Mikko Rantanen - MOOSE - 96

[cinchronicity]

People here are assuming Mack's production happens in a vacuum. What part of his production is dependent on Rants? Face it, Mack isn't the same player without him so it isn't as simple a plugging somebody in at RW and still having the same production from Mack. The entire line, even 5 man unit would be less effective. Without Rants, is it possible that Mack can't produce to the level of HIS contract (for those who are thinking in terms of contract value)? Would you create a problem by trying to solve a problem in this way?

Where are the examples of teams trading elite (and in their prime) talent and getting better?

Agreed 100% on your notion of vacuum/context. At least a handful of us concur. That said, cannot the same calculus be applied to the Mikko situation? So let's call that one a draw.

I've also not been arguing that a star-based method is invalid. Hell, @niwotsblessing and I grew up fans of the Islander dynasty. And, of course, Pierre LaCroix had a blank check and brass balls - neither of which CMac has. Therein lies the issue: the salary cap. If there was no cap, I'm 100% in favor of Mikko getting 8 x $12M+. But there is a cap.

Over here on Team Depth is fairly simple: Yes, losing Mikko is going to be a net negative for RW regardless. As you point out in the original, Mac's production could suffer with a lesser running-mate. However, if the team could sign Walker WITHOUT dumping G or Manson, sign Drouin to a team-friendly 3 x $3.5, lock in Mitts for 8 years ( thus paying for some UFA years), and still keep Wood/ Colton / LOC and Duhaim / Trenin / Kovalenko as the bottom six? I feel very stronly that an objective argument can be made for trading Mikko. Finally, I will borrow from your original premise of a butterfly effect. With the bottom six so constructed, Bednar will not have kill the 1st line and keep them in the 19 range.

There are clearly 2 valid arguments to be made. But even that is not true, and I think we all realize that this is nothing more than a thought experiment, as Sak/Mac are going to sign Mikko and let the chips fall as they will.

 

[JH21]

Where are the examples of teams trading elite (and in their prime) talent and getting better?

There are none because it never happens

Well, I clearly said ~80 points so who is moving goalposts now?

And I've already shown you why I think we already have one on our team.

Plus, I said capable of putting up those numbers. If we take Drouin out as an example, we'd have to look for some guys capable of hitting those numbers but for whatever reason haven't yet, and those aren't so hard to come by these days. As I pointed out in previous posts, there's about 100 forwards pacing for at least 70 points this season.

80 points is the new 60 points, just like 120 points is the new 100 points. Scoring has been consistently trending up since 2017-18 so ppg guys aren't as hard to come by as you may think. A guy like Seth Jarvis comes to mind, who you could probably get around 4-5M on a bridge deal. I'd personally rather just re-sign Drouin and target a high value ELC rookie as a primary piece in a Rantanen deal, but the point is these players in fact do exist. Hell, the Oilers have a 50 goal defensively sound winger making only 5.5M long term and he was a UFA. But I'm guessing in your mind Hyman 'still and always will be a 55 point guy'

And that guy you said can put up 80 was a bargain bin vet minimum signing. He was available for a reason.

Guys like him are a dime a dozen and can be found every offseason.

50 goal / 100 point guys are never available and you want to get rid of him for some random guy on an ELC.

 

[JH21]

Agreed 100% on your notion of vacuum/context. At least a handful of us concur. That said, cannot the same calculus be applied to the Mikko situation? So let's call that one a draw.

I've also not been arguing that a star-based method is invalid. Hell, @niwotsblessing and I grew up fans of the Islander dynasty. And, of course, Pierre LaCroix had a blank check and brass balls - neither of which CMac has. Therein lies the issue: the salary cap. If there was no cap, I'm 100% in favor of Mikko getting 8 x $12M+. But there is a cap.

Over here on Team Depth is fairly simple: Yes, losing Mikko is going to be a net negative for RW regardless. As you point out in the original, Mac's production could suffer with a lesser running-mate. However, if the team could sign Walker WITHOUT dumping G or Manson, sign Drouin to a team-friendly 3 x $3.5, lock in Mitts for 8 years ( thus paying for some UFA years), and still keep Wood/ Colton / LOC and Duhaim / Trenin / Kovalenko as the bottom six? I feel very stronly that an objective argument can be made for trading Mikko. Finally, I will borrow from your original premise of a butterfly effect. With the bottom six so constructed, Bednar will not have kill the 1st line and keep them in the 19 range.

There are clearly 2 valid arguments to be made. But even that is not true, and I think we all realize that this is nothing more than a thought experiment, as Sak/Mac are going to sign Mikko and let the chips fall as they will.

Wood/ Colton / LOC and Duhaim / Trenin / Kovalenko.

All the guys you mentioned can be added for practically nothing.

We can have a bunch of pylons on the 4th line playing 7 minutes a night if it means keeping Rantanen. I don’t even know how this is a discussion,

 

[The Abusement Park]

People here are assuming Mack's production happens in a vacuum. What part of his production is dependent on Rants? Face it, Mack isn't the same player without him so it isn't as simple a plugging somebody in at RW and still having the same production from Mack. The entire line, even 5 man unit would be less effective. Without Rants, is it possible that Mack can't produce to the level of HIS contract (for those who are thinking in terms of contract value)? Would you create a problem by trying to solve a problem in this way?

Where are the examples of teams trading elite (and in their prime) talent and getting better?

The Panthers with Huberdeau is the most recent one.

 

[Miri]

Well, I clearly said ~80 points so who is moving goalposts now?

And I've already shown you why I think we already have one on our team.

Plus, I said capable of putting up those numbers. If we take Drouin out as an example, we'd have to look for some guys capable of hitting those numbers but for whatever reason haven't yet, and those aren't so hard to come by these days. As I pointed out in previous posts, there's about 100 forwards pacing for at least 70 points this season.

80 points is the new 60 points, just like 120 points is the new 100 points. Scoring has been consistently trending up since 2017-18 so ppg guys aren't as hard to come by as you may think. A guy like Seth Jarvis comes to mind, who you could probably get around 4-5M on a bridge deal. I'd personally rather just re-sign Drouin and target a high value ELC rookie as a primary piece in a Rantanen deal, but the point is these players in fact do exist. Hell, the Oilers have a 50 goal defensively sound winger making only 5.5M long term and he was a UFA. But I'm guessing in your mind Hyman 'still and always will be a 55 point guy'

Jarvis this season, coming out his ELC, seems to be on cca 65 points pace. Still bit off 80 points. But ok, say thats still good enough. And since he is 22 years old, who is to say he wont hit 80 next year. That said, what are we offering Carolina for potential 80 points player to be had at 4 millions? I dont think they will be exactly keen to say goodbye to him. Just because players like that exist, does not mean they are to be acquired.

Hyman is 31. This is like his peak season, by far the best in his career. Outlier, if you will.

Somehow you think that we can more easily get someone to replace Mikko and pay that guy only 4 millions, than replace bunch of third/fourth liners with similarly competent guys on lower salaries. How does that work.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

People here are assuming Mack's production happens in a vacuum. What part of his production is dependent on Rants? Face it, Mack isn't the same player without him so it isn't as simple a plugging somebody in at RW and still having the same production from Mack. The entire line, even 5 man unit would be less effective. Without Rants, is it possible that Mack can't produce to the level of HIS contract (for those who are thinking in terms of contract value)? Would you create a problem by trying to solve a problem in this way?

Where are the examples of teams trading elite (and in their prime) talent and getting better?

The Avs played better and scored all their goals last night with both Mack and Mikko playing on different lines. Mack had 3 points.

 

[Miri]

The Avs played better and scored all their goals last night with both Mack and Mikko playing on different lines. Mack had 3 points.

One game. One in which Drouin scored 2 goals. If he was scoring goal per game all season long, OK. But its way more likely he will now go goal-less for 5 straight. And this comes from someone who likes him and ideally would want to keep him.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

One game. One in which Drouin scored 2 goals. If he was scoring goal per game all season long, OK. But its way more likely he will now go goal-less for 5 straight. And this comes from someone who likes him and ideally would want to keep him.

Ok.....the Avs won the Cup in 2022 with both guys on different lines.

 

[GeoRox89]

Ok.....the Avs won the Cup in 2022 with both guys on different lines.

Funnily enough, if Mack and Mikko are split up and driving their own lines, that’s when you can better afford to lose higher end depth to keep Mikko. You don’t need as many good depth players when you’ve got the engine (and the 2C in Mitts to work with Mikko) to drive essentially two first lines. It’s when you staple the them together and stack the top line that you’re really taking a gamble relying on Nuke as your only other clear top 6 to top 3 winger (unless the unthinkable happens and Landy can still play at a 1LW level) and mediocre depth elsewhere outside Colton (unless Kovalenko turns out to be a good 3rd liner)

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Funnily enough, if Mack and Mikko are split up and driving their own lines, that’s when you can better afford to lose higher end depth to keep Mikko. You don’t need as many good depth players when you’ve got the engine (and the 2C in Mitts to work with Mikko) to drive essentially two first lines. It’s when you staple the them together and stack the top line that you’re really taking a gamble relying on Nuke as your only other clear top 6 to top 3 winger (unless the unthinkable happens and Landy can still play at a 1LW level) and mediocre depth elsewhere outside Colton (unless Kovalenko turns out to be a good 3rd liner)

There is truth to that of course but my point was a counter-argument to your comment saying that Mack's production could go down if Mikko is no longer on the team. Mack has proved many times he can still produce at the same pace without Mikko. Without Mikko on the team we could still have the 1st line we had last night and the 2nd line, although weaker than with Mikko, could still be a very good 2nd line on a contender team if you add a very good two-way 70-pt W. And you could also have your 5 top-4 dmen instead of only 4. We have to remember that our offense starts from our dmen.

 

[GeoRox89]

There is truth to that of course but my point was a counter-argument to your comment saying that Mack's production could go down if Mikko is no longer on the team. Mack has proved many times he can still produce at the same pace without Mikko. Without Mikko on the team we could still have the 1st line we had last night and the 2nd line, although weaker than with Mikko, could still be a very good 2nd line on a contender team if you add a very good two-way 70-pt W. And you could also have your 5 top-4 dmen instead of only 4. We have to remember that our offense starts from our dmen.

The bolded was someone else. I do think Mack likely takes a small hit to his PP points without Mikko (assuming they were on separate lines) but not enough to be concerned about

I’m firmly on the explore trading Mikko (unless Landy has a failed playoff comeback and LTIRetires) train just less sold on it if staple him to Mitts instead of Mack. Even if you trade Mikko for futures, not sure the cap works to keep all of Lehky + Drouin + Walker/G/Manson. If it does, explore it. If it doesn’t then I see arguments for both sides

 

[AllAboutAvs]

The bolded was someone else. I do think Mack likely takes a small hit to his PP points without Mikko (assuming they were on separate lines) but not enough to be concerned about

I’m firmly on the explore trading Mikko (unless Landy has a failed playoff comeback and LTIRetires) train just less sold on it if staple him to Mitts instead of Mack. Even if you trade Mikko for futures, not sure the cap works to keep all of Lehky + Drouin + Walker/G/Manson. If it does, explore it. If it doesn’t then I see arguments for both sides

Yeah sorry about the bolded. For some reasons I thought I was responding to the other poster.

 

[Freaky Styley]

Jarvis this season, coming out his ELC, seems to be on cca 65 points pace. Still bit off 80 points. But ok, say thats still good enough. And since he is 22 years old, who is to say he wont hit 80 next year. That said, what are we offering Carolina for potential 80 points player to be had at 4 millions? I dont think they will be exactly keen to say goodbye to him. Just because players like that exist, does not mean they are to be acquired.

Hyman is 31. This is like his peak season, by far the best in his career. Outlier, if you will.

Somehow you think that we can more easily get someone to replace Mikko and pay that guy only 4 millions, than replace bunch of third/fourth liners with similarly competent guys on lower salaries. How does that work.

Well the idea would be that Jarvis would be a key piece in a Rantanen deal, and Rantanen is exactly the type of guy that Carolina wants/needs. It's not like I'm just letting Rantanen walk as a UFA and using other assets to acquire Jarvis.

You're right about Hyman but the other poster seemed adamant that these kind of guys don't exist at cheap contracts, and Hyman is just another example is that they do. And that's the point, you can't get those guys cheap once they hit those big numbers, you get them before they do - that's why you have pro scouts. Plus there's about 100 forwards in the league capable of hitting at least 70 points away from the Avalanche. The Avs have a typical 10 point bump for anyone playing bigger minutes so that's 100 guys currently that can put up those numbers - lots to choose from. That doesn't include guys like Jarvis or even younger who have the talent but have yet to break out, and one ofthose guys is exactly the type of return you'd be after in a Rantanen trade.

This discussion isn't about it being easier to replace Rantanen than guys in the bottom 6, this discussion is about still keeping a very solid top 4 D and top 6 F with Landeskog returning, combined with keeping the bottom 6 F a strength. It's about having depth AND elite talent vs. just elite talent.

I don't get how people don't see the difference in guys making league min vs. making 1.5-3M. Four league min guys in the bottom 6 means 4 Cogliano/Kiviranta types vs. Trenin/Duhaime types, and likely going from Colton to Ritchie which is also a bit risk. Plus it's imperative to have injury support and guys that can play top 6 minutes if needed.

 

[The Moops]

There are none because it never happens

Literally Florida

We can have a bunch of pylons on the 4th line playing 7 minutes a night if it means keeping Rantanen. I don’t even know how this is a discussion,

We saw how that happened last year in the first round. We lost because nobody but the first line could score. Having no depth is a death sentence in this league

 

[JH21]

Yep. Seth Jarvis, a pick and a prospect for an elite point producer. Let’s get a worse return for Rantanen that we did for O’Reilly. Works for me.

Your reason about why Carolina wants Rantanen should speak volumes about why we should keep him. They are loaded with depth and run 3 lines but they lack star power. They also get blown out of the water every year in the playoffs.

It’s just too easy at this point.

Literally Florida

We saw how that happened last year in the first round. We lost because nobody but the first line could score. Having no depth is a death sentence in this league

Ohh. You mean Florida got the better player right?

 

[The Abusement Park]

Ohh. You mean Florida got the better player right?

I mean that certainly wasn’t the outlook at the time of the trade. They had just traded a guy who finished tied for 2nd in the NHL in scoring playing primarily with Sam Bennett and Anthony Duclair.

 

[SaltySkywalker]

Panarin?

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Ohh. You mean Florida got the better player right?

At the time of the trade Huby was viewed as the better player....especially if we go by your way of judging how good a player is.....POINTS.

 

[Miri]

At the time of the trade Huby was viewed as the better player....especially if we go by your way of judging how good a player is.....POINTS.

Tkachuk was 100 point player already in Calgary. It was epitome of a hockey trade that one.

 

[Miri]

I don't get how people don't see the difference in guys making league min vs. making 1.5-3M. Four league min guys in the bottom 6 means 4 Cogliano/Kiviranta types vs. Trenin/Duhaime types, and likely going from Colton to Ritchie which is also a bit risk. Plus it's imperative to have injury support and guys that can play top 6 minutes if needed.

Maybe the same way you dont see the difference between Mikko and Jarvis, despite the latter having almost 40 points less currently
Perhaps they believe that there are Trenin/Duhaime types to be found paid league minimum. Its definitely more likely than finding out Rantanen types paid 4 millions.

BTW, i dont think people dont think that depth is important. More better players is always better. In this particular case, it just means if we need money to get/keep those, it shall be Landeskog or Nichuskin dealt away. Regardless of how good they are and what they bring, they are both easier to be replaced than Mikko. And unlike Mikko, both have their downsides - one in his health concerns, another in his personal issue concerns. Both older as well.

 

[LOFIN]

Tkachuk was 100 point player already in Calgary. It was epitome of a hockey trade that one.

Tkachuk had 100 points in Calgary before the trade, yes. That was the first time in his six year NHL career, that he had a +PPG season. The closest one before that was 77 points in 80 games.

 

[Snow Arc]

Yes other things matter but you wouldn't be able to understand.

 

[Miri]

Tkachuk had 100 points in Calgary before the trade, yes. That was the first time in his six year NHL career, that he had a +PPG season. The closest one before that was 77 points in 80 games.

Never the less, if it Tkachuk for Huberdeau was supposed to be example of trading significantly inferior player for a superstar, it was not a good example.

 

[NorthernAvsFan]

The chances of Rantanen getting traded are extremely remote.

There’s very few examples of this kind of player being moved and ones mentioned here like Huberdeau/Tkachuk don’t really fit because both teams were looking to shake up their cores. That’s not what Colorado wants to do.

It’s fine to throw it out as an option I guess, but it’s like when people suggest trades with 12 moving pieces between two sides, it’s not happening.

 

[JH21]

At the time of the trade Huby was viewed as the better player....especially if we go by your way of judging how good a player is.....POINTS.

Fine.

Find me a trade partner that will give us a guy coming off a 115 point season, a legit top pairing Dman, a good prospect and a 1st round pick for Rantanen and we can talk.

Until then, if your trade proposals start with Seth Jarvis you might as well just give up the fight now because it will never happen.

The chances of Rantanen getting traded are extremely remote.

There’s very few examples of this kind of player being moved and ones mentioned here like Huberdeau/Tkachuk don’t really fit because both teams were looking to shake up their cores. That’s not what Colorado wants to do.

It’s fine to throw it out as an option I guess, but it’s like when people suggest trades with 12 moving pieces between two sides, it’s not happening.

A hockey trade is one thing. Like the Byram for Mittlestadt trade.

But some of these posts in here suggesting we trade Rantanen for guys like Seth Jarvis and picks and prospects is laughable.

Manson, Girard, Georgiev and Wood would all go first if we need cap space.