Rumor: LA Kings interested in Evander Kane

[JJFIVEOH]

Thanks for the red herring hyperbole post. Glad you think the posters considering trading Kane are idiots.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. 

After Kane' s impressive season those who want to trade him dont want to see him walk for nothing next year. I haven't heard very many say we should trade him because injuries/ off ice stuff since like mid season.

 

 

I think Kane is the better player but Muzzin more valuable. Contract term remaining a big part of this, also Kane's off ice issues and market for defensemen

 

What?

[Scottysabres]

Left Wing will have to be addressed if Kane is moved.

[LGR4GM]

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

You basically put words in people's mouths. Kane should be traded if he's not getting extended. It's as simple as that. If they extend him to a reasonable deal cool but I'm doubtful of that. We'll see though.

 

Oh and I didn't put words in your mouth. I said that you think ppl wanting Kane traded are idiots. Judging from your posts that's what I think you think.

Left Wing will have to be addressed if Kane is moved.

Adrian Kempe for the win!

 

Hope MODO is doing well and hope he can stop in soon to talk Kempe

Edited June 5, 2017 by LGR4GM

[JJFIVEOH]

You basically put words in people's mouths. Kane should be traded if he's not getting extended. It's as simple as that. If they extend him to a reasonable deal cool but I'm doubtful of that. We'll see though.

 

Oh and I didn't put words in your mouth. I said that you think ppl wanting Kane traded are idiots. Judging from your posts that's what I think you think.

 

People can disagree without thinking the other is an idiot. Don't make me look like the bad guy. 

[LGR4GM]

People can disagree without thinking the other is an idiot. Don't make me look like the bad guy.

Then don't extrapolate trading a winger on an expire deal to trading Jack Eichel, the team's star center.

[JJFIVEOH]

I give up.....................

[LGR4GM]

I give up.....................

Just make your argument for keeping Kane without hyperbole.

[JJFIVEOH]

Just make your argument for keeping Kane without hyperbole.

 

I will, as soon as you spread your criticism out consistently instead of just focusing on me. 

[Thorny]

I'll put myself out there and say that JJ's point re: Eichel isn't hyperbole at all. It would depend on who you asked. One of the main arguments beings floated for why we should trade Kane is the assumption that he may not want to sign with the Sabres. What's to stop others carrying over what, as of now is only a narrative, over to Jack, when he's up for his next contract?

[LGR4GM]

I will, as soon as you spread your criticism out consistently instead of just focusing on me.

I mean, I've been pretty critical of getting Forbort for Kane I think.

I'll put myself out there and say that JJ's point re: Eichel isn't hyperbole at all. It would depend on who you asked. One of the main arguments beings floated for why we should trade Kane is the assumption that he may not want to sign with the Sabres. What's to stop others carrying over what, as of now is only a narrative, over to Jack, when he's up for his next contract?

Jack's up next July. He's an RFA so he's not going no where.

[Winston]

I'll put myself out there and say that JJ's point re: Eichel isn't hyperbole at all. It would depend on who you asked. One of the main arguments beings floated for why we should trade Kane is the assumption that he may not want to sign with the Sabres. What's to stop others carrying over what, as of now is only a narrative, over to Jack, when he's up for his next contract?

I'm not afraid Kane won't sign with the Sabres. Okposo was a more prized FA than Kane will be. I think if we made Kane an offer at or above market value, he'd probably sign an extension today. Even if he wants to wait and test the market (which he has every right to do), I think we'd be strong players.

 

I'm more worried that Kane isn't in the Sabres long term plans because we already have a lot of money tied up in wingers, and we need to set aside money for our center spine and defensive improvements. Maybe Botterill doesn't want to invest $6-7M when we already pay Okposo $6, Moulson $5, Ennis $4.6, Foligno $2.5 etc. Then I'd rather move that one last year of Kane for three or four years of a defenseman. Because I think we should take a step forward next year with or without Kane. But we aren't competing for a Cup next year. Three or four years from now, hopefully different story.

[Thorny]

I'm not afraid Kane won't sign with the Sabres. Okposo was a more prized FA than Kane will be. I think if we made Kane an offer at or above market value, he'd probably sign an extension today. Even if he wants to wait and test the market (which he has every right to do), I think we'd be strong players.

I'm more worried that Kane isn't in the Sabres long term plans because we already have a lot of money tied up in wingers, and we need to set aside money for our center spine and defensive improvements. Maybe Botterill doesn't want to invest $6-7M when we already pay Okposo $6, Moulson $5, Ennis $4.6, Foligno $2.5 etc. Then I'd rather move that one last year of Kane for three or four years of a defenseman. Because I think we should take a step forward next year with or without Kane. But we aren't competing for a Cup next year. Three or four years from now, hopefully different story.

I'm not sure we can/should be thinking this way, after what we saw the playoff format facilitate for the Senators.

 

I do agree that the $ - and Kane himself - might be better spent on D upgrades, if that's achievable.

 

I just want the Kane return to be adequate.

 

If you aren't going to avail yourself to the possibly that he's not signing with Buffalo, we really don't need to have further discussion on this topic.

You are right, it's definitely possible. I just see no reason to assume it's the case, or even that it's likely. But that's besides your original point. I think I somehow miss read it the first time actually, to be honest. My bad.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Thorny

[North Buffalo]

I'm not sure we can/should be thinking this way, after what we saw the playoff format facilitate for the Senators.

 

I do agree that the $ - and Kane himself - might be better spent on D upgrades, if that's achievable.

 

I just want the Kane return to be adequate.

I have read both arguments for and against and do think that Kane is a risk with a long term contract and his behavioral past.  That being said, I loved his scoring and hard play in the corners last year. I wish one of the young guys could step up in scoring, while also showing a little more vision on ice.  Then trading Kane would be a little more palatable.  Till the uncertainty on wing gets resolved and Molson, Ennis and even Okposo medical issue gets figured out, I'm thinking the Sabres keep him.  Only if the return makes sense a la a D and a high draft pick say next yea then my mind could change.  Feel like a see saw going back and forth on this one....

[apuszczalowski]

For those that keep bring up the question of why fans want to trade Kane, it's simple, in reality/real life, you have to give up something of value to get something of value. So if you want to upgrade the defence, without grossly overpaying in FA for one of the top guys, you are going to have to trade something of value which is either going to be a good NHL ready player, a high draft pick, or a top rated prospect. Since no one wants to give up picks or prospects on a team still building that had to go through hell to get them, the next move is to look at trading a very good forward who's contract is expiring and has not shown a willingness to re-sign here without testing FA first and getting the highest deal.

 

I don't think there's anyone here looking to get rid of Kane just because, but here in reality, your not getting anything decent trading Moulson. But you should get a great return giving up a Kane

[Sabre fan]

I hear talk of Kane for LA's 11th draft pick bu we need immediate help...we simply cannot afford to give a impact player who led the team in scoring for a player who may or may not ever make the team, and if he does, it will probably be 3 to 4 years down the road. If this talk is serious one has to decide what LA has NOW we could use

[thewookie1]

I hear talk of Kane for LA's 11th draft pick bu we need immediate help...we simply cannot afford to give a impact player who led the team in scoring for a player who may or may not ever make the team, and if he does, it will probably be 3 to 4 years down the road. If this talk is serious one has to decide what LA has NOW we could use

To be honest I see 11 as just another asset, like a way to exchange funds. For instance Kane won't fit on the Wild but the 11th overall would

Edited June 5, 2017 by thewookie1

[Eleven]

I hear talk of Kane for LA's 11th draft pick bu we need immediate help...we simply cannot afford to give a impact player who led the team in scoring for a player who may or may not ever make the team, and if he does, it will probably be 3 to 4 years down the road. If this talk is serious one has to decide what LA has NOW we could use

 

Yep.  And I don't think LA has what the Sabres could (realistically) want.

[bunomatic]

So flip # 11 for something we need. Possibly in a package deal.

[I-90 W]

https://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/dreger-evaluates-possibility-evander-kane-trade/

 

Dregers comments on Kane' s trade value is roughly a high end prospect and second rounder. He admitted it's a bit of a guessing game. This thread proposes #11 and either Forbort (an NHL player) or a very high prospect. Both are very high returns for Kane with only one year left on his contract.

[North Buffalo]

So flip # 11 for something we need. Possibly in a package deal.

Probably easier to do something straight up. Too complicated any other way and would use up too many chits for 11th overall assuming Kings would even give that up given their cap constraints.

[Eleven]

So flip # 11 for something we need. Possibly in a package deal.

 

I don't think the #11 pick gets the Sabres anything they need, unless it's coming from a team struggling to protect defensemen.

 

We're talking about the team's leading goal scorer, here.  They shouldn't trade him for anything but an absolute sure thing, if they trade him at all.

[darksabre]

https://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/dreger-evaluates-possibility-evander-kane-trade/

 

Dregers comments on Kane' s trade value is roughly a high end prospect and second rounder. He admitted it's a bit of a guessing game. This thread proposes #11 and either Forbort (an NHL player) or a very high prospect. Both are very high returns for Kane with only one year left on his contract.

I agree with Dreger's take. Lots of over-valuation going on here. 

[nfreeman]

For those that keep bring up the question of why fans want to trade Kane, it's simple, in reality/real life, you have to give up something of value to get something of value. So if you want to upgrade the defence, without grossly overpaying in FA for one of the top guys, you are going to have to trade something of value which is either going to be a good NHL ready player, a high draft pick, or a top rated prospect. Since no one wants to give up picks or prospects on a team still building that had to go through hell to get them, the next move is to look at trading a very good forward who's contract is expiring and has not shown a willingness to re-sign here without testing FA first and getting the highest deal.

 

I don't think there's anyone here looking to get rid of Kane just because, but here in reality, your not getting anything decent trading Moulson. But you should get a great return giving up a Kane

 

Good to see you, sir!

 

I will say though that he also hasn't shown an unwillingness to re-sign here.

 

We just don't have the information.

[That Aud Smell]

We're talking about the team's leading goal scorer, here.  They shouldn't trade him for anything but an absolute sure thing, if they trade him at all.

 

I understand the reluctance to move the team's #1 goal scorer.

 

But if JBOT has made a determination that Kane is not part of the team's core going forward and/or if Kane has given indications that he's intent on testing the UFA market (as would be his well-earned right), then the team would have little choice but to seek value for him while the getting is still good.

 

Anyway, if JBOT is intent on getting a legit top-4 LHD, and setting aside the expansion draft and salary cap issues that are, frankly, too challenging and multiple for me to follow and understand, then it'd be Sam Reinhart who needs to be on the trading block (along with some other pick, prospect, player). IMO, Kane will not be part of a deal that fetches the top-4 LHD.

[Samson's Flow]

Let's also keep in mind that GMTM was the guy who loved Kane and brought him in to the team. With Botterill in town, he doesn't have ties to any of the players here, so he may be more willing to part with an asset on a short term contract to improve the makeup of the team as he sees fit.

 

I personally didn't want to trade Kane going into this offseason, but the offers mentioned are pretty tempting and I am coming around to the logic.