Why the Mikko Rantanen contract was a win for both sides

To dial up my New England accent here: It’s ooooovahhh.

A drama that was starting to take more turns than an episode of “Empire” finally ended Saturday afternoon. Mikko Rantanen is signed, for the next six seasons, at a cap hit of $9.25 million per. Rantanen still has to pass a physical and do other fitness testing that his teammates all did on Sept. 13, not to mention travel all the way here from Finland.

So, it remains unknown if he will be in the opening-night lineup, Thursday against Calgary.

My first thought on the contract: It is a win for both sides.

Just 24 hours before, the Rantanen camp was NOT happy at the state of things. That much I can promise you. A day later, all is sunshine and flowers. My latest and best information, as of Friday morning, was that the Avs’ top offer was $8.9 million AAV on a long-term deal. Rantanen wanted a contract with a cap hit that started at a 9.

As I wrote in a story yesterday:

I do think it’s a good sign that the Avs have come up a little. I think, personally, that $8.9 million a year is a hell of a lot of money. But I’m not an all-star right winger. And, again, a long-term deal has to factor in those UFA years. At current production, Rantanen would easily make more than $10 million per as a UFA. Maybe – maybe – the sides will still “meet in the middle” at something like 9.25. We’ll see. Rantanen really wants to rejoin his team. But I also know this: that he feels upset about this, that there is the chance of some real animosity between him and the team developing. I still think cooler heads will prevail and something will get done.

Well, what do you know: $9.25 million became the magic number! Amazing how that works, isn’t it? (The Avs are saying they didn’t suddenly cave at that compromise number. Whatever, who cares anymore. The deal is done, and both sides did well). Here’s why:

The Avs can now credibly say to people, “We didn’t go anywhere near that $10.9 million Mitch Marner number on a six-year deal like Toronto did. Four years from now, when Mikko could have been an unrestricted free agent, 9.25 is going to look like a steal. We didn’t cave and do a bridge deal like Calgary did with Tkachuk and Winnipeg did with Laine. We stayed within our budget and that’ll make it easier for us to sign guys like MacKinnon, Landeskog, Makar and Grubauer in the next 3-4 years.”

Rantanen can now credibly tell all his fellow all-star buddies and NHLPA staffers, “I got six years at an AAV in the 9s, when the first offers weren’t going past the 8s. I’m going to be 28 when this deal is done. I am still going to get one more huge contract after this one. I didn’t break their bank, either. This will help us to stay a good team for a good long run.” 

The Avs now have cost certainty for the next six years with one of the best young forwards in the NHL. By any definition, that’s a win. Joe Sakic definitely enhanced his reputation again, by not doing a silly deal like Toronto did with Marner (hey, the guy’s a tremendous player, but the Leafs caved). Remember all the idiots who were calling for Sakic’s head just a couple years ago? They’re pretty damn silent now.

And, I think Mike Liut did a good job for his client too. The particulars of the contract are such that Rantanen is going to pocket well over half the value of his $55.5 million within the first three years. As CapFriendly reported, the deal is structured like this:

Mikko Rantanen #Avs
6 year / $55.5M total (9.25M AAV)

2019-20: $12M
2020-21: $12M
2021-22: $10M
2022-23: $6M
2023-24: $9.5M
2024-25: $6M

All base salary, no Signing Bonuses.https://t.co/0bPIlG4Jvt pic.twitter.com/YstFe8F0Vd

— CapFriendly (@CapFriendly) September 28, 2019

I am not reporting this as a fact, but I do think that, originally, the contract had a structure with the opposite kind of salary ladder, where the bigger numbers would have come at the end. I think that the deal perhaps flipping in structure to more money now than later, in Rantanen’s pocket, was a factor in closing this thing fast. That might be wrong, but based on talks I’ve had, I think it’s possible.

I’ve covered a lot of contract stories, and this one was certainly one of the more unique. It’s over now, and to that I say this: