Brind'Amour throws Tlusty under the bus for the Rantanen situation: "And the question is, should we have known that before we attempted to sign him?"

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
IMG_9699.jpeg

This man is innocent!
 
Wouldn't shock me at all if he told Carolina he would consider an offer before the trade without actually ever seriously considering it.

Doubt it. Wasn't he blindsided by the trade? I don't think he had any idea it was coming. The canes didn't even talk to him. I actually think Colorado's GM wouldn't let anyone talk to him.
 
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.
 
Well, I’d have to think the 1sts they got for Rantanen are on the table. Rantanen trade meant they were going for it. The 1sts probably don’t even have the potential to be impact players for 4-5 years
 
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 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.
This is why you’re the best devils advocate on the site
 
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.

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 would he tell them that? What would Rantanen have to gain by telling them that?
They thought Colorado was bluffing with the trade, so they went along and told Carolina that they'd be open to signing.

Colorado called his bluff.

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.
I didn't really like it at the time, there are posts in the trade thread.

 
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.
 
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.

It's not all things considered. I think the Hurricanes got some flack due to the Jake Guentzel trade and the inability to re-sign him last year. Then this year may of been the same dilemma till they found a partner in Dallas that Rants was willing to sign with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TKB
The knock against Carolina for years has been that they need another impact player to put them over the top. Rantanen, in theory, was one of those. And he was available for the price of a player that was on the way out anyway. So they took a shot at him.

It’s not their fault that Rantanen/his agent mistook the Avalanche’s genuine ask of “Would you be willing to sign a new deal in Carolina?” as a negotiation tactic rather than a legitimate ask. They said yes, assuming it was a bluff.

It wasn’t, Rantanen was traded, and both he and Carolina ended up worse for it in the short term. Luckily, Carolina managed to salvage the situation a little and got good pieces for him, while Rantanen gets to play for a team he actually was willing to play for.
 
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.

This is… specific.

Very, very specific.
 
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.

In all honestly I appreciate taking a look at it like that, but the fact that RBA also mentioned the Guentzel situation (and how he said it), it is really hard to see this as anything other than calling out Tulsky.

Having said that I don't follow the Canes that close, so perhaps there is more under the hood than I am aware of.

I'll hang up and listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HabzSauce

Ad

Ad