French Collection Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Keep in mind the power part of his game. Mess with Sam or Jack and you get to dance with Evander. He doesn't need to drop the gloves often because he is a respected fighter. That element of his game is worth something. I'm in the camp of don't trade him unless the deal knocks your socks off. If he doesn't want to be part of the core or his financial expectations are extreme then move him after this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 I think it's hard to say.. when we traded for Kane, his value was lower because of his injury. But we were also trading for 3.5 years remaining on his contract. Now he's healthy and performing at an elite level, but you're talking 1.5 years of him. Minor off-ice issues to consider then, minor off-ice issues to consider now. Weigh it all, and I think it's hard to say what his value is at compared to the day we traded for him. For the record, I want to see him stay and start working on a contract this off season. If his demands are too high but someone else will pay it, then I could get over a blockbuster this offseason. But I'd want proven commodity back, not futures. Kane is just too valuable right now and the next 5ish years to flush away for futures in my opinion. Everyone please come to terms with the fact that he's not going to sign an extension with the Sabres on the Sabres' terms. He's going to ask for an extension that is bigger than Okposo's. We can't have him for just the next five years because he'd never sign a 4-year extension. Our choices are: Trade him now Trade him this summer Trade him at the next trade deadline Lose him as a UFA next summer Re-sign him to a 7-8 year deal that is probably worth $6-7M/season and kicks in after next season and lasts until he's 33-34 It's completely understandable if you think that last option is still our best option but let's not pretend a 4-5 year extension is something he'd be looking for. He'll be 26 when he hits UFA. This is *THE* contract for his career. He'll want to get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Everyone please come to terms with the fact that he's not going to sign an extension with the Sabres on the Sabres' terms. He's going to ask for an extension that is bigger than Okposo's. We can't have him for just the next five years because he'd never sign a 4-year extension. Our choices are: Trade him now Trade him this summer Trade him at the next trade deadline Lose him as a UFA next summer Re-sign him to a 7-8 year deal that is probably worth $6-7M/season and kicks in after next season and lasts until he's 33-34 It's completely understandable if you think that last option is still our best option but let's not pretend a 4-5 year extension is something he'd be looking for. He'll be 26 when he hits UFA. This is *THE* contract for his career. He'll want to get paid. We're on the same page here. If you read that as me thinking he'd get a 4 or 5 year deal, that's my bad for not being more clear. Based on Kane's style of play, "5ish" was my projection for how long he'll be an elite performer who I don't want to lose. I'm fully aware (and okay with) overpaying for years 6 and 7 to get the first 4 or 5. There's some GM out there that'll do it. If GMTM sees the value and knows he can make it work with other contracts, I want it to be us. I think this is the same thing we're doing with Okposo. And I'm okay with that too. It's just how contracts work these days for guys in their tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Everyone please come to terms with the fact that he's not going to sign an extension with the Sabres on the Sabres' terms. He's going to ask for an extension that is bigger than Okposo's. We can't have him for just the next five years because he'd never sign a 4-year extension. Our choices are: Trade him now Trade him this summer Trade him at the next trade deadline Lose him as a UFA next summer Re-sign him to a 7-8 year deal that is probably worth $6-7M/season and kicks in after next season and lasts until he's 33-34 It's completely understandable if you think that last option is still our best option but let's not pretend a 4-5 year extension is something he'd be looking for. He'll be 26 when he hits UFA. This is *THE* contract for his career. He'll want to get paid. 6 mil x 8 years......I'm open to that discussion. 6.5 or 7 and I'd trade him. The max I'd want to pay him is 6, but I would really like him at the 5.5 x 8 range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Everyone please come to terms with the fact that he's not going to sign an extension with the Sabres on the Sabres' terms. He's going to ask for an extension that is bigger than Okposo's. We can't have him for just the next five years because he'd never sign a 4-year extension. Our choices are: Trade him now Trade him this summer Trade him at the next trade deadline Lose him as a UFA next summer Re-sign him to a 7-8 year deal that is probably worth $6-7M/season and kicks in after next season and lasts until he's 33-34 It's completely understandable if you think that last option is still our best option but let's not pretend a 4-5 year extension is something he'd be looking for. He'll be 26 when he hits UFA. This is *THE* contract for his career. He'll want to get paid. You are 100% right. It's not going to be less than 7 years, and probably not much (if a-tall) below $6MM per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Good GM's figure out how to make it happen for the players they've identified as difference makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Good GM's figure out how to make it happen for the players they've identified as difference makers. Absolutely. My point (and I think Robvy's too, although I can't speak for him) is that saying "I think the Sabres should sign Kane to a $5MM x 5 year extension" is like saying "I think the Sabres should trade Foligno for McDavid" or "I think Scarlett Johanssen should wear her red underwear when she delivers my new Porsche." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 I'd make it simple and offer Okposo's deal to Kane.. Tell him KO was the prize of last offseason. This offseason, we don't have to look outside of house to find that prize. Sign an identical deal and lets hit the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Here are the most relevant contracts given a winger in the past year: Panarin: two years, $6 million per Gaudreau: six years, $6.75 per Marchand: eight years, $6.1 per Steen: four years, $5.7 per Huberdeau: six years, $5.9 per Hoffman: four years, $5.1 per Schenn: four years, $5.1 per Schwartz: five years, $5.3 per Eriksson: six years, $6 per Okposo: seven years, $6 per Reilly Smith: five at $5 per Lucic: seven at $6 per Forsberg six at $6 per He might be able to squeeze an Okposo contract out of someone. But realistically, based on his track record, his market value is less. Given the season he is having, he should cash in now and be happy with an extension this summer for Forsberg money. Edited February 23, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 We do have a cap issue if we sign Kane and Lehner long-term. (assuming a $75 million cap) 1) for 2018-19, We have the following $ committed already. Okposo, ROR, Moulson, & Ennis upfront for 23.1. On D we have Bogo, Risto and McCabe for another 12.15. That 35.25 for 7 players. 2) That leaves 40 mill for re-signing or acquiring another 15-16 including Kane, Sam, Jack, Lehner and another top 4 D. If you give Jack 7, Sam 5, Kane 6, Lehner 4 and top 4 D for 4+. Now you've spent another 26 (total 61.25 on 12 players). 3) That leaves just $14 mill to spread amongst another 10-11 players. That doesn't leave much room for error or flexibility. Certainly having guys like Nylander, Baptiste, Bailey and Guhle earn some of those roster spot might help, but Carrier, Baptiste and Bailey will all be RFA's after next season and guys like Girgensons, Larsson and Foligno are RFA's after this season as is Ullmark. 4) We are going to need to get out from under at least 2 of Moulson, Ennis and Bogo's contracts to make this work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 We do have a cap issue if we sign Kane and Lehner long-term. (assuming a $75 million cap) 1) for 2018-19, We have the following $ committed already. Okposo, ROR, Moulson, & Ennis upfront for 23.1. On D we have Bogo, Risto and McCabe for another 12.15. That 35.25 for 7 players. 2) That leaves 40 mill for re-signing or acquiring another 15-16 including Kane, Sam, Jack, Lehner and another top 4 D. If you give Jack 7, Sam 5, Kane 6, Lehner 4 and top 4 D for 4+. Now you've spent another 26 (total 61.25 on 12 players). 3) That leaves just $14 mill to spread amongst another 10-11 players. That doesn't leave much room for error or flexibility. Certainly having guys like Nylander, Baptiste, Bailey and Guhle earn some of those roster spot might help, but Carrier, Baptiste and Bailey will all be RFA's after next season and guys like Girgensons, Larsson and Foligno are RFA's after this season as is Ullmark. 4) We are going to need to get out from under at least 2 of Moulson, Ennis and Bogo's contracts to make this work. I think you can move Bogo. Ennis to Vegas is my hope. Moulson......that's an awful situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Absolutely. My point (and I think Robvy's too, although I can't speak for him) is that saying "I think the Sabres should sign Kane to a $5MM x 5 year extension" is like saying "I think the Sabres should trade Foligno for McDavid" or "I think Scarlett Johanssen should wear her red underwear when she delivers my new Porsche." That is a absurdly ludicrous statement. Scarlett would never wear red panties to deliver your Porsche. I'm pretty sure she prefers black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) We do have a cap issue if we sign Kane and Lehner long-term. (assuming a $75 million cap) 1) for 2018-19, We have the following $ committed already. Okposo, ROR, Moulson, & Ennis upfront for 23.1. On D we have Bogo, Risto and McCabe for another 12.15. That 35.25 for 7 players. 2) That leaves 40 mill for re-signing or acquiring another 15-16 including Kane, Sam, Jack, Lehner and another top 4 D. If you give Jack 7, Sam 5, Kane 6, Lehner 4 and top 4 D for 4+. Now you've spent another 26 (total 61.25 on 12 players). 3) That leaves just $14 mill to spread amongst another 10-11 players. That doesn't leave much room for error or flexibility. Certainly having guys like Nylander, Baptiste, Bailey and Guhle earn some of those roster spot might help, but Carrier, Baptiste and Bailey will all be RFA's after next season and guys like Girgensons, Larsson and Foligno are RFA's after this season as is Ullmark. 4) We are going to need to get out from under at least 2 of Moulson, Ennis and Bogo's contracts to make this work. I think your projected numbers are pretty realistic.But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that you could ice your bottom five or six forwards, two or three D and a backup goalie for $14 million. Falk and Fedun make $1.2 combined. I'd imagine you can find similar replacements for similar money. Guhle is signed that year at $700,000. Backup goalies can be had for less than $1 million. That leaves $11 million for six forwards. Larsson made $950,000 and Zemgus $1.1 on their second deals. I see no reason why the majority of our prospects about to sign their second contracts will make more than that. So three of Baptiste, Carrier, Fasching, Rodrigues, Nylander and Bailey - who make $650 to $975 right now - could fill in our bottom six at $1 million per and we'd still have $8 million left to share between Johan, Zemgus and Marcus. Vegas is going to take a contract off our hands. And that's the last season of Moulson and Ennis on the books. Considering they will have low salary, high cap contracts that year, they could attract interest from a floor team. Or we could consider buying them out. Doesnt look too bad to me. EDIT: the closer I look at it, it looks like Murray actually paid attention to contracts and had a plan in mind to keep his core. Like a professional GM. Imagine that. Edited February 23, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Ennis is gone inexpansion. Bogo is moveable. And we've seen in the last couple of years that albatross contracts are tradeable. It seems that meeting the floor during a tank year had become a hip thing around the league. As I said, good GMs find a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 He might be able to squeeze an Okposo contract out of someone. But realistically, based on his track record, his market value is less. Given the season he is having, he should cash in now and be happy with an extension this summer for Forsberg money. A lot of those guys you listed were RFAs, no? Okposo and Lucic are the most appropriate comparables, I think. Let's say he gets $6M. Let's say Reinhart and Eichel average that on their next deals (Eichel higher, Reinhart lower). Add that to O'Reilly and Okposo, that's $32.5 million, or ~43% of the cap assuming a $75M ceiling, for 5 forwards. How many championship teams have had a similar structure? Ennis is gone inexpansion. Bogo is moveable. And we've seen in the last couple of years that albatross contracts are tradeable. It seems that meeting the floor during a tank year had become a hip thing around the league. As I said, good GMs find a way. Maybe so, but I'm not sure Murray has demonstrated the ability to do so. I think your projected numbers are pretty realistic. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that you could ice your bottom five or six forwards, two or three D and a backup goalie for $14 million. Falk and Fedun make $1.2 combined. I'd imagine you can find similar replacements for similar money. Guhle is signed that year at $700,000. Backup goalies can be had for less than $1 million. That leaves $11 million for six forwards. Larsson made $950,000 and Zemgus $1.1 on their second deals. I see no reason why the majority of our prospects about to sign their second contracts will make more than that. So three of Baptiste, Carrier, Fasching, Rodrigues, Nylander and Bailey - who make $650 to $975 right now - could fill in our bottom six at $1 million per and we'd still have $8 million left to share between Johan, Zemgus and Marcus. Vegas is going to take a contract off our hands. And that's the last season of Moulson and Ennis on the books. Considering they will have low salary, high cap contracts that year, they could attract interest from a floor team. Or we could consider buying them out. Doesnt look too bad to me. EDIT: the closer I look at it, it looks like Murray actually paid attention to contracts and had a plan in mind to keep his core. Like a professional GM. Imagine that. The problem with your scenario, in my view, is it's essentially banking on Guhle solving our top-4 D issues. It's also worth noting that McCabe only has one more cheap year remaining after next season. Basically, I think our blue line expense is going to have to increase relative to where it's at now to fix the top-4. That's where Kane's contract is most problematic to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 A lot of those guys you listed were RFAs, no? Okposo and Lucic are the most appropriate comparables, I think. Let's say he gets $6M. Let's say Reinhart and Eichel average that on their next deals (Eichel higher, Reinhart lower). Add that to O'Reilly and Okposo, that's $32.5 million, or ~43% of the cap assuming a $75M ceiling, for 5 forwards. How many championship teams have had a similar structure? Maybe so, but I'm not sure Murray has demonstrated the ability to do so. The problem with your scenario, in my view, is it's essentially banking on Guhle solving our top-4 D issues. It's also worth noting that McCabe only has one more cheap year remaining after next season. Basically, I think our blue line expense is going to have to increase relative to where it's at now to fix the top-4. That's where Kane's contract is most problematic to me. Oh Mr. Blue, Gorges will be gone, Franson will be gone, your favorite bunker boy will be on his last year. They'll be fine and why do you think Reinhart is going to get anything close to 6M?? He's not getting anything close to Eichel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 ...and why do you think Reinhart is going to get anything close to 6M?? He's not getting anything close to Eichel. He said they would average $6M.... like 7 and 5 or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Peters said on the radio today that there's a rumor that we're extending Kane after this season. Haven't seen it mentioned on here. Oh and Thorny, did you happen to call into The Instigators today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Evidently Craig Rivet says that he thinks that the Sabres are going to sign Kane to an extension this summer. The Instigators@TheInstigators Riv's Rumours: "Sabres will resign Evander Kane at the end of the season." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Evidently Craig Rivet says that he thinks that the Sabres are going to sign Kane to an extension this summer. The Instigators@TheInstigators Riv's Rumours: "Sabres will resign Evander Kane at the end of the season." He better pull a top 2 defenseman out of his ass somewhere else then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Evidently Craig Rivet says that he thinks that the Sabres are going to sign Kane to an extension this summer. The Instigators@TheInstigators Riv's Rumours: "Sabres will resign Evander Kane at the end of the season." So Biron says he's not in the LT plans & Rivet says he's going to be extended this off-season. Recalls the Dire Straits line: "2 men say they're Jesus, 1 of them must be wrong ..." Edited February 23, 2017 by Taro T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 So Biron says he's not in the LT plans & Rivet says he's going to be extended this off-season. Recalls the Dire Straits line: "2 men say they're Jesus, 1 of them must be wrong ..." Or both of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Or both of them True. Though of the other potential scenarios, (sign then trade, wait until next off-season to sign this piece of the LT plan, etc) it would seem none would be as plausible as one one of the 2 already espoused by the boys on GR. & of those 2, pretty sure you know which I'd expect to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) A lot of those guys you listed were RFAs, no? Okposo and Lucic are the most appropriate comparables, I think. The problem with your scenario, in my view, is it's essentially banking on Guhle solving our top-4 D issues. It's also worth noting that McCabe only has one more cheap year remaining after next season. Basically, I think our blue line expense is going to have to increase relative to where it's at now to fix the top-4. That's where Kane's contract is most problematic to me. I was actually looking at what Kane might objectively sign for in an extension this summer. If he intends to go to free agency, then bye-bye, trade him. As far as the defence goes, you are looking at Risto, McCabe as a bargain, and Yse's $4 million acquisition as three of four. It will be Bogosian and Guhle jockeying for the fourth position. Obviously not ideal, but it would be the price for retaining Kane if you can't unload Ennis, Moulson or Bogosian. Fortunately all three of the anchor contracts would be gone when we need to re-sign McCabe and Guhle. I was responding to Yse's suggestion Kane would back us into cap jail, even if plays up to his contract. It looks more to me that Murray has a plan and this is just the standard ladder of contract juggling all good teams do. Really, the only issue is paying Bogosian to be a 2/3 when he plays like a 5/6. Evidently Craig Rivet says that he thinks that the Sabres are going to sign Kane to an extension this summer. The Instigators@TheInstigators Riv's Rumours: "Sabres will resign Evander Kane at the end of the season." This had to have been the plan when Murray traded for him, unless his behaviour or his play pushed him out of their plans. Edited February 23, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 So Biron says he's not in the LT plans & Rivet says he's going to be extended this off-season. Recalls the Dire Straits line: "2 men say they're Jesus, 1 of them must be wrong ..." I hate to say it, because I'd like them to keep Kane, but I would guess that Marty has better intel generally than Rivet does. And Dire Straits was a great band. 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.