Rumor: LA Kings interested in Evander Kane

[inkman]

I detest the idea of trading Kane for futures. If the Sabres have to trade him, they need to get a good player who will be in their lineup this fall.

 

If they flip those futures for presents?

[Hank]

Fake news

True opinion. 

[LikeEich]

This.

 

I detest the idea of trading Kane for futures. If the Sabres have to trade him, they need to get a good player who will be in their lineup this fall.

 

 

 

Fair, but as I mentioned above it can't be for futures. That would be an unambiguous step back.

Addition by subtraction.

[Hank]

Addition by subtraction.

Again, case in point. 

[LikeEich]

Again, case in point.

I like you haha.

 

Google doesn't have an answer for every question, and numbers on paper can't measure certain things. I just jope we can get semi decent value out of a trade

[inkman]

True opinion.

Subjective opinion based on limited or unsupported data

[shrader]

Frankly, there's some value in Botterill standing up and showing the world that he won't be had, too.  I'd greatly prefer that to trading Kane for a draft pick.

 

They absolutely need someone who makes an impact today if they move him.  That wouldn't be a case of Botterill being had.  The only way I move him for a non-immediate impact is if it gets down to the trade deadline.

[Hank]

Subjective opinion based on limited or unsupported data

Reasoned opinion based off of being a member of this community for 15+ years and understanding the "vibe" of the boards more active members. 

[WildCard]

Kane is a terrible person and I don't like him. We should move him

[Randall Flagg]

I think there's a decent chance that they have to move Kane because he wants to test free agency, and that they won't be able to get anything more than futures because players under contract that fit what other teams see his value to be will be very underwhelming. I won't get mad if that happens. It's how it goes sometimes. 

[dudacek]

Again, why are you proposing to trade the team's leading goal scorer for a draft pick who might never make it to the NHL?  In what world does that make sense?

 

 

I'm operating on the premise that the Kane trade has been mandated - either by Kane as a signing issue, by Botterill as a dressing room issue, or by Pegula as a "I don't like the guy" issue.  If it's a case of "this guy has to go" then it's Botterrill's job to maximize the assets in return. If your best offers are pick 13, or pick 53 and Kevan Miller, I take pick 13. Of course, I'd rather it be Cam Fowler, but I don't think that's going to happen.

 

If, and I do mean IF we were to trade Kane to LA, would anyone here be against getting Forbort and their #11 for Kane? I think that would be an incredible return for Kane with only one year left on his contract.

I'm not in love with Forbort the way you are, but I do think this is the best type of return we could expect.

[WildCard]

I think there's a decent chance that they have to move Kane because he wants to test free agency, and that they won't be able to get anything more than futures because players under contract that fit what other teams see his value to be will be very underwhelming. I won't get mad if that happens. It's how it goes sometimes. 

We've been saying this since October, that and his health and inconsistency. It has 0% to do with what we think of him as a person. If we wanna play that game I'll fully accept Patty Kane here any day

[Hank]

Kane is a terrible person and I don't like him. We should move him

Was that not the opinion of many less than a year ago?

[nfreeman]

If they flip those futures for presents?

 

 

OK, but that's a pretty big "if."

 

 

Addition by subtraction.

 

Serious question:  do you think Kane is holding his teammates back from greater success?

 

 

 

I'm operating on the premise that the Kane trade has been mandated - either by Kane as a signing issue, by Botterill as a dressing room issue, or by Pegula as a "I don't like the guy" issue.  If it's a case of "this guy has to go" then it's Botterrill's job to maximize the assets in return. If your best offers are pick 13, or pick 53 and Kevan Miller, I take pick 13. Of course, I'd rather it be Cam Fowler, but I don't think that's going to happen.

 

I'm not in love with Forbort the way you are, but I do think this is the best type of return we could expect.

 

This is fair.  I suppose I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the Sabres oughta be able to get a real player who's ready now in exchange for Kane.

[North Buffalo]

Or is all rumor and innuendo from other teams... fake news.

[inkman]

Was that not the opinion of many less than a year ago?

There was certainly a ground swell of resentment toward him but it has since dissipated with a good season on and off the ice. I don't see anyone wanting to move him because he's a bad guy anymore.

[LGR4GM]

There was certainly a ground swell of resentment toward him but it has since dissipated with a good season on and off the ice. I don't see anyone wanting to move him because he's a bad guy anymore.

I would love to keep Kane. The issue is that contract and how well he mixes on the ice with our core. It is so hard to tell because we had Dan freaking Bylsma as coach the last 2 years. 

[LGR4GM]

This is being called an average draft. No generational talent, but potentially solid NHL players deep into the 2nd rd. Despite all of our wishes to be a contender next season, we simply don't have the organizational talent to compete. JBot is a builder and that is what he will do. Trading Kane for the 11th (combined with our 8th) gives Jbot two huge building blocks to build the depth long-term. If we draft the right guys (valimaki and Vesalainen :) ), i think both will be in the NHL within 2 years.

If I have picks #8 and #11 I am not taking Valimaki and Vesalainen. I am taking one of the 8 I have talked about in the draft thread and then maybe Vesalainen at #11 if he is there (I do like him). Taking him at #8 I think is a slight reach because I think other players will be available (Liljegren or Makar)

 

That said a draft of Liljegren and Vesalainen would be really really solid work. I know people hate waiting but probably as soon as 2018 we would see an impact from these guys. Both are physically almost NHL ready. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by LGR4GM

[JJFIVEOH]

What numbers, specifically, were cherry-picked?

 

If you have a real rebuttal to GA's #s, let's see it.

 

Until then, the exchange on stats was a decisive win for GA.

 

It's how he presents the players being compared, the way he glorifies the player he supports while degrading the player he doesn't through the use of deceiving numbers. Him and I have been down this road before, unless you're familiar with it, I wouldn't expect you to understand. 

[nfreeman]

It's how he presents the players being compared, the way he glorifies the player he supports while degrading the player he doesn't through the use of deceiving numbers. Him and I have been down this road before, unless you're familiar with it, I wouldn't expect you to understand. 

 

What?

 

Here's what you said:

 

 

Why do you insist on using seasonal totals as comparison when Kane is better at goals per game average AND points per game average. 

 

Kane is better than Lucic, and it's not close. 

 

 

You made a very specific claim about their respective stats.

 

GA responded with:

 

 

I have no idea where you learned to do math, but you are incorrect.  I wrote earlier that Kane is the better raw goal scorer, but rest of the stats favor Lucic. 

 

Points

Lucic 729 gms 447 pts = .613 pts per gm  (FYI this number is nearly identical in the playoffs 70pts in 114gms for .614 pts /g)

Kane 496 gms 300 pts = .604 pts per gm (zero playoff games)

 

Assists

Lucic 729 gms 265 asts = .363 a/gm

Kane 496 gms 143 asts = .288 a/gm

 

Goals

Lucic 729 gms 182 gls = .249

Kane 496 gms 157 gls = .317

 

In other words, GA responded with the actual, specifically applicable data that relates to your claim as to the 2 players' stats.

 

As it turns out, one of your claims (GPG) was right, while the other was wrong (PPG).  You would've known this if you'd bothered to check the facts before you posted.

 

Then, when presented with the actual facts, your response, instead of "I was right about GPG but wrong about PPG" was to claim that GA was cherry-picking his data.

 

Again:  how in the world can GA's post be described as cherry-picking? 

[JJFIVEOH]

That's not what I was talking about. 

 

Let it go.

[LGR4GM]

That's not what I was talking about. 

 

Let it go.

Then what were you talking about? 

[GASabresIUFAN]

He is under the impression that I am a fan of Lucic and a Kane hater.  I'm not, but the evidence shows that Lucic has been and is a better NHL player then Kane.  More consistent and more prolific.  Dudacek was trying to gauge what Kane's value would be in trade by correctly looking at what "similar" power forward brought in trade.  I was trying to point out that Lucic is a better player and therefore has a higher value.  Apparently this offended JJ is some way.

 

By the way, I think Dudacek and I are in agreement that the best we might do is pick 11 or so.  It may be hard to find a true hockey trade involving Kane.   We might have to take a future asset like a 1st rd pick to clear him off the books if that is Jbot's intention.  Eleven asked why trade your top scorer for futures.  It's a fair question, but the answer is sometimes such a move is in the best interest of the team and the reasons could be locker room, cap related, player wanting out of Buffalo etc..  In Kane's case, I can see all these factors being in play.  

 

As to the 11th overall pick. I really like Vesalainen and think if we take him, he'd probably make the team in 2018-19.  I trust Jbot to fill the gap at LW for a year.

[Eleven]

He is under the impression that I am a fan of Lucic and a Kane hater.  I'm not, but the evidence shows that Lucic has been and is a better NHL player then Kane.  More consistent and more prolific.  Dudacek was trying to gauge what Kane's value would be in trade by correctly looking at what "similar" power forward brought in trade.  I was trying to point out that Lucic is a better player and therefore has a higher value.  Apparently this offended JJ is some way.

 

By the way, I think Dudacek and I are in agreement that the best we might do is pick 11 or so.  It may be hard to find a true hockey trade involving Kane.   We might have to take a future asset like a 1st rd pick to clear him off the books if that is Jbot's intention.  Eleven asked why trade your top scorer for futures.  It's a fair question, but the answer is sometimes such a move is in the best interest of the team and the reasons could be locker room, cap related, player wanting out of Buffalo etc..  In Kane's case, I can see all these factors being in play.  

 

As to the 11th overall pick. I really like Vesalainen and think if we take him, he'd probably make the team in 2018-19.  I trust Jbot to fill the gap at LW for a year.

 

Then don't do it.

[LGR4GM]

I am def not opposed to Vesalainen at #11... I kinda like the idea.