Kane traded to San Jose for a Cond. ‘19 1st, Dan O’ Regan and Conditional 4th

[WildCard]

Personally, I know I'm a POS

[Stoner]

He chooses to prepare by spending the least amount of time possible on the ice? K.

 

Last on, first off is not indicative of a guy who thinks (correctly) to himself, "the difference between success and mediocrity in this league is how you do dozens of the little things; I should get some extra time on the ice to work on those things." No. That is consistent with him being a guy who has supreme physical gifts -- like, probably, top 10% in the league -- and a motor that pretty reliably runs at 110 mph. And that's it. He thinks that's enough. And, honestly, he may not be capable of doing more or different than that.

 

I can't recall which game it was that I attended this season -- first half (third?) for sure. I know I posted this take at the time - maybe in the game thread. I sat in a section with which I've become familiar over the past 3 years. There's a good, fun collection of long-time STHs there -- people dating back to the 70s and 80s. Smart fans. Kane was skating on Eichel's line. The third time that Kane got needlessly gummed up with Eichel by moving to space that Eichel was moving to occupy (with the puck), one of those fans just screamed in frustration "GET OUT OF HIS DAMN WAY, KANE!" This section is about 15 rows up in the lower bowl, shoots twice end, between the face-off dots and the end line. The play was right in front of us. I am SURE the players heard this guy.

 

Anyhoo. If you've been watching Sabres hockey and have not concluded that Kane has really low hockey IQ, then I'm not sure what to say.

 

Yes, he can score at even strength. He's fast, strong, and generally gives a full effort. That's how and why he's had some success in the league. 

You probably should step back and consider the source of this information. Hammy... didn't he report last season that Reino stopped attending the "ROR practices" when the practices were no longer being held? I think Randall broke that story. Could be wrong.

 

This is a team full of hockey idiots. I don't know why the term low-IQ is being glommed onto Kane. Two players this year, Scandella and Girgensons, while killing penalties, have shot the puck from their own end of the rink over the opposing goalie and into the netting for delay of game penalties.

[Gramps]

Personally, I know I'm a POS

 

LOL, it's a tossup today as to the best entertainment for Sabres fans. The battles on this board or Wawrow vs Straw on Twitter. 

[Stoner]

Personally, I know I'm a POS

Recognizing this is the first step toward recovery. You do want to recover, right? Or are you aiming to be a moderator here?

[LTS]

I've read and heard all the contrary opinions including Jbot's self serving statement that this was his only offer.  I wasn't in the office to hear the other trade offers, but it's pretty clear that other UFAs with similar stats, many of which were older and one dimensional received higher value at the trade deadline then Kane.  That's a fact.  You can chalk it to lack of playoff experience, past conduct or whatever.  You can chalk it up to 100 different excuses, but the fact remains, one of our prime assets just left town and in return we received three "assets", none of which are likely to make an impact on this team now or in the near future.  You can spin that fact anyway you want by saying that was the best Jbot could do in a difficult situation or that there still is a chance to get a 1st for Kane etc...., or look at how much cap space we'll save etc..... However, that doesn't replace his 5 on 5 production for the worst scoring team in the NHL.   

 

However, if you want additional evidence of the basis for my correct opinion here you go.  

 

https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-sharks-get-kane-at-bargain-price-1.1011741

 

You know he only evaluates the moves based on statistics right?  I'm not sure any of his articles actually ever include an assessment of the business itself.  Statistically, yes, the Sabres don't win on this deal.  Reality, however, says that the Sabres were unlikely to win on this deal.  Moreover, statistics also don't take into account the specifics of a situation but rather apply a broad set of rules to a situation.

 

I think the problem here is that you (and others) continue to consider Kane a prime asset when it has become painfully clear that he was not as much of a prime asset as many of us (and many hockey insiders at times) believed he would be.  The bottom line was, and remains, the value of an asset is only as much as someone else is willing to pay for it and in this case the only deal we are aware of for Kane was this one.  Until there is evidence that there was a greater value on the table there is nothing to judge the deal against except the value of NOT moving Kane.

 

There's speculation by We've that we should have moved him in the past off-season.  There's no evidence that he could have been moved or moved for more than they received today.  The option of keeping him to see how he played under a new coach and GM probably also has some merit as well.  

 

I think we will understand the value of Evander Kane when he signs his next contract.  Until then I will treat the whole deal as one big fluid situation that has yet to be finalized and therefore can't have a final judgment made.  There are still significant IFs to be played out on this.

[SwampD]

So because some d-bag fans yelled a slur at a black player, that means that 30 NHL GMs decided that black players are worth less in trade than white players?  Really?

 

Again:  these GMs are paid to win, and get canned when they don't.  Black players are traded for high yields, and are signed to fat contracts, quite frequently.  THIS black player has had multiple issues with multiple teams, as well as multiple legal scrapes involving assaults on women, and we are now in the middle of a major societal upheaval centered around that very issue.

 

The starting point should be that race is irrelevant unless there is evidence to the contrary. 

Sometimes there just isn't enough evidence for some people.

[Georgia Blizzard]

Overwhelming consensus is that Buffalo was big loser at deadline.  We can debate who to blame, J Bot, GMTM, Kane, racism etc. etc.

 

It is what it is.  We got very few assets for the pending UFA's on the team and for a fan base that has suffered over the past several years this only serves to further dampen the faint glimmer of hope.

 

It's depressing.  Not hopeless, but certainly not encouraging.

[Stoner]

Overwhelming consensus is that Buffalo was big loser at deadline.  We can debate who to blame, J Bot, GMTM, Kane, racism etc. etc.

 

It is what it is.  We got very few assets for the pending UFA's on the team and for a fan base that has suffered over the past several years this only serves to further dampen the faint glimmer of hope.

 

It's depressing.  Not hopeless, but certainly not encouraging.

This is the perfect summary. We as fans got hosed. Yet many here, perhaps in denial, have to buy into the bizarre notion that the return for Kane was juuuuuuuust right, despite what they literally wrote hours before the deadline. Truly weird.

[Weave]

Regarding requiring evidence to offer a theory.... ugh, more posters setting rules for conversation. Makes me stabby.

 

It should be pretty obvious that none of us here have the connections to offer evidence. That doesn’t mean we should not talk about the smoke we saw/smelled. Fer cripes sake, if we were limited to commentary that had evidence support this site would get 5 posts per day.

[nfreeman]

Sometimes there just isn't enough evidence for some people.

 

But the point is that there is zero evidence. 

 

Do you think the outcome itself is evidence? 

[jahnyc]

The question is how do things get fixed?  We do not have much cap room for next year and there is no pipeline of talent coming from Rochester other than Ullmark and maybe Guhle.  Right now, we only have one first round pick (should be top five), and it is possible we will not see this pick playing for the Sabres for at least a year or two.  If you trade O'Reilly and/or Reinhart, do you get equivalent value or players that can play now?  Probably not.  This is going to take years to fix.  We are not the Devils or the Avalanche, teams that made relatively quick turn arounds.

[SwampD]

But the point is that there is zero evidence. 

 

Do you think the outcome itself is evidence? 

 

No. It's the result, but there were on ice comparables and they got more, that's not nothing.

 

You said yourself that  GMs are paid to win, and get canned when they don't . Then you went on to mention a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with winning or losing. Which is it? Do GMs think he's a risk because he's going to rape some white women and blow their chances at a playoff run? 

 

And again, I said it's just what I believe. I personally think that Kane lowered his value to some GMs the day he posted a picture of a young black kid doing pushups with mad stacks.

Edited February 27, 2018 by SwampD

[That Aud Smell]

So because some d-bag fans yelled a slur at a black player, that means that 30 NHL GMs decided that black players are worth less in trade than white players?  Really?

 

Again:  these GMs are paid to win, and get canned when they don't.  Black players are traded for high yields, and are signed to fat contracts, quite frequently.  THIS black player has had multiple issues with multiple teams, as well as multiple legal scrapes involving assaults on women, and we are now in the middle of a major societal upheaval centered around that very issue.

 

The starting point should be that race is irrelevant unless there is evidence to the contrary. 

 

Well, I think that's just wrong. The manner in which the other objective factors get evaluated and weighed can be influenced by racism. That's not to say it happens all the time, or even happened here. But it's naive to say it doesn't happen. The problem being: It's difficult to tease out when and where it happens.

 

One can easily be a message board POS and walk rescue dogs and read to the blind IRL.

Personally, I know I'm a POS

 

Maybe it's semantics. That term is a virtual molotov cocktail, to me. #triggered

 

You probably should step back and consider the source of this information. Hammy... didn't he report last season that Reino stopped attending the "ROR practices" when the practices were no longer being held? I think Randall broke that story. Could be wrong.

 

This is a team full of hockey idiots. I don't know why the term low-IQ is being glommed onto Kane. Two players this year, Scandella and Girgensons, while killing penalties, have shot the puck from their own end of the rink over the opposing goalie and into the netting for delay of game penalties.

 

Okay - well, it is tricky to follow the bouncing ball on the last on, first off report. In any case, I don't really need the last on, first off story to confirm my take on Kane's hockey IQ and ability to devote attention to details. That report, if true, is consistent with my understanding.

 

Low hockey IQ seems particularly apt for Kane because his physical skill set is so remarkable, and his effort generally so consistent, that the absence of a decent hockey IQ becomes that much more glaring. 

 

I'm not sure about Scandella. Girgensons? Makes total sense. He seemed like he could become a decent middle 6 forward when he played for a coach who wanted him to do nothing except skate through brick walls. Thing is: Girgensons isn't nearly the talent that Kane is, so the fact that he lacks hockey IQ isn't as jarring to watch.

 

The question is how do things get fixed?  We do not have much cap room for next year and there is no pipeline of talent coming from Rochester other than Ullmark and maybe Guhle.  Right now, we only have one first round pick (should be top five), and it is possible we will not see this pick playing for the Sabres for at least a year or two.  If you trade O'Reilly and/or Reinhart, do you get equivalent value or players that can play now?  Probably not.  This is going to take years to fix.  We are not the Devils or the Avalanche, teams that made relatively quick turn arounds.

 

Another good take, even if this gave me a sad.

 

I've got my eyes peeled for your content, JAH.

[dudacek]

I remember gloating about Darcy’s Jedi mind trick trades.

I remember the charge I got from finally being able to spend big money in free agency.

I remember collecting a ridiculous number of draft picks and thinking “wow, we are going to be great in a few years.”

I remember making big splashy trades for big name guys and thinking “this is awesome,”

 

Logically, there is no reason trading for a Dan O’Hurley should get me down.

[SDS]

Regarding requiring evidence to offer a theory.... ugh, more posters setting rules for conversation. Makes me stabby.

 

It should be pretty obvious that none of us here have the connections to offer evidence. That doesn’t mean we should not talk about the smoke we saw/smelled. Fer cripes sake, if we were limited to commentary that had evidence support this site would get 5 posts per day.

 

So, this depends on the poster and the argument. With regards to Kane's return, many have stated as fact that Botterill made a bad trade and that better trades were there to be made. This is then used as a basis to criticize JB and assert that he may not be fit to be a GM. This isn't really a offering a theory - it is a straw man argument, which is very different. 

[SwampD]

Overwhelming consensus is that Buffalo was big loser at deadline.  We can debate who to blame, J Bot, GMTM, Kane, racism etc. etc.

 

It is what it is.  We got very few assets for the pending UFA's on the team and for a fan base that has suffered over the past several years this only serves to further dampen the faint glimmer of hope.

 

It's depressing.  Not hopeless, but certainly not encouraging.

Perfect.

[nfreeman]

No. It's the result, but there were on ice comparables and they got more, that's not nothing.

 

You said yourself that  GMs are paid to win, and get canned when they don't . Then you went on to mention a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with winning or losing. Which is it? Do GMs think he's a risk because he's going to rape some white women and blow their chances at a playoff run? 

 

And again, I said it's just what I believe. I personally think that Kane lowered his value to some GMs the day he posted a picture of a young black kid doing pushups with mad stacks.

 

The point is that those items do affect winning and losing -- if a guy is a jerk in the locker room, or a bad influence on other players, or causing distractions due to off-ice matters -- there can be a very real effect on team performance.

 

 

Well, I think that's just wrong. The manner in which the other objective factors get evaluated and weighed can be influenced by racism. That's not to say it happens all the time, or even happened here. But it's naive to say it doesn't happen. The problem being: It's difficult to tease out when and where it happens.

 

Well, I suppose it can be, but why do we have to assume that it is? 

 

My issue on all of these matters is that I think it's profoundly destructive to just assume that people act in a racist manner.

 

I think the default assumption should be that people act in good faith unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise.

 

As you say, it's difficult to know when racism has occurred -- but if the default assumption is that it has occurred, all that happens is that everyone suspects each other all the time, people throw the accusation around like it's a nickel, the accused resent it, and things get worse, not better.

[stuuuuuuuuu]

FWIW over the past 20 years about half of the AHL rookie of the year winners turned out to not suck as NHLers.  The List Includes Mikko Rantanen, Matt Murray, Tyler Toffoli, Tyler Ennis, Rene Bourque , Teddy Purcell, Tyler Arnason, Danny Briere and Darcy Tucker.  

 

Sure there are plenty of Nathan Gerbe and Luke Adam's on the list as well but we may be pleasantly surprised with what O'Regan becomes.

[respk]

The question is how do things get fixed?  We do not have much cap room for next year and there is no pipeline of talent coming from Rochester other than Ullmark and maybe Guhle.  Right now, we only have one first round pick (should be top five), and it is possible we will not see this pick playing for the Sabres for at least a year or two.  If you trade O'Reilly and/or Reinhart, do you get equivalent value or players that can play now?  Probably not.  This is going to take years to fix.  We are not the Devils or the Avalanche, teams that made relatively quick turn arounds.

This is where I'm at after yesterday's activities. Botterill turned over 10 players on the roster and we are significantly worse than last year. What player has gotten better over last year or during the season. We have a core of Okposo, ROR, Reinhart, Risto and Eichel. The 1st 3 maybe too slow to compete at a winning level in today's NHL. Risto seems lost a lot of the time.  Eichel is on his second significant injury in 2 seasons. Optimism for next year is based on a draft lottery win, signing college free agents or the Kane trade was addition by subtraction. I'm struggling to see a way forward that leads to improvement any season soon.

[WildCard]

FWIW over the past 20 years about half of the AHL rookie of the year winners turned out to not suck as NHLers.  The List Includes Mikko Rantanen, Matt Murray, Tyler Toffoli, Tyler Ennis, Rene Bourque , Teddy Purcell, Tyler Arnason, Danny Briere and Darcy Tucker.  

 

Sure there are plenty of Nathan Gerbe and Luke Adam's on the list as well but we may be pleasantly surprised with what O'Regan becomes.

How old were those plays in their AHL rookie years though?

[dudacek]

What player has gotten better over last year or during the season.

On the team

Jack Eichel is significantly better than he was last year, more mature on and off the ice.

Sam Reinhart was invisible for the first 20 games. The past 20 he’s played like a legitimate first-liner.

Evan Rodrigues has moved up the lineup chart and responded.

Casey Nelson was a prospect the entire board had given up on. He’s playing like a legitimate NHLer.

Victor Antipin has been slowly getting more comfortable.

 

In the system

CJ Smith has been a first-liner in his rookie AHL season.

Brendan Guhle has stepped in and produced very well in his.

Linus Ullmark has cemented his position as the heir apparent in goal.

Victor Olofsson has turned into the best scorer in Sweden

Casey Mittelstadt has emerged as one of the best prospects in the world.

 

I’ve seen this idea before that no one is improving and I disagree.

[That Aud Smell]

I remember gloating about Darcy’s Jedi mind trick trades.

I remember the charge I got from finally being able to spend big money in free agency.

I remember collecting a ridiculous number of draft picks and thinking “wow, we are going to be great in a few years.”

I remember making big splashy trades for big name guys and thinking “this is awesome,”

 

Oh, man. When you put it that way.

 

Well, I suppose it can be, but why do we have to assume that it is? 

 

My issue on all of these matters is that I think it's profoundly destructive to just assume that people act in a racist manner.

 

I think the default assumption should be that people act in good faith unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise.

 

As you say, it's difficult to know when racism has occurred -- but if the default assumption is that it has occurred, all that happens is that everyone suspects each other all the time, people throw the accusation around like it's a nickel, the accused resent it, and things get worse, not better.

 

Fair.

 

Also fair.

 

My take is to shrug my shoulders and think that it's likely that there are probably a few GMs out there for whom the matter of Kane's race played a role (probably unwittingly) in their aversion to him.

 

How old were those plays in their AHL rookie years though?

 

Fair question. O'Regan (sp?) is a bit long in the tooth, but he seems like a guy who has a better than 50-50 shot at becoming a good bottom-6 forward/role player. Which is not exciting, I admit.

Edited February 27, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[Stoner]

So, this depends on the poster and the argument. With regards to Kane's return, many have stated as fact that Botterill made a bad trade and that better trades were there to be made. This is then used as a basis to criticize JB and assert that he may not be fit to be a GM. This isn't really a offering a theory - it is a straw man argument, which is very different. 

This post seems like a strawman itself. I haven't seen any posters present their opinions about the trade as fact. Can you clip some comments where opinions are presented as facts?

 

This continues to torment me. People see an opinion they don't like or agree with and they challenge it, asking for evidence or links or charts or whatever. "It's your opinion, not a fact!" Of course.

 

Whatever. We have to have disagreement about everything, I guess. Botterill got fleeced. He got fleeced so bad that the most reasonable opinion comes from Eleven: it would have been worth more to Botterill to tell San Jose to shove off.

[Winston]

This post seems like a strawman itself. I haven't seen any posters present their opinions about the trade as fact. Can you clip some comments where opinions are presented as facts?

 

 

Well, this did happen last page :P

 

 However, if you want additional evidence of the basis for my correct opinion here you go.  

 

[That Aud Smell]

Whatever. We have to have disagreement about everything, I guess. Botterill got fleeced. He got fleeced so bad that the most reasonable opinion comes from Eleven: it would have been worth more to Botterill to tell San Jose to shove off.

 

For the life of me, I don't understand this line of thinking.  As in, there are positions people take here that I understand, but disagree with. Even vehemently. This one, I just don't understand. Cannot get my head wrapped around it.