nucci Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 This thread should be closed. Any talk of trading Kane is ridiculous....He was the key part of Murray's biggest trade to bring him here. Leading goal scorer, plays hard every shift and is tough to play against. This team is making a run at the playoffs and he is a big part.....I'm tired of losing and playing for the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 I've already told you how. And I've mentioned it in this thread. You agreed to disagree. You don't trade one of the few strengths you have in what is overall still a weakness, to address another weakness that's not as weak as you think it is. I'm looking at the defensive weakness from the stats posted, the current team record, how they ended up with some pivotal losses on that record and the seasonal individual performances/play of defensemen during the totality of the current record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) I'm looking at the defensive weakness from the stats posted, the current team record, how they ended up with some pivotal losses on that record and the seasonal individual performances/play of defensemen during the totality of the current record. Did those pivotal losses come at a time when they were dead last in the league in scoring? While 2-3 of the top six D-men were out on any given game? Some might say today was one of the best all around games they've played all year despite giving up 39 low quality shots. Against a hot Blues team. Was it coincidence that it happened to be the first time all year that all top six D-men were in the lineup together? Edited February 18, 2017 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 How? You have to give to get. What other ammo do you see in the ammo locker that achieves the desired goal? Trade the RW pipeline? Meaning Bailey, Baptiste or Fasching? Cause were empty on the left. Bailey has been playing LW in Buffalo. Not sure if that's what he's been doing in Rochester, but I'm pretty sure they moved him there in training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 And that's just it, it's not an area of strength yet. Just two months ago this team was dead last in scoring so trading what little you have contributing to one of your weaknesses.......... to address another weakness, makes no sense. That's what I wish some here would understand. They will get better, this will be a high scoring team. But until then you have to address the defense situation in other ways. Was it really a weakness or was it because of their timid play, defensive mindset and missing Jack Eichel who is obviously their key offensive lynch pin....they have averaged over 3 goals a game since he has been back. So it is pretty much an Eichel-less problem more so than a forward problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 This thread should be closed. Any talk of trading Kane is ridiculous....He was the key part of Murray's biggest trade to bring him here. Leading goal scorer, plays hard every shift and is tough to play against. This team is making a run at the playoffs and he is a big part.....I'm tired of losing and playing for the future precisely :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Was it really a weakness or was it because of their timid play, defensive mindset and missing Jack Eichel who is obviously their key offensive lynch pin....they have averaged over 3 goals a game since he has been back. So it is pretty much an Eichel-less problem more so than a forward problem... If they need to go into a defensive shell/mindset because of the loss of one player......... I'd say that's a weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 If they need to go into a defensive shell/mindset because of the loss of one player......... I'd say that's a weakness. You keep saying this but it's not just one player it's their best player. Every team can withstand losing their best player for a game or two. Losing him for and extended period is hard, made even harder by the fact the team is still going through the process of becoming the team it will be. If your top player is just another player you need to replace, then you definitely have a major problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 You keep saying this but it's not just one player it's their best player. Every team can withstand losing their best player for a game or two. Losing him for and extended period is hard, made even harder by the fact the team is still going through the process of becoming the team it will be. If your top player is just another player you need to replace, then you definitely have a major problem. If you need to go into a shell to the point where you are dead last in scoring, on par to match the tank years, just because you lost one player (any player, your best player, whatever) then your offense isn't one of your strengths. It's not strong enough to where you trade one of your biggest keys to pick up a player to bolster your defensive depth. I agree, it was a huge loss of the best player. But not tank offense loss. You should be still halfway competitive, and they weren't. With Kane, you have that guy who can help carry the team if/when they loss another key player. You don't trade him for defensive depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'm looking at the defensive weakness from the stats posted, the current team record, how they ended up with some pivotal losses on that record and the seasonal individual performances/play of defensemen during the totality of the current record. Yes, the team needs another defenseman. No, the team does not need to trade ITS LEADING GOAL-SCORER in order to acquire one. Dig? Holy , you'd think we're working on cold fusion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Yes, the team needs another defenseman. No, the team does not need to trade ITS LEADING GOAL-SCORER in order to acquire one. Dig? Holy ######, you'd think we're working on cold fusion here. Didn't Elisabeth Shue and Val Kilmer figure out that one a few years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'd love to know how many of you guys who definitely wouldn't trade him are guys who would have traded him for a bag of pucks prior to December. If it's a deal that nets you a top pair dman who you can control for next 4-5 years. You have to consider it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 If you need to go into a shell to the point where you are dead last in scoring, on par to match the tank years, just because you lost one player (any player, your best player, whatever) then your offense isn't one of your strengths. It's not strong enough to where you trade one of your biggest keys to pick up a player to bolster your defensive depth. I agree, it was a huge loss of the best player. But not tank offense loss. You should be still halfway competitive, and they weren't. With Kane, you have that guy who can help carry the team if/when they loss another key player. You don't trade him for defensive depth. A) Like I said, they are still developing as a team and I repeatedly said it at the beginning, I wasn't surprised st how they struggled. B) I am not on board with trading Kane unless it brings a #1 defenseman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) Didn't Elisabeth Shue and Val Kilmer figure out that one a few years ago? No. Val Kilmer figured out an unlimited cheeseburger bar somewhere. That said, trading Kane for a defenseman is stupid, was stupid, and will be stupid. Edited February 19, 2017 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 A) Like I said, they are still developing as a team and I repeatedly said it at the beginning, I wasn't surprised st how they struggled. B) I am not on board with trading Kane unless it brings a #1 defenseman That's fine, and I agree to a point. They are developing and nobody was really on the same page yet. But, so was the defense and they haven't been healthy all year. I don't think a #1 defensemen makes up for the loss of Kane. Especially when they have to pay everybody. Get rid of one of Franson/Gorges (Franson is a UFA so he may be gone anyways) and make the other the #7 D-man. Re-sign Kulikov and focus on getting another #3/4 guy and another #5/6 guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I am so happy Evander Kane has made trading him a contentious idea. Good on ye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 20 goals already and I bet he finishes with 30; keep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Yes, the team needs another defenseman. No, the team does not need to trade ITS LEADING GOAL-SCORER in order to acquire one. Dig? Holy ######, you'd think we're working on cold fusion here. Are we? Working on cold fusion that is. And so if Kane wasn't the leading goal scorer then we could broach the trade subject? Appears to be a definitive line in the sand by that standard. What if Okposo gets a hat trick tomorrow, would that be the threshold that opens the proverbial flood hates to a "possibly trading kane to upgrade the D" conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) I'd love to know how many of you guys who definitely wouldn't trade him are guys who would have traded him for a bag of pucks prior to December. If it's a deal that nets you a top pair dman who you can control for next 4-5 years. You have to consider it. You also have to replace what you traded away. Besides we are not one player away. Let the kids show us what they can do. Edited February 19, 2017 by PromoTheRobot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Are we? Working on cold fusion that is. And so if Kane wasn't the leading goal scorer then we could broach the trade subject? Appears to be a definitive line in the sand by that standard. What if Okposo gets a hat trick tomorrow, would that be the threshold that opens the proverbial flood hates to a "possibly trading kane to upgrade the D" conversation? Many were against trading him way before he took over the goal lead. Some, like me, were against it from the start of the season. His recent success has brought out the undecideds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Many were against trading him way before he took over the goal lead. Some, like me, were against it from the start of the season. His recent success has brought out the undecideds. I know. I was reading the boards for a bit before joining. I don't believe my response to eleven was alluding to that however. The thread title is "keep or trade Evander Kane". I'm in the trade him only if it returns the "right" asset(s) corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Are we? Working on cold fusion that is. And so if Kane wasn't the leading goal scorer then we could broach the trade subject? Appears to be a definitive line in the sand by that standard. What if Okposo gets a hat trick tomorrow, would that be the threshold that opens the proverbial flood hates to a "possibly trading kane to upgrade the D" conversation? No, because he isn't a UFA in another season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I know. I was reading the boards for a bit before joining. I don't believe my response to eleven was alluding to that however. The thread title is "keep or trade Evander Kane". I'm in the trade him only if it returns the "right" asset(s) corner. Isn't that the basis for most trades? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Isn't that the basis for most trades? :P LOL Well to be fair, talking trade Kane in the Trade Kane thread has become polarizing for this board. Some want to keep the scoring, can't blame them. Some want to asset exchange to address more pressing area's, can't blame them either. There was an interesting debate elsewhere on a deal with the Ducks, but if Pittsburg is to be our dance partner as it appears they are trying to be, I don't trade them Kane for anything they are willing to give up. In short, Kane is worth more than just Maatta, Risto and the Finnish connection or not. I'd want Sprong in the deal as well. And he's another RW'er. Fowler, that is my ideal target. Or conversely Montour or Theodore along with Ritchie for Kane and Kulikov. But, cap makes it impossible. The only one that has me scratching my chin is LA. Lombardi and company came and had a look. We were looking at there AHL team. I've looked over their rosters, thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Kane's making himself increasingly un-tradable (sp?). GM TM presumably loves him as a player (the center piece of that major deal), and here Kane is doing exactly what GM TM wanted/wants him to do. IMO, if it's not a contemplated #1 LHD coming back for Kane (+), there's no deal involving Kane. 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.