Not having 13M tied up on one player is the main thing. His production is nice, yes. And no one can dispute that, but it's just too much cap space. And that production just doesn't make that much of a difference in the post season. Something needs to change.
Rumor: Rantanen Extension is Close???
- Thread starter LTCPain75
- Start date
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 16,880
- 23,936
Look, I'm here for the argument that the Avs have to move on from Rantanen because they can't afford to keep him.
But let's not pretend that the Avs will become a better team without him, unless they get extremely lucky. IN THEORY, you might be able to grab a good goalie and a depth player for that money, while hoping that Landy and Nuke return (in form) and then you extend Drouin. And hope that Ritchie and Kovalenko become contributors.
But that's a hell of a lot of ifs. The most likely scenario is that the Avs take a step back if they lose Rantanen.
Ya’ll will miss Mikko when they give Vatrano and Mangiapane a combined $12M with all that cap space.
It's a tough spot because they absolutely will not be a better team without him. They will miss his production. However, I don't see another way to facilitate change. That 13M will be an absolute anchor.
Last edited:
BobRossColton
Registered User
henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 67,095
- 53,592
Take that up a few notches. 4 teams moved from 93-97. Since that lockout, we've had only those two teams move (and technically only one is a move) and valuations have skyrocketed. The differences in the league before and after that cap are monumental on the business side. It isn't perfect today, but the NHL is on FAR better footing today than it ever has been.
I don't even understand what this has to do with
Red Wings never moved to another city
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 16,880
- 23,936
I don't think too many people are arguing for abolishing the cap (maybe some fans in the bigger markets for sure). What people don't like is that there is zero flexibility. The NBA has a salary cap. The NFL has a salary cap. Yet the NHL is the only league that gives teams absolutely zero flexibility, and thus there is less player movement, less good teams, and less excitement (even though it's obviosly the most entertaining sport
).
henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 67,095
- 53,592
The Avs and Red wings (Rangers and Toronto too) spent other teams into oblivion. That caused business issues throughout the league. It was an unsustainable model for the NHL and resulted in a year long lockout.I don't even understand what this has to do with
Red Wings never moved to another city
It’s just a different model and a big part of the inflexibility is due to the fully guaranteed contracts with heavily punitive buyouts if a team wants out from under them. Thats what the NHLPA required to get into a cap and it has resulted in a much more stagnant league. I wouldn’t mind more player movement and flexibility, but I don’t think you can argue with how healthy the league is in comparison to years past.I don't think too many people are arguing for abolishing the cap (maybe some fans in the bigger markets for sure). What people don't like is that there is zero flexibility. The NBA has a salary cap. The NFL has a salary cap. Yet the NHL is the only league that gives teams absolutely zero flexibility, and thus there is less player movement, less good teams, and less excitement (even though it's obviosly the most entertaining sport
cinchronicity
Registered User
We can talk until our heads explode, but this is really the only sentence needed.
My only counter would involve the salary cap. I don't think anyone disputes that the cap has caused parity. But that also means that virtually any team can catch lightning in a bottle ( See: Blues, St. Louis) and win a cup. Except those teams filled with ELCs and Veteran Minimums - and that is what would have to happen to give Mikko $13M. Again, lots of ifs, but in 25-26:
Drouin - Mac - Lehky
Ritchie - Mitts - Nuke
Landy - Colton - LOC
Wood - xxx - Kovalenko
Toss in a decent goalie, and live with Malinski / Behrens on the third pair, and that team - IMHO - can catch lightning in a bottle and have a good shot at a cup for the next 3-4 years. Would that team be better with Mikko? Sure! But the cap prevents that bottom 6, much of the second pair, and a goalie who does not suck. To me, that is an apples to oranges comparison.
- Oct 24, 2008
- 24,138
- 36,125
We can joke about him being invisible or Bambi on ice, but Rantanen is widely considered a top 10 player in the NHL.
You can’t convince me that any combination of second line forward/second pairing defenseman and a goalie would make us a better team than having Mikko f***ing Rantanen.
Period.
You can’t convince me that any combination of second line forward/second pairing defenseman and a goalie would make us a better team than having Mikko f***ing Rantanen.
Period.
If Nuke or Landy stays in the lineup, basically if we had one of those two and Mikko what's the chance we actually win last playoffs?
We were not clearly the best team even with Nuke.
If we had Mikko, no Nuke or Landy and a good goalie I could see a chance too.
What we can't have IMO is no Nuke or Landy level player Mikko, and shit goaltending. We've seen that movie.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but we know what doesn't work.
The Abusement Park
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2016
- 35,115
- 26,304
So a team sans Mikko with Behrens and Malinski on the 3rd pair could potentially be better than a team with Mikko on it? Oy vey.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,207
- 56,500
History shows that teams can win the cup without a Rantanen but can't win without depth. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
There's a path to have both Rantanen and some kind of depth but that'd mean finding a way to get rid of Landy and Nuke contracts (both).
There's a path to have both Rantanen and some kind of depth but that'd mean finding a way to get rid of Landy and Nuke contracts (both).
You can have a pretty thin team, stars and goaltending though. Pitt did it twice.
If they keep Mikko we need a better goalie. If he goes they need a better goalie.
There really isn't a path for this team where they can have below average goaltending anymore. Especially not after this year.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 16,880
- 23,936
Depth comes from ELC players contributing, and getting surplus value on your rank and file players. A team with less superstars/better players is NOT more likely to win, no matter what mental gymnastics you try to use. If you get rid of Rantanen, I can guarantee you that 12-13M dollars spent on a few more "depth pieces" matters f*** all, and the team will be worse off.
If you want to argue Rantanen has to go because of math, that's fine. Stop trying to bullshit yourself and others that using his capspace for "depth" is going to improve the team. It won't.
If you want to argue Rantanen has to go because of math, that's fine. Stop trying to bullshit yourself and others that using his capspace for "depth" is going to improve the team. It won't.
expatriatedtexan
Habitual Line Stepper
- Aug 17, 2005
- 18,684
- 15,129
And I can guarantee that spending 12M+ on Rant closes the window. It doesn't end the show, but it closes any possibility of being a serious contender. ALthough to be honest, you could make an argument that we are already beyond that point no matter what we do.
One problem is that goaltending is quite a lottery so that (excluding _very_ few names), money doesn't guarantee a great goalie. And vice versa, a goalie can be great without a big contract.
Especially when it comes to the playoffs.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,207
- 56,500
Quote me when you reply to me, it makes it easier.
/thread
If we re-up him Drouin is gone BTW.
Okay, let's say you traded Rantanen for several cheaper pieces, then signed someone like Stamkos or Guentzel as a free agent.
Are we worse off? I don't think so personally. We added some pieces from the trade and saved cap.
That's potentially a better team to me.
Probably what we should have done. Too late now though.
cinchronicity
Registered User
Not even remotely what I typed. A team with those two on the third line, but keeping Mittlestadt, Drouin, Colton, and Girard (plus getting a goalie that deserves $5M+) - especially after Makar gets his new contract - very well may be.
dahrougem2
Registered User
And yet, the more you like to repeat this point the more it's asked of you to show a team that won the Stanley Cup without multiple stars.
Hint: In the cap era, it has never happened.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,207
- 56,500
How many top 10 players were playing for the last 2 cup winners? How many 10M+ AAV wingers have won the cup?
expatriatedtexan
Habitual Line Stepper
- Aug 17, 2005
- 18,684
- 15,129
We're coming up on Halloween in a couple of weeks. What would you rather the Avs post footage of? Actual conversations between CMac and Rants' agent or the footage of whatever ritual the '22 team performed to win that Cup and then immediately thrust us into this age of darkness?
dahrougem2
Registered User
The 10M argument holds literally zero weight because the cap hasn't allowed for it. People used that argument all the time, then Florida wins with a 10M player and all of a sudden the goal posts move.
You need multiple stars to win. You need depth to win. You can't pick one over the other.
