Keep or Trade Evander Kane

[LTS]

I like Evander but I think he's going to want the Sabres to show him the money. If he signs for less than $7 mill, I'll be shocked. Someone will pay him.

 

The problem for Evander at this point in time is that he's not a UFA this year.  He's got to get through an off-season without incident and put up points next year before GM's go all in.

 

The Sabres have the control here which is good.

[Robviously]

Right now Kane is on a tare. We all know that.  But what, in your opinion, is a legit contract for Kane?  I'm thinking a 5 for 5.75 is fair.  Kane is earning a pay raise.  He can simply compare his stats to teammates and players across the NHL.  Kane's pay is going up.  Believe 5 years, maybe a gamble for the Sabres, can benefit both sides.  Locks him up until he's 31.  That's the + for Buffalo. When the contract is up, he's sill young enough to pursue one more fat contract. So it's a win win. 

 

*Reason I said gamble for a 5 year deal can be summed up w/ one name.  Moulson. 

Why would Kane sign that?  I can't imagine he'd have the year he's having and then ask for a smaller contract than what Okposo got.  Assuming he finishes the rest of the season like he's been playing the last 3 months, he'll be looking for 7 years at $7M/season.  And if he hits the open market in 2018, he'll probably get it.

[Radar]

The major concern with Kane and long term, big money contacts is simply can he stay clean off the ice. He definitely , barring a total collapse in his play, will be looking long term for big money. I was happy with ROR and Okposo contracts but Kane, to me, is bigger risk and I would discount some because of that for sure.

[kas23]

The major concern with Kane and long term, big money contacts is simply can he stay clean off the ice. He definitely , barring a total collapse in his play, will be looking long term for big money. I was happy with ROR and Okposo contracts but Kane, to me, is bigger risk and I would discount some because of that for sure.

That, and I don't think his current pace is sustainable, from a skill point and injury point. It'll be a risky contract.

[WildCard]

Why would Kane sign that? I can't imagine he'd have the year he's having and then ask for a smaller contract than what Okposo got. Assuming he finishes the rest of the season like he's been playing the last 3 months, he'll be looking for 7 years at $7M/season. And if he hits the open market in 2018, he'll probably get it.

Exactly. He is the perfect person for the Sabres to trade this offseason. Given everything about him and our needs, we couldn't have been gifted a better trade piece

[nucci]

Right now Kane is on a tare. We all know that.  But what, in your opinion, is a legit contract for Kane?  I'm thinking a 5 for 5.75 is fair.  Kane is earning a pay raise.  He can simply compare his stats to teammates and players across the NHL.  Kane's pay is going up.  Believe 5 years, maybe a gamble for the Sabres, can benefit both sides.  Locks him up until he's 31.  That's the + for Buffalo. When the contract is up, he's sill young enough to pursue one more fat contract. So it's a win win. 

 

*Reason I said gamble for a 5 year deal can be summed up w/ one name.  Moulson. 

isn't he already making $6M per year? Why would he take less?

[Lanny]

Cap hit's $5.25M

[JJFIVEOH]

Exactly. He is the perfect person for the Sabres to trade this offseason. Given everything about him and our needs, we couldn't have been gifted a better trade piece

 

One that produces?

[WildCard]

One that produces?

Hopefully he produces defensmen

[JJFIVEOH]

Hopefully he produces defensmen

 

Touché

[SwampD]

Hopefully he produces defensmen

I'd rather have his offense. I've spent 40+ years watching good players go somewhere else for the promise of the future. I'm really enjoying watching him score goals now.

[WildCard]

I'd rather have his offense. I've spent 40+ years watching good players go somewhere else for the promise of the future. I'm really enjoying watching him score goals now.

Granted it hasn't been as long for me, but in my life I've spent years watching talented players stranded in Buffalo with no winning because the team and coaching staff around them sucks. I'd rather have a winning team than 1 great player putting up numbers

[SwampD]

Granted it hasn't been as long for me, but in my life I've spent years watching talented players stranded in Buffalo with no winning because the team and coaching staff around them sucks. I'd rather have a winning team than 1 great player putting up numbers

other than Hasek, who's been stranded?

[WildCard]

other than Hasek, who's been stranded?

Buffalo in general, not just the Sabres. 

 

But, in my memory, for the Sabres? Vanek without a center and Miller without a team come to mind. Then again, I've not been alive too long. You're telling me Mogilny, PLF, etc. were given talented teams where they should have won a Cup?

[Scottysabres]

Buffalo in general, not just the Sabres. 

 

But, in my memory, for the Sabres? Vanek without a center and Miller without a team come to mind. Then again, I've not been alive too long. You're telling me Mogilny, PLF, etc. were given talented teams where they should have won a Cup?

Those 92 to 94 Sabres teams were fast paced offensive teams for the too line at least. But Cup? With depth scoring more consistent and a better D and yea, they could have pushed.

[Weave]

Buffalo in general, not just the Sabres. 

 

But, in my memory, for the Sabres? Vanek without a center and Miller without a team come to mind. Then again, I've not been alive too long. You're telling me Mogilny, PLF, etc. were given talented teams where they should have won a Cup?

 

Yes.  fate intervened with PLF et al winning a cup.  That team had PLF, Mogilny, Hawerchuck, Andrechuck, Bodger, Svoboda, Fuhr, hell, Hasek was even on the roster.  Team was STACKED.  Injuries to Lafontaine and Mogilny coupled with Patrick Roy on a  mission to win a Cup derailed us.  After that the injuries started to slow Lafontaine and the whole thing slipped away.

[Eleven]

Buffalo in general, not just the Sabres. 

 

But, in my memory, for the Sabres? Vanek without a center and Miller without a team come to mind. Then again, I've not been alive too long. You're telling me Mogilny, PLF, etc. were given talented teams where they should have won a Cup?

 

Miller WITHOUT A TEAM?

 

You are back to Charlie work.  Permanently.

 

That team was going to win the Cup until McKee went down.

[WildCard]

Miller WITHOUT A TEAM?

 

You are back to Charlie work.  Permanently.

 

That team was ###### going to win the Cup until McKee went down.

So he had what? 2/3 years with a good team? Then everyone left, and again we failed to build a team of anything but 2-3 fun players to watch

[GASabresIUFAN]

Kane talk is everywhere.

 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/sabres-could-benefit-most-from-hanging-onto-kane-until-next-deadline

 

http://www.wgr550.com/Simon-Should-the-Sabres-deal-Evander-Kane-/23021688

 

 

To trade now, to trade later or to trade not at all, that is the question.  This must be the hardest decision GMTM has ever had to make.  Can Kane keep this up?  Has he finally matured into the elite PF he was supposed to be?  How good is his chemistry with Jack and Sam on and off the ice?  Will he re-sign here/does he want to stay? These questions boil down to is he part of the core of the this team?  If the answer is no to any of these questions, then trade him this off-season.  If he is part of the core, is willing to stay and has finally matured, then I'm coming around to keeping him long-term.  I'm not quite there yet, but this is the best and most mature hockey he has ever played.  

 

I thought for awhile that he was really the only asset we had that could get us a top 4 D, but my review of the expansion situation with ANA, MN and the NYI has convinced me that we can get a top 4 guy or someone who should quickly mature into that role, without using Kane.  This fact coupled with the consistency of his recent play (he hasn't taken a shift off since Dec) has me beginning to side with "Keep Him" voters.   

[dudacek]

I wonder where the talk is coming from?

 

Is it driven by fans who think they can get an impact player cheap based on Kane's history?

Did Murray make it known in the summer Kane could be moved, but not at reduced rates and his play lately has some GMs considering paying the price?

Is it about media speculation, Kane's high profile and a desire to get clicks?

 

I don't think Murray acquired Kane with the intention of flipping him; you don't pay that price unless it was a move designed to acquire a core asset. I do think it is possible that whatever Kane was involved in last year led to management changing its mind, but Murray wasn't going to do it then for pennies on the dollar.

 

I can't see him moved for less than we paid;

really, he should be a more valuable asset right now than he was when Winnipeg moved him.

Edited February 22, 2017 by dudacek

[Weave]

this is the best and most mature hockey he has ever played.  

 

It is also the first time in his entire career that he's had a highly skilled center consistently pivoting for him.  He's spent a career having to do it himself, and it showed in his game for the first season and almost a half.

[Winston]

I can't see him moved for less than we paid;

really, he should be a more valuable asset right now than he was when Winnipeg moved him.

I think it's hard to say.. when we traded for Kane, his value was lower because of his injury. But we were also trading for 3.5 years remaining on his contract. Now he's healthy and performing at an elite level, but you're talking 1.5 years of him. Minor off-ice issues to consider then, minor off-ice issues to consider now. Weigh it all, and I think it's hard to say what his value is at compared to the day we traded for him.

 

For the record, I want to see him stay and start working on a contract this off season. If his demands are too high but someone else will pay it, then I could get over a blockbuster this offseason. But I'd want proven commodity back, not futures. Kane is just too valuable right now and the next 5ish years to flush away for futures in my opinion.

[dudacek]

He's healthy, fitting in with his teammates and playing the best hockey of his life.

None of those things were true two years ago.

 

The contract may balance it off somewhat, but there should be no way he's worth less.

[Weave]

I could get over a blockbuster this offseason. But I'd want proven commodity back, not futures. Kane is just too valuable right now and the next 5ish years to flush away for futures in my opinion.

 

A-freaking-men

[Randall Flagg]

I think it's hard to say.. when we traded for Kane, his value was lower because of his injury. But we were also trading for 3.5 years remaining on his contract. Now he's healthy and performing at an elite level, but you're talking 1.5 years of him. Minor off-ice issues to consider then, minor off-ice issues to consider now. Weigh it all, and I think it's hard to say what his value is at compared to the day we traded for him.

 

For the record, I want to see him stay and start working on a contract this off season. If his demands are too high but someone else will pay it, then I could get over a blockbuster this offseason. But I'd want proven commodity back, not futures. Kane is just too valuable right now and the next 5ish years to flush away for futures in my opinion.

I agree with this, and I have absolutely zero confidence that the return in a potential trade would be even close to being worth it, now or in the future.