Confirmed Trade: [CAR/COL/CHI] Mikko Rantanen (50%), Taylor Hall, Nils Juntorp to CAR; Martin Necas, Jack Drury, '25 2nd, '26 4th to COL; '25 3rd to CHI for retention

[EdAVSfan]

For same reason $7 million used to be superstar money and now is second line money. Percentage of cap is what’s most relevant. But it’s fine. The gm thinks he’ll get the depth to offset. That’s his choice.

As I said in the previous post, percentage of the cap is not the only part of the equation. Not every player just follows along the « percentage of the cap » scale. There’s also the, « what’s this players value to my team » part of the equation. And the « will this player continue to be worth his contract » part of the equation.

If EF is to be believed, and there’s no reason not to when his number was very specific, it would’ve made him the 4th highest AAV in the league.

As I asked in the other post. If Rantanen becomes a UFA, will every team that can fit him offer the exact 13% of the cap x 7 year offers? Of course not. Each team will value him differently and offer contracts according to the value of THEIR team. The percentage of the cap is helpful in getting an approximation, but it shouldn’t be the sole factor upon which an AAV is calculated. That’s ridiculous.

 

[pelderhostiga]

As I said in the previous post, percentage of the cap is not the only part of the equation. Not every player just follows along the « percentage of the cap » scale. There’s also the, « what’s this players value to my team » part of the equation. And the « will this player continue to be worth his contract » part of the equation.

If EF is to be believed, and there’s no reason not to when his number was very specific, it would’ve made him the 4th highest AAV in the league.

As I asked in the other post. If Rantanen becomes a UFA, will every team that can fit him offer the exact 13% of the cap x 7 year offers? Of course not. Each team will value him differently and offer contracts according to the value of THEIR team. The percentage of the cap is helpful in getting an approximation, but it shouldn’t be the sole factor upon which an AAV is calculated. That’s ridiculous.

Somehow we're arguing against each other while ultimately having the same opinion. The Avs front office didn't think Rantanen was worth an average market value for a player of his caliber + a small hometown discount, so they traded him. To me it seems odd considering his history and status in the team, which should make him rather more valuable than less, but they're of course entitled to do so if that's what they want.

 

[WarriorofTime]

As I said in the previous post, percentage of the cap is not the only part of the equation. Not every player just follows along the « percentage of the cap » scale. There’s also the, « what’s this players value to my team » part of the equation. And the « will this player continue to be worth his contract » part of the equation.

If EF is to be believed, and there’s no reason not to when his number was very specific, it would’ve made him the 4th highest AAV in the league.

As I asked in the other post. If Rantanen becomes a UFA, will every team that can fit him offer the exact 13% of the cap x 7 year offers? Of course not. Each team will value him differently and offer contracts according to the value of THEIR team. The percentage of the cap is helpful in getting an approximation, but it shouldn’t be the sole factor upon which an AAV is calculated. That’s ridiculous.

Isn't that basically what I've been saying? The Avs didn't want to pay Rantanen a "fair" value because they already have a huge money contract in MacKinnon and likely have an eye forward to the fact that they'll have to re-up with Makar with a huge money contract. So they didn't want another huge money contract on the books (i.e., his value is lower to them than to a team that he'd be.. or at least could be, the top forward). They would rather move on, get a cheap Necas for one year longer before he's re-upped at a less than Rantanen amount (or traded as well?) and then take it from there.

I just don't know how it can simultaneous that people say the Avs made a killing and also that Rantanen and his Agent are bad guys for not just signing the first offer that came their way. People aren't saying "they salvaged a bad situation", they're saying "this is great for the Avs going forward", doesn't that suggest that it was Colorado making the "business decision" to ultimately not pay Rantanen a "fair" (market discounted by the 8th year) value?

 

[EdAVSfan]

Isn't that basically what I've been saying? The Avs didn't want to pay Rantanen a "fair" value because they already have a huge money contract in MacKinnon and likely have an eye forward to the fact that they'll have to re-up with Makar with a huge money contract. So they didn't want another huge money contract on the books (i.e., his value is lower to them than to a team that he'd be.. or at least could be, the top forward). They would rather move on, get a cheap Necas for one year longer before he's re-upped at a less than Rantanen amount (or traded as well?) and then take it from there.

I just don't know how it can simultaneous that people say the Avs made a killing and also that Rantanen and his Agent are bad guys for not just signing the first offer that came their way. People aren't saying "they salvaged a bad situation", they're saying "this is great for the Avs going forward", doesn't that suggest that it was Colorado making the "business decision" to ultimately not pay Rantanen a "fair" (market discounted by the 8th year) value?

My point of contention here is you keep suggesting « fair » as if it’s a very specific number. It’s not. Fair is a grey zone. If Carolina goes bonkers and decides to pay Rantanen 14.5M (just for example) does the « fair » scale shift? Do players like him now expect to receive 15% of the cap? Or do we just chalk it up to overpayment?

You seem to be of the opinion that because Nylander and Pastrnak signed for x% of the cap, that’s what Rantanen needs to receive for it to be fair.
Why can’t it be that he signs for 11.75M, and that represents 12% of the cap and look back and say, Toronto and Boston overpaid for their guys by 1%, and that the new scale is more between 12-13%?

The examples of the amount of guys like Rantanen and Nylander and Pastrnak are so few and far between.

 

[pelderhostiga]

My point of contention here is you keep suggesting « fair » as if it’s a very specific number. It’s not. Fair is a grey zone. If Carolina goes bonkers and decides to pay Rantanen 14.5M (just for example) does the « fair » scale shift? Do players like him now expect to receive 15% of the cap? Or do we just chalk it up to overpayment?

You seem to be of the opinion that because Nylander and Pastrnak signed for x% of the cap, that’s what Rantanen needs to receive for it to be fair.
Why can’t it be that he signs for 11.75M, and that represents 12% of the cap and look back and say, Toronto and Boston overpaid for their guys by 1%, and that the new scale is more between 12-13%?

The examples of the amount of guys like Rantanen and Nylander and Pastrnak are so few and far between.

My last two cents, but it ultimately comes down to who gets to decide what's fair. Of course the Avs get to decide their own definition of fair, but if it's not the same as the current market suggests, I don't think anyone can be too mad at Rantanen for not agreeing to this newly formed definition of fair. He could have if he really REALLY wanted to, but I would think the general consensus is that he had no need to make an example of himself and define the limits differently than the rest of the league.

 

[SnS]

We’re just gonna call it here. Nobody is discussing the trade at this point anymore.