Kane To Be Traded? What Can We Get?

[I-90 W]

If I live to see Kane in a playoff series I'm hoping its for Buffalo not against. He could be the type of player that tips the balance. Its hard to say but I think he will thrive in that atmosphere.

I could see that too. There is of course no way to measure that before it happens but I catch that vibe too. He has an air about him that exudes confidence and I think he'd be all over the place in playoff hockey.

[French Collection]

There's are no on ice reasons to trade him.  The only reasons to trade him is if we anticipate not being able to fit him in the cap at the price we value him at or Bots has information that the numbers he's getting from his agent on an extension is just too high compared to ours.

Correct.

 

First they need to determine if he wants to stay.

Then they can start to work on the money issue, cap hit, value and term.

[TrueBlueGED]

There's are no on ice reasons to trade him. The only reasons to trade him is if we anticipate not being able to fit him in the cap at the price we value him at or Bots has information that the numbers he's getting from his agent on an extension is just too high compared to ours.

False. He's atrocious defensively, not a great fit with our best players, and not especially useful on special teams. There are legitimate on-ice reasons to want to move him. How these are weighted against his even strength scoring, skating, and forechecking, is of course up to you. But let's not pretend he's some superstar player here.

Edited May 24, 2017 by TrueBlueGED

[dudacek]

I don't want to trade Kane

I don't believe Eklund knows anything

 

But anyone who thinks Kane isn't on the block needs to go back and watch his last two season-ending interviews, then watch Jack's, and Pegula's, then listen to Botterill about his vision for the team and think how Kane fits.

It's about doing things "the right way." Evander doesn't fit.

They want all-American, not the Raiders. That's why Murray doesn't have a job.

[Drunkard]

False. He's atrocious defensively, not a great fit with our best players, and not especially useful on special teams. There are legitimate on-ice reasons to want to move him. How these are weighted against his even strength scoring, skating, and forechecking, is of course up to you. But let's not pretend he's some superstar player here.

 

Last time I check, forechecking is a big part of playing defensively. You probably mean he's horrible in the defensive zone but to say he's atrocious defensively then to say later that forechecking is a strength is kind of an oxymoron.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Drunkard

[Eleven]

Is any of this coming from anyone credible or are we just circle jerking around Kane again?

[That Aud Smell]

There's are no on ice reasons to trade him.  The only reasons to trade him is if we anticipate not being able to fit him in the cap at the price we value him at or Bots has information that the numbers he's getting from his agent on an extension is just too high compared to ours.

 

Agreed, to a point.

 

False. He's atrocious defensively, not a great fit with our best players, and not especially useful on special teams. There are legitimate on-ice reasons to want to move him. How these are weighted against his even strength scoring, skating, and forechecking, is of course up to you. But let's not pretend he's some superstar player here.

 

I think this is a mostly fair assessment of the player. I'd add in how his very good Corsi/Fenwick ratings don't tell the whole story of how he plays.

 

But anyone who thinks Kane isn't on the block needs to go back and watch his last two season-ending interviews, then watch Jack's, and Pegula's, then listen to Botterill about his vision for the team and think how Kane fits.

It's about doing things "the right way." Evander doesn't fit.

They want all-American, not the Raiders. That's why Murray doesn't have a job.

 

Now this is something to chew on.

[TrueBlueGED]

Last time I check, forechecking is a big part of playing defensively. You probably mean he's horrible in the defensive zone but to say he's atrocious defensively then to say later that forechecking is a strength is kind of an oxymoron.

I can only assume you're confusing forechecking with backchecking?

[dudacek]

The auction won't be splashed all over the media because that's not Botterrill's way.

But a Kane trade will be the rookie GM's first big test.

 

I suspect the return will not be flashy - think unheralded young defenceman and tenacious character bottom six winger.

But it will be aimed at on- and off-ice chemistry and bang for the buck. And hopefully the steak will be better than the sizzle.

That just seems to be be Botterrill's MO.

Edited May 24, 2017 by dudacek

[Drunkard]

I can only assume you're confusing forechecking with backchecking?

 

Not really forechecking is playing defense too because the other team has the puck and the forechecker is actively trying to get it back for his team. Just because it happens in the offensive zone doesn't mean it's not defensive play.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Drunkard

[LGR4GM]

The issue that the instigators just brought up was how much speed we lose without Kane. They aren't wrong.

[dudacek]

They aren't.

Fortunately, Bailey and Baptiste and Carrier are waiting in the wings.

[spndnchz]

To all the ship jumpers and posters besides themselves at the thought of Kane leaving, he may have already told the JBot he doesn't plan on re-signing with the Sabres. Or at the very least, test the waters of Free Agency.

Size always matters. The best way to get deep penetration on the forecheck is with good size. They can repeatedly pound the D until they turnover and continue to get pounded.

 

Player still has to be the right fit. :flirt:

Is any of this coming from anyone credible or are we just circle jerking around Kane again?

 

Voldemort. He does hockey rumorrrrrrrs now.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm a little confused - a poster up there says that Kane is a locker room cancer, a caller said it on the hockey hotline as I came home a few minutes ago, and I expected Rivet and Peters to jump in and say it hasn't happened yet but they agreed with the call. 

Did I miss something? Have their been any reports of locker room issues centering around Kane in the past 24 hours that I haven't heard of? Because I'm quite confident there weren't any before that. 

And he's never going to be Henrik Sedin out there, but I was (pleasantly) shocked by how much Kane reinvented his game last year. He's still Kane, but I'm comfortable using the term "drastic" to describe how much he dialed in his quick shots off the rush that end any chance of establishing possession or a better scoring chance. Again, he's not going to lead the team in assists now because his passing and vision and hockey sense vary from mediocre to average, but at least relative to what you can expect out of a 24 year old hockey player that's been in the league 7 years, well, show me 5 that are playing today that changed their game as much as Evander did this year. 

[Huckleberry]

Only real issue to me is if he wants to be in buffalo long term.

If he asks for 7x7 you just simply walk away and trade him, he is not worth more than 5.5 to me.

 

edit: and at 5.5 I still want him scoring 30 a year because its one of few things he is good at.   That and banging his body around and maybe a fight here and there.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Huckleberry

[TrueBlueGED]

Not really forechecking is playing defense too because the other team has the puck and the forechecker is actively trying to get it back for his team. Just because it happens in the offensive zone doesn't mean it's not defensive play.

 

Or nobody has the puck. I really think you're stretching here, and don't think too many people would include forechecking when they're placing a value on a player's defensive contributions.

 

 

I'm a little confused - a poster up there says that Kane is a locker room cancer, a caller said it on the hockey hotline as I came home a few minutes ago, and I expected Rivet and Peters to jump in and say it hasn't happened yet but they agreed with the call. 

 

Did I miss something? Have their been any reports of locker room issues centering around Kane in the past 24 hours that I haven't heard of? Because I'm quite confident there weren't any before that. 

 

And he's never going to be Henrik Sedin out there, but I was (pleasantly) shocked by how much Kane reinvented his game last year. He's still Kane, but I'm comfortable using the term "drastic" to describe how much he dialed in his quick shots off the rush that end any chance of establishing possession or a better scoring chance. Again, he's not going to lead the team in assists now because his passing and vision and hockey sense vary from mediocre to average, but at least relative to what you can expect out of a 24 year old hockey player that's been in the league 7 years, well, show me 5 that are playing today that changed their game as much as Evander did this year. 

 

He was better than he was for part of the year, but the first few months he was same old Kane. Which makes me ask, did he drastically improve, or did he improve a more moderate amount and benefit from some puck luck distorting our views? His shooting percentage was three and a half points higher this season than last, and 1.8 points above his career average. In 7 more minutes of even strength time, he had 43 fewer shot attempts than last season (1096 to 1053), so a bit more selective, but not a ton. I think there's some chicken-egg here: some improvement, some luck.

 

Kane's hot streak was what, December-February? November he played like poop after returning from injury too soon, I think we all acknowledge this. In any event, his shooting percentage by month:

November: 0

December: 15.4

January: 12.5

February: 17

March: 5.9

April: 10

 

Prior to this season, he hadn't shot over 10.5% for a whole month since April 2014. I'm really not comfortable with saying he permanently transformed his game to any huge degree.

Only real issue to me is if he wants to be in buffalo long term.

If he asks for 7x7 you just simply walk away and trade him, he is not worth more than 5.5 to me.

 

edit: and at 5.5 I still want him scoring 30 a year because its one of few things he is good at.   That and banging his body around and maybe a fight here and there.

 

Then you want to trade him, because I have a really hard time seeing him get less than $6M.

[Huckleberry]

 

Then you want to trade him, because I have a really hard time seeing him get less than $6M.

 

not worth that for me, he isn't a 30 goal scorer, he'll always be around 25 goals a year.

[Randall Flagg]

Or nobody has the puck. I really think you're stretching here, and don't think too many people would include forechecking when they're placing a value on a player's defensive contributions.

 

 

 

He was better than he was for part of the year, but the first few months he was same old Kane. Which makes me ask, did he drastically improve, or did he improve a more moderate amount and benefit from some puck luck distorting our views? His shooting percentage was three and a half points higher this season than last, and 1.8 points above his career average. In 7 more minutes of even strength time, he had 43 fewer shot attempts than last season (1096 to 1053), so a bit more selective, but not a ton. I think there's some chicken-egg here: some improvement, some luck.

 

Kane's hot streak was what, December-February? November he played like poop after returning from injury too soon, I think we all acknowledge this. In any event, his shooting percentage by month:

November: 0

December: 15.4

January: 12.5

February: 17

March: 5.9

April: 10

 

Prior to this season, he hadn't shot over 10.5% for a whole month since April 2014. I'm really not comfortable with saying he permanently transformed his game to any huge degree.

 

Then you want to trade him, because I have a really hard time seeing him get less than $6M.

Forget about goals - I saw a different player to a degree higher than that of any Sabre forward in his age 24 or 7th NHL season I've ever seen. I'm remarking on that, is all. It was legitimately impressive to me. 

 

I'm not going to cry if they make the decision to move on. 

 

As far as Boston goes - Krug, McAvoy, Carlo, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak are the only names on that team I'd be happy with in a 1 for 1 trade. Obviously no chance at any of them. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[GASabresIUFAN]

Player still has to be the right fit. :flirt:

 

Voldemort. He does hockey rumorrrrrrrs now.

Took a while for someone to get it.

 

The rumors are from sources including but limited to Ek, but my original post stems from reading some Anaheim writers who brought up Kane. I'll post the link if I can find it. I lead with the Ek rumor because I thought it was funny. I'll will say this for him on a Bos trade it would be credible because the B's do have D to trade, but I doubt we trade Kane intra division.

 

The downside of trading Kane is speed and 5 on 5 scoring, but if he has already told Jbot he is going to explore free agency, I'd trade him now while teams are influx before expansion, draft and free agency.

 

I think we can get a Brodin or Vatanen for him. The bigger question is JBot willing to take on another player with a big contract or will he try to fix the D with cheaper players.

 

I can also see Jbot moving Kane for picks and prospects to replenish the system and Rochester while freeing up cap space in Buffalo. I'd be ok with moving Kane for a 1st rd pick this season. If I can get a top 15 pick for him I'd have to consider it.

Forget about goals - I saw a different player to a degree higher than that of any Sabre forward in his age 24 or 7th NHL season I've ever seen. I'm remarking on that, is all. It was legitimately impressive to me. 

 

I'm not going to cry if they make the decision to move on. 

As far as Boston goes - Krug, McAvoy, Carlo, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak are the only names on that team I'd be happy with in a 1 for 1 trade. Obviously no chance at any of them.

 

I agree these guys aren't available, but I might take Colin Miller and their 1st for him (if they weren't in our division).

[TrueBlueGED]

Forget about goals - I saw a different player to a degree higher than that of any Sabre forward in his age 24 or 7th NHL season I've ever seen. I'm remarking on that, is all. It was legitimately impressive to me. 

 

I'm not going to cry if they make the decision to move on. 

 

As far as Boston goes - Krug, McAvoy, Carlo, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak are the only names on that team I'd be happy with in a 1 for 1 trade. Obviously no chance at any of them. 

 

I don't think it's that simple, because I think that pucks were going in the net exerts a strong influence on the degree to which it's viewed he changed his game. And I don't want you to think I'm singling you out or anything--I think it's widely viewed he transformed himself this year. I just can't help but wonder if people would think the same if he shot 9% over those three months instead of 15. 

 

Anyway, I'm in a real weird spot with Kane. I want to move on because I don't love his fit at the price I think he'll demand in both term and dollars, but I also fully expect to be underwhelmed by any return in a trade. I'd rather keep him than get a lackluster return, but I'd rather trade him than overpay. So basically, I'm in no-man's land here :lol:

[LGR4GM]

I'm worried about that shot percentage. It's how you talk yourself into bad contracts.

[LTS]

The question boils down to this..

 

Is Baptiste or Bailey a better fit for that position?  

 

Kane is 6'2 214

Bailey is 6'3 214

Baptiste is 6'1 204

 

If you have the chance to move Kane and get a top D and a pick I think you take it.  He's a high value contract now, an off-season mess (although so far so good this off-season eh?), and he may not want to be here.  Perhaps you can move him out, move ROR to that wing, put Reinhart at C?  :)

 

I'd trade him if the value was there.

[Sabel79]

 

I'd trade him if the value was there.

This can be said of any player. For a select few, there is no value to be gained. EK is not one of those, though selling low would piss me right off.

[LGR4GM]

This can be said of any player. For a select few, there is no value to be gained. EK is not one of those, though selling low would piss me right off.

I think b4 the expansion draft his value will be high. You can get Kane for a defender you can't protect, seems like great value. I'd certainly call Buffalo if I were they other gm... Anaheim cough

[Sabel79]

I think b4 the expansion draft his value will be high. You can get Kane for a defender you can't protect, seems like great value. I'd certainly call Buffalo if I were they other gm... Anaheim cough

Most definitely. Then I remember the return for Taylor Hall and start to get nervous.