Rumor: LA Kings interested in Evander Kane

[WildCard]

Per Dreger

 

Status quo with the Sabres and trade interest in Evander Kane. Ongoing discussions with teams on a "win now" path. Not clear on teams in mix

San Jose, LA, Anaheim...Montreal? NYI?

 

Gotta think that if we trade Kane, Reinhart stays

Edited June 21, 2017 by WildCard

[Georgia Blizzard]

If Kane can:

1- stay out of trouble off-ice

2- stay healthy

3-reduce his low percentage shots

 

He'd be worth extension

 

How big are those IF's ?

[sabills]

Those two things don't go hand in hand though. If you can't resign him for what you want, then you're forced to trade him, and you're not going to get what you want for him

 

I'm not forced to trade him. If I don't get what I want for him then I get my top leading scorer back for another year and reassess at the trade deadline next year. Then the question will be less "what can I get for him" and more "am I in contention for the playoffs right now". I agree that his value is likely as high as its going to get, but that doesn't mean that the value is high enough for me to trade him. 

[WildCard]

I'm not forced to trade him. If I don't get what I want for him then I get my top leading scorer back for another year and reassess at the trade deadline next year. Then the question will be less "what can I get for him" and more "am I in contention for the playoffs right now". I agree that his value is likely as high as its going to get, but that doesn't mean that the value is high enough for me to trade him. 

Sure, you can keep him. I just don't think it's worth it. I'd bet anything he's

 

A) Going to get hurt

B) Not going to be our leading scorer; seriously can we stop saying this? It's so misleading

C) Not resigning here next offseason

[dudacek]

As someone who doesn't want to trade Kane, but thinks he will be traded, here's something that has me questioning my conclusions:

 

Nathan Beaulieu appears to be the same type of entitled party boy Kane is, up to and including an arrest.

Am I overrating the Pegula message about character?

Edited June 21, 2017 by dudacek

[3putt]

no arrests yet.

[Tondas]

Sure, you can keep him. I just don't think it's worth it. I'd bet anything he's

 

A) Going to get hurt

B) Not going to be our leading scorer; seriously can we stop saying this? It's so misleading

C) Not resigning here next offseason

 

I think it comes down to C.  I don't think Kane wants to be in Buffalo (he lives in a hotel FFS).  Anyway, I see him in a warm weather city, and he'll have his choice after this year.  Trade him now while his asset value is as high as it's going to get.  If the D is better this year and can prevent more goals against, it somewhat mitigates the loss of Kane's scoring.  One of the Roch boys will have to step up.

[WildCard]

I think it comes down to C.  I don't think Kane wants to be in Buffalo (he lives in a hotel FFS).  Anyway, I see him in a warm weather city, and he'll have his choice after this year.  Trade him now while his asset value is as high as it's going to get.  If the D is better this year and can prevent more goals against, it somewhat mitigates the loss of Kane's scoring.  One of the Roch boys will have to step up.

Does he really? :lol:

[sabills]

Sure, you can keep him. I just don't think it's worth it. I'd bet anything he's

 

A) Going to get hurt

B) Not going to be our leading scorer; seriously can we stop saying this? It's so misleading

C) Not resigning here next offseason

 

A) You have no idea that that is true. But fine.

B) He missed as many games as you are complaining about last year, and still led the team in scoring. I'm sorry, that's what he is. I'm not talking goals per game, or goals per minute, or 5v5 production, or some theoretical standard that we feel like holding him to; the man scored more goals than anyone else on the team. He gets that belt until he doesn't have it any more.

C) This doesn't affect this year. 

 

I'm not trading him out of fear that he won't sign. Guys don't re-sign all the time. You don't always HAVE to trade them. 

 

This is all mostly besides the point. I'm not taking a bag of pucks for him just because he MIGHT leave NEXT year. And neither are you. Obviously there is a minimum price that you would accept. Would you rather have a 7th round pick, or Evander Kane for a year? How about a 2nd rounder vs. Kane for a year? A second and a D prospect or Kane for a year? A first by itself? There is a line, wherever you want to place it. and all I'm saying is to stick to that 

[Tondas]

Does he really? :lol:

 

Yes he does (suite at Harborcenter Marriott) 

[sabills]

Yes he does (suite at Harborcenter Marriott) 

 

I mean, thats a pretty sweet hotel...

[LGR4GM]

I'm not forced to trade him. If I don't get what I want for him then I get my top leading scorer back for another year and reassess at the trade deadline next year. Then the question will be less "what can I get for him" and more "am I in contention for the playoffs right now". I agree that his value is likely as high as its going to get, but that doesn't mean that the value is high enough for me to trade him. 

I think this season should be all about making the playoffs and that means if you can't get good value for Kane this summer, and are in playoff contention in March, you just keep him and see what your team can do. 

[Samson's Flow]

I think it comes down to C.  I don't think Kane wants to be in Buffalo (he lives in a hotel FFS).  Anyway, I see him in a warm weather city, and he'll have his choice after this year.  Trade him now while his asset value is as high as it's going to get.  If the D is better this year and can prevent more goals against, it somewhat mitigates the loss of Kane's scoring.  One of the Roch boys will have to step up.

I think it comes down to C as well. Part of effective asset management is re-signing the guys that are important and key pieces, but also realizing when a player has a low likelihood of re-signing with your team. Rather than lose them for nothing, it is prudent to get long-term value for them before losing them for nothing. Especially when you are not expected to be a upper tier contender this year.

 

If we were a cup contender it may make sense to keep him for one year to go for it, but realistically we are barely a playoff contender next year.

[LGR4GM]

Yes he does (suite at Harborcenter Marriott) 

 

 

I mean, thats a pretty sweet hotel...

Sounds like he lives in a condo basically right next to his place of employment. 

[WildCard]

A) You have no idea that that is true. But fine.

B) He missed as many games as you are complaining about last year, and still led the team in scoring. I'm sorry, that's what he is. I'm not talking goals per game, or goals per minute, or 5v5 production, or some theoretical standard that we feel like holding him to; the man scored more goals than anyone else on the team. He gets that belt until he doesn't have it any more.

C) This doesn't affect this year. 

 

I'm not trading him out of fear that he won't sign. Guys don't re-sign all the time. You don't always HAVE to trade them. 

 

This is all mostly besides the point. I'm not taking a bag of pucks for him just because he MIGHT leave NEXT year. And neither are you. Obviously there is a minimum price that you would accept. Would you rather have a 7th round pick, or Evander Kane for a year? How about a 2nd rounder vs. Kane for a year? A second and a D prospect or Kane for a year? A first by itself? There is a line, wherever you want to place it. and all I'm saying is to stick to that 

A) Kane averages 62 games per year (excluding the lockout year). By all means the most accurate prediction of him is that he will get hurt, again. You even say it in your own post 

B) Yeah, what a terrible theoretical standard goals / game is. It's almost like it's invented to take into account injuries.

C) Yes, it does. It's 99% of every person in the Trade Kane camp. 

I think it comes down to C as well. Part of effective asset management is re-signing the guys that are important and key pieces, but also realizing when a player has a low likelihood of re-signing with your team. Rather than lose them for nothing, it is prudent to get long-term value for them before losing them for nothing. Especially when you are not expected to be a upper tier contender this year.

 

If we were a cup contender it may make sense to keep him for one year to go for it, but realistically we are barely a playoff contender next year.

:worthy:

[Samson's Flow]

I'm not trading him out of fear that he won't sign. Guys don't re-sign all the time. You don't always HAVE to trade them. 

 

This is all mostly besides the point. I'm not taking a bag of pucks for him just because he MIGHT leave NEXT year. And neither are you. Obviously there is a minimum price that you would accept. Would you rather have a 7th round pick, or Evander Kane for a year? How about a 2nd rounder vs. Kane for a year? A second and a D prospect or Kane for a year? A first by itself? There is a line, wherever you want to place it. and all I'm saying is to stick to that 

To add to my point, obviously i'm not advocating trading him for a 7th, and we should certainly maximize value. Again, I don't think we are winning the cup next year with or without Kane, but adding a good prospect and a pick could help open that window a few years down the road.

[LGR4GM]

To add to my point, obviously i'm not advocating trading him for a 7th, and we should certainly maximize value. Again, I don't think we are winning the cup next year with or without Kane, but adding a good prospect and a pick could help open that window a few years down the road.

Let's say that the price now is something like a 3rd for Kane or a 2nd. Say they get a 3rd and a B prospect like a Bailey. Would you make that trade if you knew Kane was not resigning in July 2018? 

[WildCard]

Let's say that the price now is something like a 3rd for Kane or a 2nd. Say they get a 3rd and a B prospect like a Bailey. Would you make that trade if you knew Kane was not resigning in July 2018? 

I think that's the line in the sand where I'm not happy about it, but I'm not upset. A 2nd and a b prospect is about as low as I'd go I guess

[Tondas]

Let's say that the price now is something like a 3rd for Kane or a 2nd. Say they get a 3rd and a B prospect like a Bailey. Would you make that trade if you knew Kane was not resigning in July 2018? 

 

My opinion, that's what they could get at the trade deadline.  If they can't get better than that now, don't trade him.

[Samson's Flow]

A certain amount of roster churn is to be expected in pro sports. The good teams are generally cold and calculating by getting what they can for players when their value is high (different sport, but see Belichick/Pats), while the bad teams tend to be sentimental and hang on to their guys too long until they lose value or are lost for nothing (see Darcy's Sabres teams and Briere/Drury saga).

 

Can we start to be a smart team? We can't afford to pay Kane his market price long term given the preferred investment in Eichel/ROR/Okposo/Reino, so we need to cash him in for an entry level contract/cost controlled young player.

Let's say that the price now is something like a 3rd for Kane or a 2nd. Say they get a 3rd and a B prospect like a Bailey. Would you make that trade if you knew Kane was not resigning in July 2018? 

I wouldn't be happy with it, but I don't think the market is that low tbh. At minimum I would take a 2nd plus a B prospect (preferably on defense).

 

It may not be popular but it's better than nothing.

[Tondas]

I think it comes down to C as well. Part of effective asset management is re-signing the guys that are important and key pieces, but also realizing when a player has a low likelihood of re-signing with your team. Rather than lose them for nothing, it is prudent to get long-term value for them before losing them for nothing. Especially when you are not expected to be a upper tier contender this year.

 

If we were a cup contender it may make sense to keep him for one year to go for it, but realistically we are barely a playoff contender next year.

 

To add to my point, obviously i'm not advocating trading him for a 7th, and we should certainly maximize value. Again, I don't think we are winning the cup next year with or without Kane, but adding a good prospect and a pick could help open that window a few years down the road.

 

A certain amount of roster churn is to be expected in pro sports. The good teams are generally cold and calculating by getting what they can for players when their value is high (different sport, but see Belichick/Pats), while the bad teams tend to be sentimental and hang on to their guys too long until they lose value or are lost for nothing (see Darcy's Sabres teams and Briere/Drury saga).

 

Can we start to be a smart team? We can't afford to pay Kane his market price long term given the preferred investment in Eichel/ROR/Okposo/Reino, so we need to cash him in for an entry level contract/cost controlled young player.

I wouldn't be happy with it, but I don't think the market is that low tbh. At minimum I would take a 2nd plus a B prospect (preferably on defense).

 

It may not be popular but it's better than nothing.

 

You're on a roll, Boyes.  Agree with all these.

[GASabresIUFAN]

It's funny, but Dudacek and I suggested moving Kane for a 1st in this draft and some people on this site went crazy.  Now people are saying dump him for whatever a 2nd or a 3rd and a prospect.  

 

I disagree with that you get better deals now then at the deadline.  That isn't necessarily true.  In fact, if Kane keeps his nose clean and plays well again, you can see a huge rise in his value by the deadline.  Shattehkirk went for a 1st a conditional 2nd and 2 prospects at this year's deadline.  That is considerably more then we seem to be getting offered for Kane at this time.  Hanzel went for a 1st & a 2nd last year as well.  Guys like Eaves and Boyle went for a 2nd.

 

I'd take a 1st in this draft and a 2nd next year for Kane right now.

Edited June 21, 2017 by GASabresFan

[Lanny]

It's funny, but Dudacek and I suggested moving Kane for a 1st in this draft and some people on this site went crazy.  Now people are saying dump him for whatever a 2nd or a 3rd and a prospect.  

 

I disagree with that you get better deals now then at the deadline.  That isn't necessarily true.  In fact, if Kane keeps his nose clean and plays well again, you can see a huge rise in his value by the deadline.  Shattehkirk went for a 1st a conditional 2nd and 2 prospects at this year's deadline.  That is considerably more then we seem to be getting offered for Kane at this time.  Hanzel went for a 1st & a 2nd last year as well.  Guys like Eaves and Boyle went for a 2nd.

 

I'd take a 1st in this draft and a 2nd next year for Kane right now.

Good point, easier to fit in the cap at that point in the season.

[Samson's Flow]

It's funny, but Dudacek and I suggested moving Kane for a 1st in this draft and some people on this site went crazy.  Now people are saying dump him for whatever a 2nd or a 3rd and a prospect.  

 

I disagree with that you get better deals now then at the deadline.  That isn't necessarily true.  In fact, if Kane keeps his nose clean and plays well again, you can see a huge rise in his value by the deadline.  Shattehkirk went for a 1st a conditional 2nd and 2 prospects at this year's deadline.  That is considerably more then we seem to be getting offered for Kane at this time.  Hanzel went for a 1st & a 2nd last year as well.  Guys like Eaves and Boyle went for a 2nd.

 

I'd take a 1st in this draft and a 2nd next year for Kane right now.

Again, this is why NHL GM's get paid to make these decisions. It's a big game of chicken.

 

Do you take the trade value you know now (Door #1) or risk it for the potential return at the trade deadline (Door #2 and #3). It could be better or worse or so bad that you end up getting nothing at the end of the year. Unfortunately we don't know the value being offered now, and certainly don't know the trade deadline appetite. 

[nfreeman]

It's funny, but Dudacek and I suggested moving Kane for a 1st in this draft and some people on this site went crazy.  Now people are saying dump him for whatever a 2nd or a 3rd and a prospect.  

 

I disagree with that you get better deals now then at the deadline.  That isn't necessarily true.  In fact, if Kane keeps his nose clean and plays well again, you can see a huge rise in his value by the deadline.  Shattehkirk went for a 1st a conditional 2nd and 2 prospects at this year's deadline.  That is considerably more then we seem to be getting offered for Kane at this time.  Hanzel went for a 1st & a 2nd last year as well.  Guys like Eaves and Boyle went for a 2nd.

 

I'd take a 1st in this draft and a 2nd next year for Kane right now.

 

I think a key point in trading him now vs at the deadline is that if you trade him now, you're much more likely to get an NHL-ready defenseman who will play this year, whereas if you trade him at the deadline, you're only going to get picks and/or prospects.

 

Even that point, though, is dwarfed by 2 much more important factors:

 

1.  Is Kane interested in signing an extension with the Sabres?

 

2.  Are the Sabres interested in signing Kane to an extension?

 

We have zero information about either of these questions, and until we do, it's all just highly uninformed speculation.