs just communicated what Rantanen told them, the Canes thought they had a shot and Rantanen thought he was calling a bluff…again all of this is complete speculation
So, the Canes probably did have confidence they could sign him, potentially based on information gained from negotiation gamesmanship. They learned after the fact that the info they based the trade off of was false and were stuck in between and rock and a hard place.
I bet RBA and Tulsky thought they were keeping Rantanen long term, but found out quick, that was not the case and who knows whose fault that was. Hopefully they learned a lesson.