That Aud Smell Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 ^ McKenzie isn't some blogger speculating from mom's basement. If he's saying that, then he has information on which he's basing the statement. It doesn't mean the trade will come to pass, but, with McKenzie, that sort of talk is always more than idle speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Next time I go to pick cherries, I want you by my side. What numbers, specifically, were cherry-picked? If you have a real rebuttal to GA's #s, let's see it. Until then, the exchange on stats was a decisive win for GA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 If your team has a positive goal differential, but one or two players are in the minus teens or worse, you don't think that means anything? Or vice-versa, where the team is -40 goal differential, but a few players are positive +/-... you don't think that reflects well on their play? The stat on it's own doesn't mean much, but when taking team goal differential into context it starts to shed some light on who your better players are. Do you know what that goal differential was if you remove all of the power play goals that weren't factored into the plus minus? I'd imagine they come fairly close to balancing out, but I don't know how balanced their special teams were. Also, does that differential factor in the freebie goal credited for shoot out wins? I can never seem to find a straight answer as to whether or not that is included in the official NHL team GF/GA stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 What numbers, specifically, were cherry-picked? If you have a real rebuttal to GA's #s, let's see it. Until then, the exchange on stats was a decisive win for GA. Thank you! I was about to invite him to publish which stats say otherwise. I could have added Corsi, Fenwick and +/- but choose not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Y'all act like Kane is on some island and doesn't have anyone good to play with. In Buffalo, Kane plays with star centers Eichel and ROR and he is putting up the same mediocre numbers he did in Wpg. In fact despite two years with Jack and ROR he hasn't even approached the 57 pt season he had while playing in Wpg with teammates such as Wheeler, Ladd, Little and Byfuglien. Also last I looked Scheifele is a pretty good center as well. Sure star players can make mediocre players look better then they are, but Lucic has performed solidly with 3 different franchises playing with all kinds of centers. Maybe he is just a good solid player who can play with anyone? I'm pretty sure Lucic would be just as effective as Kane, if not more so playing with Eichel and ROR. Not only would he give us the same 20 goals, but he might actually make a play or two which would allow Eichel, ROR, Okposo and Reinhart to score. I'm not sure you got my point: Lucic is a better complementary player than Kane and I would expect him to put up better numbers with Jack or ROR than Kane. Maybe another way of saying this is that I would expect Lucic to get 50-60 points in a full season with Jack and Sam and 30-ish with Larsson and Gionta. I'd expect Kane to get 45 with either. But I didn't mean to get sidetracked into a who's better debate, I was looking for comparables to Kane so we could look at potential trade returns. The Lucic return was pretty damn good. I don't expect to get as much for Kane, but maybe pick 11 isn't out of line value wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7+6=13 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Kane, IMO, gives relentless effort and gave this team some offense in an ultra boring system deployed by Bylsma. He was one of the few players we had that would go to the net and be in position to be set up for a goal - and he got several clean up goals for his willingness to stay at the net. He's a difficult guy to clear out. His effort at times could also be categorized as out of control and he often takes ill-advised shots - when a pass was the better option. Nonetheless, his effort was appreciated, especially by his supporters because that's ultimately something that matters greatly to fans. In saying all of that, I don't see him being a system guy - and if that's what JBot is looking to build than he may not be your man. Especially from your top 6. Now, I don't necessarily mind having a non systematic player like Kane on my 3rd or 4th line. If you're more talented than your line mates or the defensive players you're against, do your thing a little bit. However you can't pay a guy that much money for that role. I think this may be one of the biggest factors in the decision JBot has regarding what to do with Kane. Can he be a guy that plays within a system and get an assist 3 games in a row while patiently waiting for his goal opportunities vs forcing those opportunities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure you got my point: Lucic is a better complementary player than Kane and I would expect him to put up better numbers with Jack or ROR than Kane. Maybe another way of saying this is that I would expect Lucic to get 50-60 points in a full season with Jack and Sam and 30-ish with Larsson and Gionta. I'd expect Kane to get 45 with either. But I didn't mean to get sidetracked into a who's better debate, I was looking for comparables to Kane so we could look at potential trade returns. The Lucic return was pretty damn good. I don't expect to get as much for Kane, but maybe pick 11 isn't out of line value wise. I'll somewhat disagree in that Lucic would probably get close to 40 with Larsson and Girgensons. He'd create some more open ice for them as well. That said I'd move Kane for 11 right now. I might also acquire Muzzin in a seperate deal for a 2nd and 3rd this season. Owning the 8th and 11th would help us get both the LW and D we need long-term. Getting Muzzin gives us a couple of years to let Guhle and the D draftee time to develop and we net save some money. Final deal. Kane plus picks 54 and 68 for Muzzin and pick 11. Edited June 6, 2017 by GASabresFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Why are you trading the team's leading goal scorer for a player who won't be in the NHL for three years, if ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Why are you trading the team's leading goal scorer for a player who won't be in the NHL for three years, if ever? Yeah I want absolutely nothing to do with Kempe. He doesn't impress me at all. I wouldn't even move our 1st for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Yeah I want absolutely nothing to do with Kempe. He doesn't impress me at all. I wouldn't even move our 1st for him GA isn't even talking about that--he's talking about Kane straight up for the eleventh overall pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 GA isn't even talking about that--he's talking about Kane straight up for the eleventh overall pick. Missed that, my mistake. It would really have me convinced Botterill is a terrible GM right off the bat. This has been claimed to be one of, if not the, worst draft in 20 years. I wouldn't even do that trade in a good draft, let alone this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Missed that, my mistake. It would really have me convinced Botterill is a terrible GM right off the bat. This has been claimed to be one of, if not the, worst draft in 20 years. I wouldn't even do that trade in a good draft, let alone this one It is not the worst draft in 20 years. 2012 was definitely worse. I would say it is on par with the 2014 draft if not with more depth. The reason ppl don't like this draft is because McClavicle and Matthews are not at the top. Edited June 6, 2017 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) GA isn't even talking about that--he's talking about Kane straight up for the eleventh overall pick.Actually it's Dudacek's idea that I am ok with. Kane, despite our leading 5 on 5 scorer, doesn't actually help make us a contender. He is expensive and will be even more expensive in a year. We need to maximize our return for him now while we can. This is being called an average draft. No generational talent, but potentially solid NHL players deep into the 2nd rd. Despite all of our wishes to be a contender next season, we simply don't have the organizational talent to compete. JBot is a builder and that is what he will do. Trading Kane for the 11th (combined with our 8th) gives Jbot two huge building blocks to build the depth long-term. If we draft the right guys (valimaki and Vesalainen :) ), i think both will be in the NHL within 2 years. As to next year, Jbot will shore up the D and add some depth at forward. Hopefully moving Kane will give some of the young players, like Baptiste and Bailey, a chance to shine. Edited June 6, 2017 by GASabresFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Actually it's Dudacek's idea that I am ok with. Kane, despite our leading 5 on 5 scorer, doesn't actually help make us a contender. He is expensive and will be even more expensive in a year. We need to maximize our return for him now while we can. This is being called an average draft. No generational talent, but potentially solid NHL players deep into the 2nd rd. Despite all of our wishes to be a contender next season, we simply don't have the organizational talent to compete. JBot is a builder and that is what he will do. Trading Kane for the 11th (combined with our 8th) gives Jbot two huge building blocks to build the depth long-term. If we draft the right guys (valimaki and Vesalainen :) ), i think both will be in the NHL within 2 years. As to next year, Jbot will shore up the D and add some depth at forward. Hopefully moving Kane will give some of the young players, like Baptiste and Bailey, a chance to shine. Ugh to all of this. This is the worst draft in years and the time to hope and pray on draft pick selections has come and gone. This team has sucked for long enough and the time has come to see an improvement....and I mean a big one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Actually it's Dudacek's idea that I am ok with. Kane, despite our leading 5 on 5 scorer, doesn't actually help make us a contender. He is expensive and will be even more expensive in a year. We need to maximize our return for him now while we can. This is being called an average draft. No generational talent, but potentially solid NHL players deep into the 2nd rd. Despite all of our wishes to be a contender next season, we simply don't have the organizational talent to compete. JBot is a builder and that is what he will do. Trading Kane for the 11th (combined with our 8th) gives Jbot two huge building blocks to build the depth long-term. If we draft the right guys (valimaki and Vesalainen :) ), i think both will be in the NHL within 2 years. As to next year, Jbot will shore up the D and add some depth at forward. Hopefully moving Kane will give some of the young players, like Baptiste and Bailey, a chance to shine. Again, why are you proposing to trade the team's leading goal scorer for a draft pick who might never make it to the NHL? In what world does that make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 If, and I do mean IF we were to trade Kane to LA, would anyone here be against getting Forbort and their #11 for Kane? I think that would be an incredible return for Kane with only one year left on his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Again, why are you proposing to trade the team's leading goal scorer for a draft pick who might never make it to the NHL? In what world does that make sense? I think that trade is light in terms of consideration coming the Sabres way, but, in answer to your question, trading the team's leading goal scorer who is one year from UFA status for the best value you can get for him (hopefully that's more than the 11th overall pick in a less than great draft) would make sense in a world where that player (1) is not part of the new GM's long-term plan for the team and/or (2) seems less than interested in pursuing a long-term deal with your club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think that trade is light in terms of consideration coming the Sabres way, but, in answer to your question, trading the team's leading goal scorer who is one year from UFA status for the best value you can get for him (hopefully that's more than the 11th overall pick in a less than great draft) would make sense in a world where that player (1) is not part of the new GM's long-term plan for the team and/or (2) seems less than interested in pursuing a long-term deal with your club. Frankly, there's some value in Botterill standing up and showing the world that he won't be had, too. I'd greatly prefer that to trading Kane for a draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Again, why are you proposing to trade the team's leading goal scorer for a draft pick who might never make it to the NHL? In what world does that make sense? I think many posters just want to get rid of Evander Kane the person, despite how good a hockey player he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think many posters just want to get rid of Evander Kane the person, despite how good a hockey player he is. Like who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Frankly, there's some value in Botterill standing up and showing the world that he won't be had, too. I'd greatly prefer that to trading Kane for a draft pick. Agreed there. I don't want to see him move Kane for less than good value. Someone from TSN said a very good prospect/young NHLer and a 2nd round pick, I think. That sounds about right. I think many posters just want to get rid of Evander Kane the person, despite how good a hockey player he is. I was super fed up with Kane a while back, as suggested. That's quite faded now. My concerns now are: (1) expiring contract, (2) no clear chemistry with Eichel, and (3) an apparently low hockey IQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Frankly, there's some value in Botterill standing up and showing the world that he won't be had, too. I'd greatly prefer that to trading Kane for a draft pick. He needs to be extended or traded. If he starts the season playing on his expiring contract we run the risk of him getting injured and seeing him walk for nothing. I'm not trying to get rid of him either, I'd prefer to extend him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Why are you trading the team's leading goal scorer for a player who won't be in the NHL for three years, if ever? GA isn't even talking about that--he's talking about Kane straight up for the eleventh overall pick. This. I detest the idea of trading Kane for futures. If the Sabres have to trade him, they need to get a good player who will be in their lineup this fall. I think that trade is light in terms of consideration coming the Sabres way, but, in answer to your question, trading the team's leading goal scorer who is one year from UFA status for the best value you can get for him (hopefully that's more than the 11th overall pick in a less than great draft) would make sense in a world where that player (1) is not part of the new GM's long-term plan for the team and/or (2) seems less than interested in pursuing a long-term deal with your club. Fair, but as I mentioned above it can't be for futures. That would be an unambiguous step back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think many posters just want to get rid of Evander Kane the person, despite how good a hockey player he is. Fake news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 He needs to be extended or traded. If he starts the season playing on his expiring contract we run the risk of him getting injured and seeing him walk for nothing. I'm not trying to get rid of him either, I'd prefer to extend him. Fair, but as I mentioned above it can't be for futures. That would be an unambiguous step back. Agreed with both of these. It's a sticky wicket for JBOT to whack the ball through. 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.