Should the Sabres go after Patrick Kane?

[Buffalonill]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t think Adams has said he wants good people, per se. He’s said he wants players who want to be here and wake every day focused on making the Sabres better.

Is that Kane? 

Two years at $10.5 million fits our cap.

Depends on the price, don’t it?

I could see kane signing here next year to be a hometown hero to end his career 

[klos1963]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes because he still is an 80 point player.

No because his off ice issues / no because he was a leader on the team during the cover up / no because I don't want to pay the price it would cost us to trade for him.

It would have been good of Kane to have done something, but i think he was 21 years old, this falls onto those higher up, not on a 21 year old player, no matter how good he is.

[DarthEbriate]

Every year we ask the same question. Every year, it's the same answer from me: When Kane's contract expires and he wants to be a 2nd/3rd liner PP specialist at a hometown discount in his effort to bring a Cup to Buffalo, sure. If we can't extend Olofsson, then Kane would fill a need in 2023-24...  maybe he'd be good with a $2.5-$3M deal for a few years. But you don't even consider this move now. The new core isn't established and Kane is not a hustle/forecheck kind of guy.

Now --- IF Kane waives Buffalo on his NMC, and IF Chicago were to give us a 2022 and 2023 unprotected 1st to take his contract... maybe. But then I might look to retain salary and flip him if he's willing to trade a NMC again. But it would make no sense for Chicago to do such a thing (unless they were going to have their 1st forfeited by the league as additional punishment in the scandal and by trading it they were able to help alleviate cap crunches). None of this IF scenario makes logical sense though.

[I-90 W]

Well it would be nice to give fans, particularly STH something to root for. Especially now that we have no star power. But the savy answer is no for whatever reason. 

[Hoss]

I think the answer is potentially different the closer you get to the 2023 offseason.

[FogBat]

17 hours ago, bunomatic said:

Why not we need those high character guys.

We did have one. His last name was also Kane.

13 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

I could see kane signing here next year to be a hometown hero to end his career 

Nice attempt at a backhanded post.

[Huckleberry]

13 hours ago, klos1963 said:

It would have been good of Kane to have done something, but i think he was 21 years old, this falls onto those higher up, not on a 21 year old player, no matter how good he is.

Yeah maybe, just don't say years later you never heard anything about it.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, I-90 W said:

Well it would be nice to give fans, particularly STH something to root for. Especially now that we have no star power. But the savy answer is no for whatever reason. 

It'd be a hard no towards trading for him.

Not sure that bringing him in as a FA is that great an idea either, but at least the timing of that should be coinciding w/ when they might actually be good enough to be in the playoff discussion.  It still seems that move would be analogous to bringing in Terrell Owens which was an all marketing & 0 football move.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, I-90 W said:

Well it would be nice to give fans, particularly STH something to root for. Especially now that we have no star power. But the savy answer is no for whatever reason. 

Lol I love it when ppl have bad ideas and then they try to gaslight another group into thinking their bad idea isn't being accepted because of "savvy" or cancel culture or some other bs. 

Let's break down why trading for Patrick Kane is a shockingly bad idea. 

1) The price of the trade. Chicago traded their first and a top defensive prospect for Seth Jones because their previous GM was not only a scumbag sex abuse cover up artist but also an idiot when it comes to the cap or player eval. That would mean to trade for Kane you are sending out a 1st and a defender at a minimum and probably have to include another pick or prospect to make Chicago happy. 

2) The guy is signed for, wait for it, 1 more year. So you trade young assets you will need to be successful for 1 additional year of Kane. Sounds great because there is no way in hell that guy is re-signing with you and even if he does it doesn't negate trading assets for someone that won't make your team good enough to make the playoffs in the next year anyways. 

3) I want Kane nowhere near this locker room. There is the cab incident, the lady incident, the sex abuse incident. He's not a leader and his morals are questionable at best. 

4) Age. The dude is about to be 33. How does that fit our timeline. He will be 35 by the time this team is competitive and he would require a new contract. Why would he give Buffalo a discount? He doesn't live here and hasn't in his adult life. Sure he came back some summers (see the lady incident) but that doesn't mean he has ties to Buffalo other than those from long ago. So let's say you get him and he puts up a modest 70 points the next 2 years. You think he will sign for cheap because Buffalo? Fat chance, there's nothing in his past to suggest it. Further it would be his last contract most likely and he will want to play somewhere where it will matter. 

So to recap. Trading assets for a guy 1 more season away from UFA is a bad idea. Trading assets from a rebuilding team is a bad idea (see 2015), there are some personality questions, who knows what he will want on his next deal, he will be 35 when his next contract comes due. 

[#freejame]

Pat Kane is still a PPG+ player. Seems like a lot of people in here don’t realize that. He’s going to get an Ovi contract when this one is done. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

I think the answer is potentially different the closer you get to the 2023 offseason.

If in 2023 Kane says "hey Buffalo, I will sign with you for like 5mil for 2 years to end my career" then sure I could see it. I can't see trading assets for him. Also I want none of the stank from Chicago's 2010 abuse cover up. 

9 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Pat Kane is still a PPG+ player. Seems like a lot of people in here don’t realize that. He’s going to get an Ovi contract when this one is done. 

Yup, with a team that is a contender not Buffalo. You are talking he will want an 8mil+ deal for like 5 years to go to a team he thinks will win a cup. 

[I-90 W]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Lol I love it when ppl have bad ideas and then they try to gaslight another group into thinking their bad idea isn't being accepted because of "savvy" or cancel culture or some other bs. 

Let's break down why trading for Patrick Kane is a shockingly bad idea. 

1) The price of the trade. Chicago traded their first and a top defensive prospect for Seth Jones because their previous GM was not only a scumbag sex abuse cover up artist but also an idiot when it comes to the cap or player eval. That would mean to trade for Kane you are sending out a 1st and a defender at a minimum and probably have to include another pick or prospect to make Chicago happy. 

2) The guy is signed for, wait for it, 1 more year. So you trade young assets you will need to be successful for 1 additional year of Kane. Sounds great because there is no way in hell that guy is re-signing with you and even if he does it doesn't negate trading assets for someone that won't make your team good enough to make the playoffs in the next year anyways. 

3) I want Kane nowhere near this locker room. There is the cab incident, the lady incident, the sex abuse incident. He's not a leader and his morals are questionable at best. 

4) Age. The dude is about to be 33. How does that fit our timeline. He will be 35 by the time this team is competitive and he would require a new contract. Why would he give Buffalo a discount? He doesn't live here and hasn't in his adult life. Sure he came back some summers (see the lady incident) but that doesn't mean he has ties to Buffalo other than those from long ago. So let's say you get him and he puts up a modest 70 points the next 2 years. You think he will sign for cheap because Buffalo? Fat chance, there's nothing in his past to suggest it. Further it would be his last contract most likely and he will want to play somewhere where it will matter. 

So to recap. Trading assets for a guy 1 more season away from UFA is a bad idea. Trading assets from a rebuilding team is a bad idea (see 2015), there are some personality questions, who knows what he will want on his next deal, he will be 35 when his next contract comes due. 

Cancel culture? Please leave your politics out of here. Looks like I struck a nerve though. You have your coffee yet this morning? 

Also I find it amusing that you bring up cancel culture and insist that has nothing to do with your take, and then proceed to mention his scandals (when no one else is) as some of your reasons. You were the first person on this thread to mention the sex abuse scandal. Can’t make this stuff up. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by I-90 W

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

Cancel culture? Please leave your politics out of here. Looks like I struck a nerve though. You have your coffee yet this morning? 

Also I find it amusing that you bring up cancel culture and insist that has nothing to do with your take, and then proceed to mention his morals and scandals (when no one else is) as some of your reasons. Can’t make this stuff up. 

lol, my politics? 

Also I am not canceling Kane because of what he did. I am not saying he should never play in the NHL and his name should be pulled from the cup. I am saying I don't want him on my team. That's called free speech 😉 

Maybe I struck a nerve. Keep gaslighting though. 

or in this case you're... 

1 hour ago, I-90 W said:

Well it would be nice to give fans, particularly STH something to root for. Especially now that we have no star power. But the savy answer is no for whatever reason. 

I explained why the "savvy" answer was no... 

[I-90 W]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

lol, my politics? 

Also I am not canceling Kane because of what he did. I am not saying he should never play in the NHL and his name should be pulled from the cup. I am saying I don't want him on my team. That's called free speech 😉 

Maybe I struck a nerve. Keep gaslighting though. 

or in this case you're... 

I explained why the "savvy" answer was no... 

The savy thing really bothers you, doesn’t it? These internet GMs sure are sensitive. If the shoe fits..

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

The savy thing really bothers you, doesn’t it? These internet GMs sure are sensitive. If the shoe fits..

2 things bother me. 

Your smarmy fact free backhanded comment. Which was wrong.

And the fact you have not spelled savvy correct once during any of this. 

Mostly the 2nd thing though. 

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

2 things bother me. 

Your smarmy fact free backhanded comment. Which was wrong.

And the fact you have not spelled savvy correct once during any of this. 

Mostly the 2nd thing though. 

How dare I challenge the great LGR4GM, and talk to him the same way he so often talks to everyone else! And to make matters worse, I even had a spelling error to aggravate the situation. The audacity…

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

How dare I challenge the great LGR4GM, and talk to him the same way he so often talks to everyone else! And to make matters worse, I even had a spelling error to aggravate the situation. The audacity…

You have yet to explain what the heck you were talking about.  Why do you say that the savvy answer is no?

Also, several people have brought up Kane’s very questionable character.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Curt

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

How dare I challenge the great LGR4GM, and talk to him the same way he so often talks to everyone else! And to make matters worse, I even had a spelling error to aggravate the situation. The audacity…

Explain your position then. Why do you look down on the "savvy" answer? 

6 minutes ago, Curt said:

You have yet to explain what the heck you were talking about.  Why do you say that the savvy answer is no?

Also, several people have brought up Kane’s very questionable character.

Really all I want but I am salty this morning. 

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

How dare I challenge the great LGR4GM, and talk to him the same way he so often talks to everyone else! And to make matters worse, I even had a spelling error to aggravate the situation. The audacity…

To quote Errol Flynn, "I love a man (or woman) who can best me." 

[LGR4GM]

The best thing someone can do on this board is prove me wrong because it means I learn something. I've been proven wrong many times, the greatest is BluePhD once argued that ROR was superior to Zemgus, he was 100% correct and I was wrong. I learned about stats in a new way because of that. 

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Explain your position then. Why do you look down on the "savvy" answer? 

He’s a PPG player from here, we have no star power, plenty of short term cap room, and a fan base that desperately needs something to root for. This is a business after all. To outright dismiss it as a ridiculous idea (which you and others have), is brash and hubristic. Hence the savvy remark. It’s probably getting under your skin because someone is finally calling you out for being arrogant. 

[LGR4GM]

33 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

He’s a PPG player from here, we have no star power, plenty of short term cap room, and a fan base that desperately needs something to root for. This is a business after all. To outright dismiss it as a ridiculous idea (which you and others have), is brash and hubristic. Hence the savvy remark. It’s probably getting under your skin because someone is finally calling you out for being arrogant. 

It's not, I am well aware that I am arrogant. Keep making it personal though, I like that aspect of this debate. You have to make it personal because your argument is weak so what you do is you try to redirect the conversation to be about me as opposed to about the idea that trading assets for Kane is not a good building policy. 

Explain why we should give up good assets for Kane? Why would we do that when we won't be competitive this year and next will probably still be on the outside. 

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, I-90 W said:

Well it would be nice to give fans, particularly STH something to root for. Especially now that we have no star power. But the savy answer is no for whatever reason. 

"for whatever reason"

I gave you a list of reasons and you got offended because one of those was about character concerns. Odd hill to die on. Especially since that wasn't even an example of cancel culture, it was an example of this guy has some background questions and I don't want to deal with that. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by LGR4GM

[Thorner]

[I-90 W]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

"for whatever reason"

I gave you a list of reasons and you got offended because one of those was about character concerns. Odd hill to die on. Especially since that wasn't even an example of cancel culture, it was an example of this guy has some background questions and I don't want to deal with that. 

I don’t think you know what cancel culture is; dismissing someone because there are questions you don’t want to deal with is the essence of it. We don’t know what type of assets we would have to give up for Kane, but it’s worth exploring. We have a lot of them and they won’t all pan out.

This franchise could use something to cheer for. Another rebuild, with the same ownership, will only excite the diehards. Though it shouldn’t, as logically speaking, it’s only a matter of time til KA is on the hot seat. The Pegula’s have proved that they don’t have the patience for doing things the right way. And round and round we go.

And yes, you are arrogant. It’s irritating, most humans don’t find that to be an endearing quality. Some will even make comments about it, like I did.