North Buffalo Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 At this point I think though its time to sell Kane, high pick or a puck moving D. Then draft for high end offense with first pick... not sure if that can be achhieved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 It just seems to me we have no say in getting Kane to stay. It's totally his decision. The guy can do whatever he wants and so many teams will be after him. Why not trade him and then try and re-sign him? How about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 Because Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 We have had the exclusive rights to players (Butcher and that dude who signed with Rangers) and they both walked. I'm sure they have already made a generous offer to Kane and he has not signed. What would change that now? He would hate to leave Buffalo? Well, I do wish Darcy had taken the four draft picks for Vanek but nothing was going to stop Briere and Drury from leaving either. Yes, they could have signed them earlier, but Kane is gone. If he hasn't already signed here he won't in the future. Time to move on and take what we can get I don't see how you could possibly be sure of this. I would guess in fact that they have not made an offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 I'm not assuming anything. I'm protesting the idea that we should trade him because our time isn't now. Someday we have to keep vets that perform well, build around THEM, and focus on winning damned hockey games instead of winning draft picks. My point is I lean heavily toward Kane will want to test free agency and our chances of signing him would be slim. JBot is in a tough spot here. It may not be a question of should we extend him. Some on the board seem to think this is in the team's hands. I'm more inclined that it's more in Kane's agents hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 Max value right now, this team as is isn't going anywhere, use him as step one in the total new rebuild. Thought you left? Anyway... Rebuild what? So we can trade picks and all our prospects to get a “Kane” back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Jones Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 Thought you left? Anyway... Rebuild what? So we can trade picks and all our prospects to get a “Kane” back? Decided I wasn't going to let the little dictators have their satisfaction. We need to build a team of players who play every night not a bunch of guys who only play when they feel like it or when they want a contract. I am at a loss to explain how so many of you are so easily fooled by Kane playing well this year. HE IS PLAYING FOR A CONTRACT. Minute you sign him long term to big money he'll be back to the old Kane guaranteed. IF he does consider signing here it'd be only for the money, more likely he has zero desire to sign here and will sign where he wants to be - Vancouver. Trade him while he is at top value, it's the only decision possible for future success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Decided I wasn't going to let the little dictators have their satisfaction. We need to build a team of players who play every night not a bunch of guys who only play when they feel like it or when they want a contract. I am at a loss to explain how so many of you are so easily fooled by Kane playing well this year. HE IS PLAYING FOR A CONTRACT. Minute you sign him long term to big money he'll be back to the old Kane guaranteed. IF he does consider signing here it'd be only for the money, more likely he has zero desire to sign here and will sign where he wants to be - Vancouver. Trade him while he is at top value, it's the only decision possible for future success. As someone else said, this take is lazy. His rep is that he always plays hard. He has never been a guy that was accused of taking shifts at less than he could give. For the first time since he played with Dany Heatley, he's got 1st line talent at center and he's been healthy for the 1st 20 games. This is Evander Kane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 As someone else said, this take is lazy. His rep is that he always plays hard. He has never been a guy that was accused of taking shifts at less than he could give. For the first time since he played with Dany Heatley, he's got 1st line talent at center and he's been healthy for the 1st 20 games. This is Evander Kane. For how long? While some are certainly concerned about him off the ice, I'm not one of them. By far my biggest worry with Kane is longevity of performance. Given his history and style of play, it's not unreasonable to be hesitant to fork over 7 years to him. He'll be 27 when the contract starts, which is painfully close to the point where offense starts to fall off. And lord knows Kane doesn't bring enough defensively to compensate if his offense slips to a meaningful degree. Okposo is only 29 and looks to be a shell of his former self. I completely understand wanting to keep our best players and keep building that way. It's totally valid. But Kane has never had more than 57 points in a season, and that was in 2011-12. His highest total since then was 43. This year he's at essentially a point per game. I don't expect him to keep up this pace for the entire season, but if he does, and he wants a contract commensurate with a point per game player, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue it could be in the team's best interest to move him. Paying Kane as a ~75 point player, for (presumably) 7 years, when he's never come close to that in his career, is tremendously risky. His ability to generate even strength offense from anywhere in the lineup carries significant value, and it's something I'm willing to pay for. But if he wants to get paid based on this season's production, I'm probably going to take a pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 I don't see how you could possibly be sure of this. I would guess in fact that they have not made an offer. That would really surprise me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Decided I wasn't going to let the little dictators have their satisfaction. We need to build a team of players who play every night not a bunch of guys who only play when they feel like it or when they want a contract. I am at a loss to explain how so many of you are so easily fooled by Kane playing well this year. HE IS PLAYING FOR A CONTRACT. Minute you sign him long term to big money he'll be back to the old Kane guaranteed. IF he does consider signing here it'd be only for the money, more likely he has zero desire to sign here and will sign where he wants to be - Vancouver. Trade him while he is at top value, it's the only decision possible for future success. Not sure why I engage you as you are fox news, but I'll take the bait. You could have easily made this point without the condescension. But you can't, like fox News it's who you are. Posters do agree with you but the manner in which you deliver them is nauseating. Here is your typical take. "I'm smarter than you so whatever you say is irrelevant. I know things because I validate my opinion with more opinions. Here is my opinion it is fact, whatever you guys say is wrong because it's your opinion." There is no reasoning with fox News. You exist in your own narrative with blinders on so it impossible for you accept other opinions as they don't exist to you. It's maddening talking to you because you don't see it. You can't see, it doesn't exist in your world. You will respond with rhetoric about dictators and venom about not being able to post freely. It's BS that you and fox news live by. You can't exist without it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 That would really surprise me The reality is- nothing precludes them from not telling the media about their current negotiations (regarding either a trade or contract discussion), and nothing precludes them from lying to the media, when asked. They both benefit from keeping everything on the DL HE IS PLAYING FOR A CONTRACT He was our leading goal scorer the year he wasn't playing for a contract. There'd be a lot more 30 goal scorers if they could all just turn it on for contract year. Some people just like scoring goals. I know, sounds crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 The reality is- nothing precludes them from not telling the media about their current negotiations (regarding either a trade or contract discussion), and nothing precludes them from lying to the media, when asked. They both benefit from keeping everything on the DL He was our leading goal scorer the year he wasn't playing for a contract. There'd be a lot more 30 goal scorers if they could all just turn it on for contract year. Some people just like scoring goals. I know, sounds crazy. Because Eichel missed 20 games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Collection Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 My concern is his health. He plays hard and is having a career year. His game has caused him to miss a lot of games, every season. What do we do if he has a season ending injury before the trade deadline? I know you can't live your life in this "what if " mode but I worry we will lose him for nothing. I don't think he signs here even if we match the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 For how long? While some are certainly concerned about him off the ice, I'm not one of them. By far my biggest worry with Kane is longevity of performance. Given his history and style of play, it's not unreasonable to be hesitant to fork over 7 years to him. He'll be 27 when the contract starts, which is painfully close to the point where offense starts to fall off. And lord knows Kane doesn't bring enough defensively to compensate if his offense slips to a meaningful degree. Okposo is only 29 and looks to be a shell of his former self. I completely understand wanting to keep our best players and keep building that way. It's totally valid. But Kane has never had more than 57 points in a season, and that was in 2011-12. His highest total since then was 43. This year he's at essentially a point per game. I don't expect him to keep up this pace for the entire season, but if he does, and he wants a contract commensurate with a point per game player, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue it could be in the team's best interest to move him. Paying Kane as a ~75 point player, for (presumably) 7 years, when he's never come close to that in his career, is tremendously risky. His ability to generate even strength offense from anywhere in the lineup carries significant value, and it's something I'm willing to pay for. But if he wants to get paid based on this season's production, I'm probably going to take a pass. given your previously stated stances on this I'm not sure you could find a player that you would be willing to offer a market contract to at 27. That kind of roster management results in the very same roster turnover we saw under Regier, with good to very good veteran players getting moved for scratch off tickets and 2nd tier prospects. It is a recipe for perpetual leadership voids and mediocrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Because Eichel missed 20 games weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 given your previously stated stances on this I'm not sure you could find a player that you would be willing to offer a market contract to at 27. That kind of roster management results in the very same roster turnover we saw under Regier, with good to very good veteran players getting moved for scratch off tickets and 2nd tier prospects. It is a recipe for perpetual leadership voids and mediocrity. I can see why you would interpret it that way, but I wouldn't go quite so far. I would be willing to pay that for truly elite offensive players (the other Kane, Tarasenko, Kucherov, etc.), forwards who add significant value beyond their offense (Kopitar and Bergeron, and yes, O'Reilly types), and possession-generating defensemen who can eat up top competition and big minutes (Drew Doughty, I'm looking at you!). Paying full market value to Okposo-level players in their upper-20s generally doesn't appeal to me, nor do I think it ensures mediocrity any more than having a few ugly long-term contracts does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 weak. I too like misleading stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) Because Eichel missed 20 games And Kane missed 12 and played the rest with healing broken ribs. I can see why you would interpret it that way, but I wouldn't go quite so far. I would be willing to pay that for truly elite offensive players (the other Kane, Tarasenko, Kucherov, etc.), forwards who add significant value beyond their offense (Kopitar and Bergeron, and yes, O'Reilly types), and possession-generating defensemen who can eat up top competition and big minutes (Drew Doughty, I'm looking at you!). Paying full market value to Okposo-level players in their upper-20s generally doesn't appeal to me, nor do I think it ensures mediocrity any more than having a few ugly long-term contracts does. I think it is unreasonable to think you can build a strong playoff team if you are limiting your roster to 1st and 2nd contracts and elite, Selke, and Norris candidates over 27. Wdit- not well phrased..... you guidelines would limit 3rd contract vets to under market contracts or role players. Not realistic. Edited November 20, 2017 by We've Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 And Kane missed 12 and played the rest with healing broken ribs. He played 9 more games than Eichel, had 4 more goals, 14 less points. His ribs weren't nearly as debilitating as skating on a bad ankle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 He played 9 more games than Eichel, had 4 more goals, 14 less points. His ribs weren't nearly as debilitating as skating on a bad ankle. Im not so sure. And the point still is, both players missed time and dealt with injury. Its not like Kane’s lead in goals should have an asterisk next to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Im not so sure. And the point still is, both players missed time and dealt with injury. Its not like Kane’s lead in goals should have an asterisk next to it. It shouldn't be used to further any argument on keeping him though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) And Kane missed 12 and played the rest with healing broken ribs. I think it is unreasonable to think you can build a strong playoff team if you are limiting your roster to 1st and 2nd contracts and elite, Selke, and Norris candidates over 27. Wdit- not well phrased..... you guidelines would limit 3rd contract vets to under market contracts or role players. Not realistic. Now I'm the one who went too far. As a man who defended Drew Stafford's market value contract, I don't want my point to be to never pay market value for non-elite players. But I do think caution needs to be exercised, and sometimes you do just have to say no. In a cap league with slow cap growth, you simply can't pay everyone. Even the best teams let really good players walk and hope to replace from within with lottery tickets. Edited November 20, 2017 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Jones Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 My posts deleted, warnings issued for nothing, duly noted. Enjoy your "space". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 My posts deleted, warnings issued for nothing, duly noted. Enjoy your "space". I'm sure it was nothing. Sorry I missed it. 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.