Brawndo Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Interestingly Kane is not mentioned in the article though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Montour is nearly at a ppg pace in the AHL, cost controlled, and 22 years old. I'll send them Kane, take on whatever garbage contract they want, and a 1st Why? Because you think Montour is a lock to be a good top-3 NHL defenseman? Because you think Kane will not re-sign here and Montour is the best the Sabres could get for him? Other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Montour is nearly at a ppg pace in the AHL, cost controlled, and 22 years old. I'll send them Kane, take on whatever garbage contract they want, and a 1st I know you've got to pay a price to get good players, but i'm not trading Kane and a top 10 first round pick for Montour. In that instance I would rather keep Kane and draft my own D-man this summer. I would consider Kane straight up, but i'm not positive on that right now either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 I know you've got to pay a price to get good players, but i'm not trading Kane and a top 10 first round pick for Montour. In that instance I would rather keep Kane and draft my own D-man this summer. I would consider Kane straight up, but i'm not positive on that right now either. I trade Kane straight up in a heartbeat. I've liked Kane's game the past month but he's one off-ice issue away from having zero trade value. Also, I feel like we have an abundance (ok wrong word) but more talent on forward then on D. I'm willing to balance that somewhat with a trade like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 I know you've got to pay a price to get good players, but i'm not trading Kane and a top 10 first round pick for Montour. In that instance I would rather keep Kane and draft my own D-man this summer. I would consider Kane straight up, but i'm not positive on that right now either. I agree. How did Anaheim get this stable of young, stud defensemen? By drafting them early. Most of them (and I believe all the good ones mentioned in the article except for Manson) were drafted in the first and second round. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00004643.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 I agree. How did Anaheim get this stable of young, stud defensemen? By drafting them early. Most of them (and I believe all the good ones mentioned in the article except for Manson) were drafted in the first and second round. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00004643.html The frustrating part of this is Moutour was drafted in the 2nd Round in 2014. The Sabres had three opportunities to draft him before he went 55th Overall. That being said I would still trade Kane for Montour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) The frustrating part of this is Moutour was drafted in the 2nd Round in 2014. The Sabres had three opportunities to draft him before he went 55th Overall. That being said I would still trade Kane for Montour I probably would too but there's no chance in hell I'd throw in our first round pick. I'd rather spend that pick on a guy who can hopefully replace somebody like Bogosian down the road in a few years while still pinning my hopes to Guhle being ready to replace Gorges after his contract expires at the end of next season. Edited February 15, 2017 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 I probably would too but there's no chance in hell I'd throw in our first round pick. I'd rather spend that pick on a guy who can hopefully replace somebody like Bogosian down the road in a few years while still pinning my hopes to Guhle being ready to replace Gorges after his contract expires at the end of next season.Trading for Montour with that pick replaces Bogosian now. Then you can hope for Guhle without needing him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Trading for Montour with that pick replaces Bogosian now. Then you can hope for Guhle without needing him But we also lose Kane. The market for defensemen is too steep after the whole Hall for Larsson deal. Last offseason we were discussing Fowler for the #8 pick and that seemed steep but at least Fowler was proven. I'd rather not give up Kane and a likely top 10 pick for a guy who is promising but not proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Please stop talking about trading Kane. It is one of the dumbest things the team could do if it wants a Cup in three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NNYSABRESMAN Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 The guy has been playing w/ essentially a broken tailbone & also suffered a severe injury. I've seen enough to expect him to be solid top 4 next year. Would rather it be here than elsewhere. (Apologies to Gorges for the snark above.) Having cracked my tailbone, I can tell you I don't know how the guy could skate period. I could hardly bend over and walked like I was in my nineties for several months! In my opinion its not a good season to assess him as a player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Please stop talking about trading Kane. It is one of the dumbest things the team could do if it wants a Cup in three years.He won't be here in three years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Please stop talking about trading Kane. It is one of the dumbest things the team could do if it wants a Cup in three years. I generally agree, unless (i) he's told the team that he will not sign an extension with them or (ii) they monitor his off-ice behavior and are sure that he will self-destruct again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) The frustrating part of this is Moutour was drafted in the 2nd Round in 2014. The Sabres had three opportunities to draft him before he went 55th Overall. That being said I would still trade Kane for Montour It's not the philosophy that gets me on these Kane's proposals - I disagree but I get why some guys want it to happen - it's the value. Why do you guys think Montour is that good? Or is it that Kane is that bad? I struggle to find other examples of a top six winger in his prime being traded straight across for a minor league prospect, even a good one. Especially when there is no immediate financial incentive to do so. Shouldn't Anaheim at least be throwing one thing else into the stew? Edited February 15, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 It's not the philosophy that gets me on these Kane's proposals - I disagree but I get why some guys want it to happen - it's the value. Why do you guys think Montour is that good? Or is it that Kane is that bad? I struggle to find other examples of a top six winger in his prime being traded straight across for a minor league prospect, even a good one. Especially when there is no immediate financial incentive to do so. Shouldn't Anaheim at least be throwing one thing else into the stew? The price is what it is because of the market. That is what valuable defensmen are going for. There are about 4 teams in the entire league that aren't looking for blue line help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 It's not the philosophy that gets me on these Kane's proposals - I disagree but I get why some guys want it to happen - it's the value. Why do you guys think Montour is that good? Or is it that Kane is that bad? I struggle to find other examples of a top six winger in his prime being traded straight across for a minor league prospect, even a good one. Especially when there is no immediate financial incentive to do so. Shouldn't Anaheim at least be throwing one thing else into the stew? Nieuwendyk for Iginla & Millen is probably the closest since the folding of the WHA. Considering Corey was pretty much an afterthought (though serviceable & actually had a coupke of good years) it's reasonable to consider it Joe for Jerome. And both teams won that trade IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) The price is what it is because of the market. That is what valuable defensmen are going for. There are about 4 teams in the entire league that aren't looking for blue line help And there are about four teams in the league not looking for fleet, aggressive power forwards who can pop 25 goals. Steve Montour is intriguing, but he is a late second-rounder with a handful of NHL games. Show me the market comparables. Mark Pysyk went for Kulikov and a swap of picks. Anthony DeAngelo for a 2nd rounder Nick Holden for a 4th-rounder Griffin Reinhart for a first and a second Simon Despres for Ben Lovejoy Brendan Dillon for Jason Demers and 3rd Nick Leddy for Anders Nilsson, Ville Pokka and two minor leaguers Unproven defencemen don't get traded often, even less for Evander Kane returns. Edited February 15, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 And there are about four teams in the league not looking for fleet, aggressive power forwards who can pop 25 goals. Steve Montour is intriguing, but he is a late second-rounder with a handful of NHL games. Show me the market comparables. Mark Pysyk went for Kulikov and a swap of picks. Anthony DeAngelo for a 2nd rounder Nick Holden for a 4th-rounder Griffin Reinhart for a first and a second Simon Despres for Ben Lovejoy Brendan Dillon for Jason Demers and 3rd Nick Leddy for Anders Nilsson, Ville Pokka and two minor leaguers Unproven defencemen don't get traded often, even less for Evander Kane returns. Montour is a much better prospect than any of those players was, and worth more than a lot of them now. Hall went for Larsson set the market. Combine that with the fact that Avs are selling 2 young, great, cost controlled and signed forwards, and the only team selling defense is maybe us with Kulikov and possibly Shattenkirk, who is a UFA and will only be traded with a sign and trade, and Montour is worth Kane at the very least. Kane and a 1st? Maybe not, but I wouldn't be angry with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 I would be angry if we send Kane and our 1st out of for montour or theodore. Even Kane alone is a tough pill to swallow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 Montour is a much better prospect than any of those players was, and worth more than a lot of them now. Hall went for Larsson set the market. Combine that with the fact that Avs are selling 2 young, great, cost controlled and signed forwards, and the only team selling defense is maybe us with Kulikov and possibly Shattenkirk, who is a UFA and will only be traded with a sign and trade, and Montour is worth Kane at the very least. Kane and a 1st? Maybe not, but I wouldn't be angry with it. I would rather not give Kane and a first. Kane and a second for Montour and Stoner to give them some cap relief. Stoner would be a serviceable bottom pairing D for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 I would rather not give Kane and a first. Kane and a second for Montour and Stoner to give them some cap relief. Stoner would be a serviceable bottom pairing D for next year. Kane straight up. No way I'm giving them a top 3 round draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 Kane straight up. No way I'm giving them a top 3 round draft pick. With how weak this draft is, I would give up Minnesota's 2nd if it was necessary to close the deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 18 scouts, including Buffalo, scouting Red Wings/Blues tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 18 scouts, including Buffalo, scouting Red Wings/Blues tonight. Shattenkirk, Mantha, Tatar, Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) But WildCard, how do you know Montour is so much better than any of those players? If he is a sure fire top-three defenceman, why have the Ducks been playing Bieksa, Manson, Theodore and Korbinian Holzer ahead of him? If he's so highly thought of, why did Pronman have him at 118 last summer? Why was he 65 on the Hockey News? Didn't crack the Bleacher Report top 50? Or the top 50 on Pension Plan Puppets? Not that the above really means much, but that's my point: Griffin Reinhart was a great prospect, Jake Muzzin was not. They are prospects, there are no guarantees. And why did Hall for Larsson set the market for Montour? So far it looks like an unusual trade caused be a unique set of circumstances peculiar to the Oilers. Larsson was a fourth overall pick with a prototype skill set who was already succeeding in the NHL. Montour is none of those things. Did Armia, Lemieux, Stafford - essentially three second rounders - and a late first set the market for top six power wingers? I'd love to pick up Montour, but for a legit power forward in his prime and a top 10 pick? I think what you really want to trade for is the concept of Montour. Brandon Montour could be Cam Fowler or he could be Taylor Fedun. Again, why do you believe in him so much? Edited February 16, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.