Patrick Kane

[Digger]

I try to put myself into the players shoes (or skates as the case may be).  Patrick Kane is now entering the final year of his contract.  That contract (amount and term) has prevented him from being traded in the past because of the value and really Chicago did not really suck until the past two seasons.  He's at a point right now where he can wait it out until the trade deadline and play for a contender and another chance at winning the Cup.  As for his dream of playing for the Sabres, he can do that too by signing with us as an UFA next year.

I'm sure Chicago would love to trade him right away but I am doubtful that the trade ask is as low as what some of the proposals are in the thread.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of the proposals are fair from the Sabres perspective but like we did with Eichel they are looking for a reset and this is an important trade.  Kane had 92 pts last season, he won't come cheap even as a 1 year rental or a deadline deal.

If he does want to come here and I were Adams I would stick to fair value and not budge.  Wait them out.

 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Digger said:

I try to put myself into the players shoes (or skates as the case may be).  Patrick Kane is now entering the final year of his contract.  That contract (amount and term) has prevented him from being traded in the past because of the value and really Chicago did not really suck until the past two seasons.  He's at a point right now where he can wait it out until the trade deadline and play for a contender and another chance at winning the Cup.  As for his dream of playing for the Sabres, he can do that too by signing with us as an UFA next year.

I'm sure Chicago would love to trade him right away but I am doubtful that the trade ask is as low as what some of the proposals are in the thread.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of the proposals are fair from the Sabres perspective but like we did with Eichel they are looking for a reset and this is an important trade.  Kane had 92 pts last season, he won't come cheap even as a 1 year rental or a deadline deal.

If he does want to come here and I were Adams I would stick to fair value and not budge.  Wait them out.

 

The ask won’t be anywhere near as low. The market, however…

It’s a case of Kane deciding if he will go and where. If it’s only to one team, then the ask is meaningless. It’s about the offer and about how long are you willing to wait for it to improve, or for Kane to change his mind.

In that situation, there’s no reason for the Sabres not to make their best offer in the summer and stick with it.

[Digger]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The ask won’t be anywhere near as low. The market, however…

It’s a case of Kane deciding if he will go and where. If it’s only to one team, then the ask is meaningless. It’s about the offer and about how long are you willing to wait for it to improve, or for Kane to change his mind.

In that situation, there’s no reason for the Sabres not to make their best offer in the summer and stick with it.

Thanks but why is Kane pushing for this off season?  He can still get a chance to play for a contender if he waits it out to the trade deadline and then come to the Sabres as a UFA.  The Sabres may make the playoffs if everything comes together (as we all hope) but still won't be a contender next season.  If I were Kane I would want to wait it out.  I know the salary will still be a trade challenge at the deadline (with money retained and money back to the Hawks) and injury is a risk for both Kane and Chicago.

This will be a fun story to follow and see how it develops if there's truth to it.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I strongly disagree with the bolded.

Adams said he would not not make a move to make the team better today if it meant making the team worse in the future.

He meant getting handcuffed by long-term salaries. Kane would not do that.

He meant blocking young players from opportunities. As an upgrade replacement for Vinnie Hinostroza or (dare I suggest) Victor Olofsson, Kane would not do that.

He meant sacrificing important pieces of the Sabres future. At the right price (like my Olofsson/Portillo trade) Kane would not do that.

I don’t expect the Sabres to trade for Kane unless Kane himself manoeuvres the Hawks into that position.

But that does not mean the Sabres are philosophically not interested in adding Kane or a similar player to the team at should the right circumstances present themselves.

Further, but perhaps more importantly, even if he was philosophically opposed, Kevyn Adams does not own the Sabres.

The signing of Kane under his current contract goes against everything that the GM has espoused. The Sabres are again going to be a low-budget team this season. (I'm fine with that.) In no way does a Kane signing through a trade this offseason fall within the GM's stated plans in how he wants to rebuild this roster. The likelihood of a deal for him this offseason is so improbable that the word infinitesimal applies here. 

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The signing of Kane under his current contract goes against everything that the GM has espoused. The Sabres are again going to be a low-budget team this season. (I'm fine with that.) In no way does a Kane signing through a trade this offseason fall within the GM's stated plans in how he wants to rebuild this roster. The likelihood of a deal for him this offseason is so improbable that the word infinitesimal applies here. 

A Kane signing does not make the Sabres a high budget / cap challenging team even IF Adams makes the other signings/trades we've been discussing for months.  It makes them a midrange team which would still have a lower team cap than most of the league.

Doubt a trade happens, but as @dudacek, @tom webster, and others have said, if it does it isn't a case of Adams foregoing his plan nor does it mean he's somehow transmorphed into Murray. 

[tom webster]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The signing of Kane under his current contract goes against everything that the GM has espoused. The Sabres are again going to be a low-budget team this season. (I'm fine with that.) In no way does a Kane signing through a trade this offseason fall within the GM's stated plans in how he wants to rebuild this roster. The likelihood of a deal for him this offseason is so improbable that the word infinitesimal applies here. 

Plans and strategy are fine but you have to be willing to adapt when an opportunity arises. Like I said, I don’t expect this to happen for a myriad of reasons but how, if they can acquire him without sacrificing any of their top prospects, run counter to building a playoff caliber team? You would be bringing in a star, a veteran who isn’t just talking the talk but walked the walk, a guy who would make them better and likely encourage others to join him, how does that hurt the development of anyone? Because now they would have to earn ice time rather than be given it? 

[dudacek]

47 minutes ago, Digger said:

Thanks but why is Kane pushing for this off season?  He can still get a chance to play for a contender if he waits it out to the trade deadline and then come to the Sabres as a UFA.  The Sabres may make the playoffs if everything comes together (as we all hope) but still won't be a contender next season.  If I were Kane I would want to wait it out.  I know the salary will still be a trade challenge at the deadline (with money retained and money back to the Hawks) and injury is a risk for both Kane and Chicago.

This will be a fun story to follow and see how it develops if there's truth to it.

I have no idea what Patrick Kane wants now or moving forward or why.

But the premise of this thread is that Kane wants to finish his career in Buffalo. If that’s the case, why wait?

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The signing of Kane under his current contract goes against everything that the GM has espoused. The Sabres are again going to be a low-budget team this season. (I'm fine with that.) In no way does a Kane signing through a trade this offseason fall within the GM's stated plans in how he wants to rebuild this roster. The likelihood of a deal for him this offseason is so improbable that the word infinitesimal applies here. 

To the bold, I don’t think Kevyn Adams’ blueprint is exactly what you think it is. Please show me where he has said “I won’t be spending any more money this year than I have to.” Or “I won’t be adding good players at below-market value prices because it goes against the plan.”

The entire underlying tenet of Adams’ plan is investing and building around “people that want to be here.” And the entire hypothesis of the thread is “Patrick Kane - top-10 scorer and multiple Stanley Cup winner - wants to be here.”

I hope you’re wrong, and not because I am opposed to building from within with a young core that grows together. It’s because anyone who is as rigid as you seem to think he is, is bound to fail.

[MattPie]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

Someone else mentioned it but if the Blackhawks wanted to move him and Kane was receptive to a trade the Rangers would be a good destination for him to land. NYR have a rich farm system and are in position to give up some assets. The Rangers are ready to compete for the cup now. Kane would certainly help to add scoring beyond their top line. If the Sabres were better situated at the goalie position I would be less resistant to the idea of him coming here. But if the team is going to shed some assets or add to their payroll they have to address the backstop position first. 

I may have been the first to mention the Rangers, and I did it solely as one of the two teams that were on the cusp of the SCF and would be looking for that extra push next season. Zero research on whether it really made sense for the Rangers. 🙂

1 hour ago, Digger said:

I try to put myself into the players shoes (or skates as the case may be).  Patrick Kane is now entering the final year of his contract.  That contract (amount and term) has prevented him from being traded in the past because of the value and really Chicago did not really suck until the past two seasons.  He's at a point right now where he can wait it out until the trade deadline and play for a contender and another chance at winning the Cup.  As for his dream of playing for the Sabres, he can do that too by signing with us as an UFA next year.

I'm sure Chicago would love to trade him right away but I am doubtful that the trade ask is as low as what some of the proposals are in the thread.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of the proposals are fair from the Sabres perspective but like we did with Eichel they are looking for a reset and this is an important trade.  Kane had 92 pts last season, he won't come cheap even as a 1 year rental or a deadline deal.

If he does want to come here and I were Adams I would stick to fair value and not budge.  Wait them out.

 

The bolded are extremely good points. First one, I hadn't looked at that perspective but you're right. The situation is different, but trading away (I assume) your best player and getting a pick and some unsigned prospects would bring out da pitchforks. Although, Sam Reinhart only netted an unsigned goalie and a (late) first, for one year of service. Kane is on a different level but maybe it's closer value than an Eichel trade because it's only 1 year.

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, MattPie said:

I may have been the first to mention the Rangers, and I did it solely as one of the two teams that were on the cusp of the SCF and would be looking for that extra push next season. Zero research on whether it really made sense for the Rangers. 🙂

The bolded are extremely good points. First one, I hadn't looked at that perspective but you're right. The situation is different, but trading away (I assume) your best player and getting a pick and some unsigned prospects would bring out da pitchforks. Although, Sam Reinhart only netted an unsigned goalie and a (late) first, for one year of service. Kane is on a different level but maybe it's closer value than an Eichel trade because it's only 1 year.

 

It's not just 1 year.  It's 1 year of a player that has a NMC, so if he doesn't want to go where Chicago thinks it has a deal, Chicago doesn't have a deal.

Getting back what Reinhart returned might very well be the ceiling on a deal if there are only a couple of teams he's interested in playing for.  (No idea on where he'd be willing to go.  There may be more, or he may only want to go "home" if he has to leave the team he's been very happy w/ for a long time but is now switching gears.)

[Broken Ankles]

10 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

A good Fonzie gif must be rewarded a thumbs up.  

[Broken Ankles]

43 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I have no idea what Patrick Kane wants now or moving forward or why.

But the premise of this thread is that Kane wants to finish his career in Buffalo. If that’s the case, why wait?

1. Saving assets. 16OA is nothing to sneeze at. 

2. Sabres get an additional/free year to see if Kanes skills are in decline.  Could be the difference in negotiation of term in 2023.  A trade presumes extensions are already agreed upon. 
 
3. Kane gets a chance to see if the Sabres are taking that next step.  Maybe he is not sold, yet.  
 

4. Chance to play for a contender and win another Cup next year. As noted above, it’s more probable than not it won’t happen in Buffalo if he was traded there. 
 

5. Learning from your mistakes. Lower echelon teams should not trade multiple assets for UFA’s with no term.  I believe your comp was Claude G.  Traded to a first place contender.  When was the last time a bottom 9 team traded for a top flight UFA in the final year of their contract?  Not including ROR. 

[dudacek]

37 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

. 
 
3. Kane gets a chance to see if the Sabres are taking that next step.  Maybe he is not sold, yet.  
 

4. Chance to play for a contender and win another Cup next year. As noted above, it’s more probable than not it won’t happen in Buffalo if he was traded there. 
. 

Yeah, the post I was responding to was saying Kane should wait before okaying a trade, not the Sabres so the above are the only points that matter in that context.

And the premise of the thread is that Kane has already decided he wants to go to Buffalo. Not “if they can sell him they’re really on the upswing,” or “after he takes another shot at the cup.”

So those things may or may not be true, but that’s a different thought exercise.

As for the rest, I’m not interested in trading #16 or any other asset I see as playing a significant role in the Sabres future either.

Basically, it would be an offer the Hawks would only take if forced to by Kane’s NMC, just like Hall forced the trade to the Bruins.

Edited June 22, 2022 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

You know how I know it is the offseason? The annual "Trade assets for Patrick Kane" thread has appeared and taken up 8 pages of replies.

[Crusader1969]

On 6/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Curt said:

Oh my goodness.  If he actually wants to go to Buffalo why would the Sabres trade a single thing for him?  Simply sign him as a UFA in 13 months.

Thank god.  The voice the of reason! 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, MattPie said:

I may have been the first to mention the Rangers, and I did it solely as one of the two teams that were on the cusp of the SCF and would be looking for that extra push next season. Zero research on whether it really made sense for the Rangers. 🙂

 

I attributed the Ranger scenario to @MattPie for a Kane trade on my first post on the topic. I try to be fair and give credit with my attributions. It's difficult and would be too bulky to do it for every post on a particular topic. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

I have no idea what Patrick Kane wants now or moving forward or why.

But the premise of this thread is that Kane wants to finish his career in Buffalo. If that’s the case, why wait?

To the bold, I don’t think Kevyn Adams’ blueprint is exactly what you think it is. Please show me where he has said “I won’t be spending any more money this year than I have to.” Or “I won’t be adding good players at below-market value prices because it goes against the plan.”

The entire underlying tenet of Adams’ plan is investing and building around “people that want to be here.” And the entire hypothesis of the thread is “Patrick Kane - top-10 scorer and multiple Stanley Cup winner - wants to be here.”

I hope you’re wrong, and not because I am opposed to building from within with a young core that grows together. It’s because anyone who is as rigid as you seem to think he is, is bound to fail.

We'll just have to wait and see how much is spent this year. The acquisition of the Bishop contract indicates an austere spending strategy for this season. Repeating what I have said in prior posts I'm not concerned how much or how little is spent on the roster. There are things that can still be addressed within the framework of a low cap payroll. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, tom webster said:

Plans and strategy are fine but you have to be willing to adapt when an opportunity arises. Like I said, I don’t expect this to happen for a myriad of reasons but how, if they can acquire him without sacrificing any of their top prospects, run counter to building a playoff caliber team? You would be bringing in a star, a veteran who isn’t just talking the talk but walked the walk, a guy who would make them better and likely encourage others to join him, how does that hurt the development of anyone? Because now they would have to earn ice time rather than be given it? 

I agree with you that a Kane trade is not going to happen for a myriad of reasons (your words). There is an infinitesimal chance that the Sabres would trade for Kane this season. Maybe at a later stage but not in the foreseeable future. If you were discussing a goalie or even a defenseman transaction, then that is a completely different scenario.  

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

A Kane signing does not make the Sabres a high budget / cap challenging team even IF Adams makes the other signings/trades we've been discussing for months.  It makes them a midrange team which would still have a lower team cap than most of the league.

Doubt a trade happens, but as @dudacek, @tom webster, and others have said, if it does it isn't a case of Adams foregoing his plan nor does it mean he's somehow transmorphed into Murray. 

I agree with you that I also doubt that a Kane trade happens. 

The Sabres are more likely to be a low cap team this year. I just don't see them moving into the midrange cap level. The Bishop trade for a contract signals that more austere financial approach to this upcoming season. I'm not saying that it is the wrong approach to take at this time. 

 

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I agree with you that a Kane trade is not going to happen for a myriad of reasons (your words). There is an infinitesimal chance that the Sabres would trade for Kane this season. Maybe at a later stage but not in the foreseeable future. If you were discussing a goalie or even a defenseman transaction, then that is a completely different scenario.  

But why not trade for Kane, who helps bring in Campbell or Fleury along with Subban. They become more formidable, bring in veteran leadership and do nothing to hurt the development of the kids. I understand what you are saying but your acceptance of another building year is where I have an issue.

One other thing, before I forget. In the small chance that this does happen, it will not be TPEGS meddling, it will be KA adjusting to the opportunity. Once the cap skyrockets, the advantage the Sabres now have goes away.

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You know how I know it is the offseason? The annual "Trade assets for Patrick Kane" thread has appeared and taken up 8 pages of replies.

Glad to see your back, I was concerned.

As for the above, the difference this year is that it’s plausible, though unlikely. Now it’s being brought up in TSN, not hockey buzz

[inkman]

As I mentioned, along with at least one other poster, (apologies for not remembering who) make Chicago an offer that looks attractive on paper but in reality, is not too asset heavy.  Portillo (who knows what he’s gonna do after his collegiate season, Olofsson (Kane immediately slots into his role and improved upon it significantly), and some non first round picks.  It gives Chicago something to hang their hats on.  It makes a lot of sense for both teams. 

[thewookie1]

22 minutes ago, inkman said:

As I mentioned, along with at least one other poster, (apologies for not remembering who) make Chicago an offer that looks attractive on paper but in reality, is not too asset heavy.  Portillo (who knows what he’s gonna do after his collegiate season, Olofsson (Kane immediately slots into his role and improved upon it significantly), and some non first round picks.  It gives Chicago something to hang their hats on.  It makes a lot of sense for both teams. 

You'd likely need to add 28. Chicago has no 1st this year and really needs one

[MattPie]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

You'd likely need to add 28. Chicago has no 1st this year and really needs one

They can get it in another trade. 🙂

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

But why not trade for Kane, who helps bring in Campbell or Fleury along with Subban. They become more formidable, bring in veteran leadership and do nothing to hurt the development of the kids. I understand what you are saying but your acceptance of another building year is where I have an issue.

One other thing, before I forget. In the small chance that this does happen, it will not be TPEGS meddling, it will be KA adjusting to the opportunity. Once the cap skyrockets, the advantage the Sabres now have goes away.

What's the likelihood of the Sabres adding a Kane and Cambell/Fleury salaries to this year's roster? I would say it borders on nonexistent. If I'm going to add a rich contract, I would dedicate it to the goalie position and after that to a blueliner. I don't believe that signing Kane would have any sway with Campbell or whoever. The issue for whichever goalie is the specific contract. 

I have no criticism of the ownership. I believe, as you do, that the hockey people are running the operation with the appropriate consultation with the owners when it is called for. As I have said many times before, overall, I like what KA has done other than with the goalie situation. I reside in the seating section that is reserved for the optimists.  

[tom webster]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

What's the likelihood of the Sabres adding a Kane and Cambell/Fleury salaries to this year's roster? I would say it borders on nonexistent. If I'm going to add a rich contract, I would dedicate it to the goalie position and after that to a blueliner. I don't believe that signing Kane would have any sway with Campbell or whoever. The issue for whichever goalie is the specific contract. 

I have no criticism of the ownership. I believe, as you do, that the hockey people are running the operation with the appropriate consultation with the owners when it is called for. As I have said many times before, overall, I like what KA has done other than with the goalie situation. I reside in the seating section that is reserved for the optimists.  

You know I’m optimistic as well but that doesn’t mean that I have to be completely on board, especially if they weren’t at least considering the possibilities of jumpstarting things. I’m one hundred percent confident, however, that they have at least discussed it.