Confirmed with Link: Mittelstadt re-signed (3 years, $5.75M AAV)

[Pokecheque]

A month later I'm still unhappy with the term.

And if they had gone with more term you’d be unhappy with the AAV a month later.

 

[Balthazar]

And if they had gone with more term you’d be unhappy with the AAV a month later.

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

This contract really sucks for the Avs and gets worse and worse the more you think about it. 2 RFA years and 1 UFA year for the price of 3 UFA years and walked him to UFA.

All things considered this was the worst contract signed by CMac, much worse than Wood and Colton.

Ritchie better become a legit 2C now.

 

[the_fan]

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

This contract really sucks for the Avs and gets worse and worse the more you think about it. 2 RFA years and 1 UFA year for the price of 3 UFA years and walked him to UFA.

All things considered this was the worst contract signed by CMac, much worse than Wood and Colton.

Ritchie better become a legit 2C now.

Just because it’s a 3 year deal, it doesn’t mean Mitts will 100% leave as a UFA in 3 years. Players often get re-signed if they are a good fit. Mitts will only be 28 when this contract is up. The cap will probably be close to 100 mill in 3 years. If he turns into a legit consistent 2C for the Avs, he’ll get re-signed

 

[Balthazar]

Just because it’s a 3 year deal, it doesn’t mean Mitts will 100% leave as a UFA in 3 years. Players often get re-signed if they are a good fit. Mitts will only be 28 when this contact is up. The cap will probably be close to 100 mill in 3 years. If he turns into a legit consistent 2C for the Avs, he’ll get re-signed

Sure, at a very high AAV until he's 36 years old instead of a reasonable AAV until he's either 26, 30 or 33.

 

[dahrougem2]

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

This contract really sucks for the Avs and gets worse and worse the more you think about it. 2 RFA years and 1 UFA year for the price of 3 UFA years and walked him to UFA.

All things considered this was the worst contract signed by CMac, much worse than Wood and Colton.

Ritchie better become a legit 2C now.

The models are just that - models.

For all we know, Mittelstadt could have been asking for 7 over 5+ years

 

[the_fan]

Sure, at a very high AAV until he's 36 years old instead of a reasonable AAV until he's either 26, 30 or 33.

He would probably want more money right now if it was a 7 or 8 year term. Eventually it will turn out to be the same thing.

He hasn’t even played a full season for the Avs yet, it wouldn’t be smart to give him like a 8 year 7 mill AAV deal

 

[tigervixxxen]

It is pretty funny The Solution to all their problems was signed for only three years. But yeah he absolutely was looking for 7+ long term. None of this should have been news to them, though. It’s going to be a very expensive kick then can down the road decision.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

That doesn't make much sense. Those years 4 and 5 will be in his prime. If they are not worth more than $5.75M per, then his next contract would not be much more than $5.75M per. Either they are worth more, and the AAV on the current contract would have been higher if it had been more years, or they are not worth more, and his next contract will not be more either.

But I think we kind of know that they are worth more, and that is why the contract is only 3 years.
It sucks, I agree. But its the effect of being in a cap crunch. It allowed them to keep Drouin.

 

[Balthazar]

That doesn't make much sense.

That's what it is, they have been posted earlier in this thread.

It is pretty funny The Solution to all their problems was signed for only three years. But yeah he absolutely was looking for 7+ long term. None of this should have been news to them, though. It’s going to be a very expensive kick then can down the road decision.

Not only way more expensive but we'll now get stuck with the dreadful 34-35-36 years as well.

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

This contract really sucks for the Avs and gets worse and worse the more you think about it. 2 RFA years and 1 UFA year for the price of 3 UFA years and walked him to UFA.

All things considered this was the worst contract signed by CMac, much worse than Wood and Colton.

Ritchie better become a legit 2C now.

I'm a little confused how a 1 year deal would have been better. If he has a career year with the cap going up another $4 million, he'll only become more expensive.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm a little confused how a 1 year deal would have been better. If he has a career year with the cap going up another $4 million, he'll only become more expensive.

One year gives the Avs time to see what's going to happen with Landy, Val and Rants and he's still an RFA at the end. If he's that good either you make room for him long term or trade him.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I don’t think he had any RFA years left after this one upcoming, if so then yeah they should have left him as an RFA after the year. If not then you can’t give him a one year deal to UFA.

 

[Balthazar]

I don’t think he had any RFA years left after this one upcoming, if so then yeah they should have left him as an RFA after the year. If not then you can’t give him a one year deal to UFA.

He's RFA in 24-25 + 25-26 and UFA in 26-27.

The 3 year contract bought only 1 UFA year.

 

[the_fan]

If we win another cup in the next 3 years, who cares what happens with Mitts after that? Whether we re-sign him or he leaves as a UFA. I think this core will only win one more cup and it should be in the next 3 years. After that the core will start to age and slowly enter a rebuild mode in 5 years.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

If we win another cup in the next 3 years, who cares what happens with Mitts after that? Whether we re-sign him or he leaves as a UFA. I think this core will only win one more cup and it should be in the next 3 years. After that the core will start to age and slowly enter a rebuild mode in 5 years.

I completely agree with the idea that our window is in the closing stage. It's not closed all-together, but it is closing.

I think they could extend it a few years by parting ways with Mikko and reallocating the money. Yes, Nate's line will take a hit without Mikko, but every other line should be able to see improvements from having a little bit more money to spend. I think the overall team could be better. But on the other hand, the Avs have never won a cup without at least 3 top 10 players... That's a little worrisome now that I think about it.

 

[ANewHope]

I'm a little confused how a 1 year deal would have been better. If he has a career year with the cap going up another $4 million, he'll only become more expensive.

Yeah I like this deal more as time goes by. It basically just prioritizes the current window. With a 1 year deal you risk Mitts blowing up and asking for a big deal which destroys the window. Long term would have increased the AAV in the most important seasons to keep him around in seasons where we likely don't have a chance.

Avs got a 2C at 5.7 mill for the rest of the window. It'll likely be great value in years 2/3 and for a 2C is perfectly fine now. I'm not even a huge window guy but this core doesn't have 5 years left. If they do go past 3 years you'll still have the chance to resign him or replace him with Richie and not be tied down to another 6-7 mill contract if he doesn't work out like anticipated.

Why waste a single dollar of cap space to have him around in year 6 with zero chance to win a cup when you can improve a legitimate shot next year. This contract could potentially be a big a reason why the Avs aren't dead in the water in year 3 if he really takes off here.

 

[the_fan]

I completely agree with the idea that our window is in the closing stage. It's not closed all-together, but it is closing.

I think they could extend it a few years by parting ways with Mikko and reallocating the money. Yes, Nate's line will take a hit without Mikko, but every other line should be able to see improvements from having a little bit more money to spend. I think the overall team could be better. But on the other hand, the Avs have never won a cup without at least 3 top 10 players... That's a little worrisome now that I think about it.

In 5 years everyone except Makar will be in their 30s as far as the core players go. Mack 34, Mikko 33, Landy (if he plays) 36 or 37. Trading Mikko for bunch of depth pieces won’t do anything IMO. This core will win one more cup in the next 3 years and that’ll be it IMO. The biggest question will be what do we do with Cale because he’ll still be young when rest of the core ages. Actually Makar will be the youngest but even he will be 30 in 5 years

 

[expatriatedtexan]

In 5 years everyone except Makar will be in their 30s as far as the core players go. Mack 34, Mikko 33, Landy (if he plays) 36 or 37. Trading Mikko for bunch of depth pieces won’t do anything IMO. This core will win one more cup in the next 3 years and that’ll be it IMO. The biggest question will be what do we do with Cale because he’ll still be young when rest of the core ages. Actually Makar will be the youngest but even he will be 30 in 5 years

Yeah, I'd probably be the worst GM. My thought process is that Mikko is a PP cheat code, but doesn't really provide as much as you'd think 5 on 5. So by replacing him with someone who isn't as deadly on the PP but provides more 5v5 tools, whether that be defensively or more offensive pressure through skating, could actually elevate Nate's 5v5 numbers. I don't mean to harp on Rants but he does disappear for long stretches in games and I think that actually hurts the top unit's 5v5 production significantly.

 

[the_fan]

Yeah, I'd probably be the worst GM. My thought process is that Mikko is a PP cheat code, but doesn't really provide as much as you'd think 5 on 5. So by replacing him with someone who isn't as deadly on the PP but provides more 5v5 tools, whether that be defensively or more offensive pressure through skating, could actually elevate Nate's 5v5 numbers. I don't mean to harp on Rants but he does disappear for long stretches in games and I think that actually hurts the top unit's 5v5 production significantly.

Well, we’ll know after next season if they’re trading Mikko or re-signing him. My guess is re-sign. But if they’re trading him, don’t they have to do it during the season because he’s a UFA in the off season. I just don’t see Mikko getting traded

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Well, we’ll know after next season if they’re trading Mikko or re-signing him. My guess is re-sign

Oh...I'm positive they'll resign him and Cale afterwards. I have no illusions that they would actually go in a different track.

It's just my personal thought that we could hoist another cup sooner by starting the next rebuild sooner and maybe with a bit of a head start from a trade or two. But that's not necessarily the best thing for an organization either. There's a lot of love for these players and disbanding a group of beloved players can turn a GM into public enemy #1 even if he's doing so for the right reasons. Trading even fading heroes simply won't get you any points from most fans.

 

[the_fan]

Oh...I'm positive they'll resign him and Cale afterwards. I have no illusions that they would actually go in a different track.

It's just my personal thought that we could hoist another cup sooner by starting the next rebuild sooner and maybe with a bit of a head start from a trade or two. But that's not necessarily the best thing for an organization either. There's a lot of love for these players and disbanding a group of beloved players can turn a GM into public enemy #1 even if he's doing so for the right reasons. Trading even fading heroes simply won't get you any points from most fans.

Also if the plan was to trade Mikko, they would have done it now this offseason instead of during next season. That’s why it’s just pointless to bring it up

 

[jfc64]

The question now is if Mitts is on MacKinnon's top athlete diet and practice programme.

 

[NorthernAvsFan]

I do agree that the term is bad.

I just think the Avs are trying to save every penny this offseason to put a roster together.

IMO, he’s a steal for 5.75, considering the all around game he brings. Let’s give him some actual line mates this season too.

 

[the_fan]

Mitts wants to sign another big contract when this one is up. It makes sense for him to sign for 3 years now

 

[Pokecheque]

The models out there say that it was virtually the same AAV for 3-4-5 years. If they couldn't do long term they should have went 1 year.

This contract really sucks for the Avs and gets worse and worse the more you think about it. 2 RFA years and 1 UFA year for the price of 3 UFA years and walked him to UFA.

All things considered this was the worst contract signed by CMac, much worse than Wood and Colton.

Ritchie better become a legit 2C now.

I don’t buy what the models say. What matters in the end is what the Avs were willing to pay, their cap situation, and what Mittelstadt wanted. If he was willing to sign long-term for that amount he’d still be in Buffalo.

And I promise you and anyone else fretting over this contract, re-signing him will be the least of their issues by the time the deal expires.