PromoTheRobot Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 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. Was just listening to Sal Capaccio on WGR give all the reasons for trading Kaner. (Him being in his final year of contract next season is a consideration.) But you make the point that no one addresses: GMTM traded for Kane to do what he is doing right now. He didn't trade the farm for for just he could flip him for a defenseman down the road. You also have to consider what the loss of Kane does to the rest of the team. You aren't just giving up a 30-goal scorer (that you can't immediately replace.) You are also giving up a play maker so that's even more goals lost. So bravo, you improved the defense. They will have to stand on their heads because you weakened your offense considerably. Edited February 19, 2017 by PromoTheRobot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Good stuff. Also, if you score ~32 goals in 2016-2017, you may as well have scored 40. The guy is doing work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 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? I'm not familiar enough with the Kings prospects to offer an educated opinion. Since I'm opposed to almost any trade, I don't have much to offer. Keep in mind, regardless of who everybody thinks is a reasonable offer for Kane, Maatta is out for 6 weeks. So he won't be available for most of the stretch run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) I'm not familiar enough with the Kings prospects to offer an educated opinion. Since I'm opposed to almost any trade, I don't have much to offer. Keep in mind, regardless of who everybody thinks is a reasonable offer for Kane, Maatta is out for 6 weeks. So he won't be available for most of the stretch run. Yea, I caught that aviut Maatta. Here is the only D in LA's system that looks feasible? I guess? ALEX LINTUNIEMI Another Finn (maybe Risto misses home, hard to say). He's a big frame that's for sure but the scouting report I read on him didn't stand out. It may he a year old for all I know though. In any case, nothing outside of Fowler really stands out at me for Kane. Edited February 19, 2017 by Lucky E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie 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? Just forget trading Evander. The leading scorer thing is one of several reasons, but it's not the only reason. He puts his full effort into every game; you can't say that about every player. We need players with that motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Just forget trading Evander. The leading scorer thing is one of several reasons, but it's not the only reason. He puts his full effort into every game; you can't say that about every player. We need players with that motivation. So......shut the thread down then? What if I stand in defiance of this, this obstruction of free trade speech...... #NOTMYKANE! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Just expressing my opinion, sir. Kane is part of what gives the Sabres their mojo. You take him out of the mix and the Sabres will lost a piece of their soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Just expressing my opinion, sir. Kane is part of what gives the Sabres their mojo. You take him out of the mix and the Sabres will lost a piece of their soul. And you see, I don't believe that......you were expressing your opinion that is.... I kid, I kid. But I don't believe he is the heart and soul or a part of it. If you take a look at what were witnessing with the youth injection you quickly come to realize speed kills. And while Kane is quick, big and can finish, more of that is on the horizon from other players. I don't mention Jane's off ice issues because they are irrelevant to me. He is the most valued piece available to improve the "team". Note I said the "team". Kane's individualism had been on display most of his professional career. Let's also look at what Marty Biron stated this past week on the instigators, where he is under the impression Kane is not a part of the Sabres long term plans. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Speaking about Kane being traded is a natural progression to what is unfolding as the season moves along. He may not be moved this dead line, but I suspect his value is at its peak now. Not only that, but I most certainly don't believe he'll be a Sabre past next season, if not sooner. So looking at value and need are healthy discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I only see one source of smoke......................... :angel: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I only see one source of smoke......................... :angel: And which source would that be? The pre-season reports of Kane being shopped by reputable sources or Marty stating what he did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Scotty, this isn't necessarily directed at you, but this thread is starting to run on fumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Scotty, this isn't necessarily directed at you, but this thread is starting to run on fumes. I would like to ask you something...... Are you the same JJ from Sabres Junkie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I would like to ask you something...... Are you the same JJ from Sabres Junkie? Nope, never been over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Just forget trading Evander. The leading scorer thing is one of several reasons, but it's not the only reason. He puts his full effort into every game; you can't say that about every player. We need players with that motivation. Just expressing my opinion, sir. Kane is part of what gives the Sabres their mojo. You take him out of the mix and the Sabres will lost a piece of their soul. Not pointing fingers mind you but have you done a complete 180 on this subject?? Been staying away from this because JJ's been doing such a fine job keeping the faith but IMO there is no way they trade him before the end of the season as long as they're in the playoff hunt. If they go down in flames the next few games that percentage rises but after battling back into the hunt, I just don't see it happening. No one is going to give up what he's worth to the Sabres right now. It would send the wrong message to the team fighting for their playoff lives. If they beat the Blackhawks today they may even become a buyer at the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven 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. And I wouldn't trade Okposo for a defenseman, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'd prefer that they trade Kane this offseason. He's got great trade value and our blue line needs the help. Kane is shooting several percentage points higher than his average this year and I don't see how we'll be able to afford him with Jack and Sam's 2nd deals coming up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 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. So our LW pipeline is weak, and you want to trade our best LW'er? 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. He wouldn't fetch that. If Kane could fetch Jeff Carter, you'd have to "consider" that too. Edited February 19, 2017 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 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. I don't think they "needed" to...I think that's what their coach thought they "needed" to do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Kris Baker on Kane: Kris Baker @SabresProspects Kane value might be "as good as it gets" because he finally has C that can help him, vs 9 relying on chips and speed to create own chances. Looking historical. I like Little, but he spent time w/ Wellwood, Antropov, Burmistrov, Reasoner, Peverley, O'Dell etc. Different now. You can "sell high" or keep a player who is behaving, producing, preserves team speed, won't leave a huge gap at LW while Nylander develops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'd prefer that they trade Kane this offseason. He's got great trade value and our blue line needs the help. Kane is shooting several percentage points higher than his average this year and I don't see how we'll be able to afford him with Jack and Sam's 2nd deals coming up. Though nobody here wants to believe it, Moulson's deal is tradeable when Eichel & Reinhart are due new deals. Someone will be '18's version of the Desert Dogs and will be happy to pay a guy $3MM for $5MM of cap hit. (My guess is that'll be Vegas, but it'll definitely be somebody. Heck, w/ the Isles rink issues, GM, & a desire to keep Tavares, it could be them.) If not, there are mid-level guys like Larsson & Girgensons that are a bit redundant & could be more easily replaced. Kane could end up getting traded (especially IF he doesn't want to re-sign), but just can't see the reason being Jack & Sam are too expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Let's take this in a different direction. If GMTM is adamant about upgrading the D at ghe deadline with a top 4 defenseman, how can he reasonably get it done. What roster player can he package with what other assets to get the deal done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) Let's take this in a different direction. If GMTM is adamant about upgrading the D at ghe deadline with a top 4 defenseman, how can he reasonably get it done. What roster player can he package with what other assets to get the deal done? The deadline is mostly about moving expiring contracts to playoff teams. It isnt the time to make trades for longterm positional fixes. Edited February 19, 2017 by We've Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Though nobody here wants to believe it, Moulson's deal is tradeable when Eichel & Reinhart are due new deals. Someone will be '18's version of the Desert Dogs and will be happy to pay a guy $3MM for $5MM of cap hit. (My guess is that'll be Vegas, but it'll definitely be somebody. Heck, w/ the Isles rink issues, GM, & a desire to keep Tavares, it could be them.) If not, there are mid-level guys like Larsson & Girgensons that are a bit redundant & could be more easily replaced. Kane could end up getting traded (especially IF he doesn't want to re-sign), but just can't see the reason being Jack & Sam are too expensive. What do you think Kane gets? And I hope you're right about Moulson's contract. I am skeptical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) Though nobody here wants to believe it, Moulson's deal is tradeable when Eichel & Reinhart are due new deals. Someone will be '18's version of the Desert Dogs and will be happy to pay a guy $3MM for $5MM of cap hit. (My guess is that'll be Vegas, but it'll definitely be somebody. Heck, w/ the Isles rink issues, GM, & a desire to keep Tavares, it could be them.) If not, there are mid-level guys like Larsson & Girgensons that are a bit redundant & could be more easily replaced. Kane could end up getting traded (especially IF he doesn't want to re-sign), but just can't see the reason being Jack & Sam are too expensive. Two more years of Ennis and Moulson, and three more years of Bogosian make it tricky. I hope we're actively doing everything we can to find a way to send at least one of those guys out of here. We'd be looking at long-term contracts for ROR, Okposo, and Kane, maybe a long-term RFA deal for Eichel, and probably a bridge deal for Samson. On defense, the only big contract is Risto. So we can make it work but 1) it's the same problem we have now where all the talent is up front and our defense struggles, and 2) does it leave us flexibility to do anything else? We have other RFAs (McCabe, Lehner, Foligno) and still have holes on defense. If we're going to cement our big contract situation for the next 5-6 years, we should be sure it's one that can get us to balanced roster that can contend. Edited February 19, 2017 by Robviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Let's take this in a different direction. If GMTM is adamant about upgrading the D at ghe deadline with a top 4 defenseman, how can he reasonably get it done. What roster player can he package with what other assets to get the deal done? I would not trade any of the following players; I consider them to be the core of the future: O'Reilly, Okposo, Kane, Eichel, Reinhart, Ristolainen, McCabe, This is what we waited for. There are other players that I would hate to see go for personal reasons, like Bailey, but I wouldn't consider untouchable. If a package of non-core players doesn't bring back a top-four defenseman, then GMTM can go get one in free agency. And let's keep in mind that we're not going to see six Bobby Orrs on the blueline, either. 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.