Brawndo Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Bob McKenzie was on NBCSN and mentioned how the demand for top six forwards far exceeds supply. He spoke specifically about Tampa and mentioned the plethora of prospects they have in addition to draft picks they have in trade capital. LeBrun mentioned he doesn’t expect any real movement on the Kane Trade Front for 4-6 Weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Bob McKenzie was on NBCSN and mentioned how the demand for top six forwards far exceeds supply. He spoke specifically about Tampa and mentioned the plethora of prospects they have in addition to draft picks they have in trade capital. LeBrun mentioned he doesn’t expect any real movement on the Kane Trade Front for 4-6 Weeks Botterill can't afford to screw this trade up. It will tell us a lot about his plans for the Sabres immediate future, the style of play he wants, and how he can negotiate with other GMs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) I hope they keep Kane. It's hard for a team like Buffalo, who has been in the dumps for so long, to get and keep players who are already good and doing well now for the team. In the last ten years, Buffalo has had a lot of swings and misses in the hockey personnel department which was set up by unstable ownership and management. Presently, I don't know what to expect of ownership and management. There's no track record of being in charge of any successful teams here. All we have is losing with the promise of potential. We have an unsuccessful mix of players who either are potentially good or those who were good at one point but not now. Nobody is consistently performing well except Kane. I think that keeping the guys who are performing and dropping those who aren't would be a good start to achieving the stability the team needs . Edited November 30, 2017 by Marvelo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) Here's some thoughts: If they trade Kane for other players who have top-end speed, Botterill likes Housley's philosophy If they trade for players who lack top-end speed but possess other qualities, maybe Botterill and Housley are already not on the same page (?) If they trade Kane for a nice haul and then re-sign him July 1, Botterill is a genius and I buy a Kane jersey Edited November 30, 2017 by ericcomposer72 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Really? The B prospect that is Sprong? They better be adding their first this year and something else good if they want Kane. Oh and a soon to be 29 defender isn't a good addition. Well they aren't the same. A late first nets you a substantially better player then a late 2nd especially if you're talking scorers. I'd dig up the stats to prove that but frankly I don't give a damn. Seems to be the popular choice for whatever God awful reason. Your going to be disappointed when Kane is traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 I hope they keep Kane. It's hard for a team like Buffalo, who has been in the dumps for so long, to get and keep players who are already good and doing well now for the team. In the last ten years, Buffalo has had a lot of swings and misses in the hockey personnel department which was set up by unstable ownership and management. Presently, I don't know what to expect of ownership and management. There's no track record of being in charge of any successful teams here. All we have is losing with the promise of potential. We have an unsuccessful mix of players who either are potentially good or those who were good at one point but not now. Nobody is consistently performing well except Kane. I think that keeping the guys who are performing and dropping those who aren't would be a good start to achieving the stability the team needs . Keeping Kane, means likely paying him close to 8M. I just don't see it in any other situation. Keeping him away from UFA where he can potentially be the top scoring option to garner any or all of what he wants out of his likely biggest contract is silly for him. To sign up for 8 seasons at a high cap with the looming word "rebuild" just glares "not likely". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBaltimore Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Can we really afford to keep Kane? Next year we have just under 18 million in cap room and have to sign roughly 10 players. If we give Kane the big payout he's going to want to stay here, I'm not sure that leaves us enough to sign all the other players we need. Now after next season we gain 10.6m in cap space when Molson's contract and Pominville are done. So we sacrifice next year and play a bunch of cheap players and wait for 2019-20 to sign what we need? And that all assumes Kane stays healthy. He's yet to play a full 82 games, and only has played 70 or more games in 3 of his 9 seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Your going to be disappointed when Kane is traded. Why? Because you say I will be? Kane is going to get a Prospect, 1st rounder, and a something. That is what he will get. If he doesn't i won't be disappointed because I don't care that much. Can we really afford to keep Kane? Next year we have just under 18 million in cap room and have to sign roughly 10 players. If we give Kane the big payout he's going to want to stay here, I'm not sure that leaves us enough to sign all the other players we need. Now after next season we gain 10.6m in cap space when Molson's ###### contract and Pominville are done. So we sacrifice next year and play a bunch of cheap players and wait for 2019-20 to sign what we need? And that all assumes Kane stays healthy. He's yet to play a full 82 games, and only has played 70 or more games in 3 of his 9 seasons. This assumes there is no way to move any of the other contracts on the roster and that just isn't accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBaltimore Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 This assumes there is no way to move any of the other contracts on the roster and that just isn't accurate. No one will take Molson($5m) from us. I'm not sure we could get rid of Bogosian ($5.1m) either, especially after his injury this year. Maybe if he comes back and has a good remainder of the season someone would want to take him (assuming Botteril wants to trade him). We could probably trade Pominville ($5.6). Who do you see getting moved away to free up cap space next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 No one will take Molson($5m) from us. I'm not sure we could get rid of Bogosian ($5.1m) either, especially after his injury this year. Maybe if he comes back and has a good remainder of the season someone would want to take him (assuming Botteril wants to trade him). We could probably trade Pominville ($5.6). Who do you see getting moved away to free up cap space next year? Terrible contracts are traded every season. No reason it can't be Moulson or BOGO. Plenty of stupid gms out there not to mention if JBot is creative enough he can get it done. I'm tired of this rhetoric because it's just not true. Dion Phaneuf, Phil Kessel, David Clarkson just to name a few awful contracts that were moved with ease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBaltimore Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Terrible contracts are traded every season. No reason it can't be Moulson or BOGO. Plenty of stupid gms out there not to mention if JBot is creative enough he can get it done. I'm tired of this rhetoric because it's just not true. Dion Phaneuf, Phil Kessel, David Clarkson just to name a few awful contracts that were moved with ease. I hope you're right, but until one of those things happens, I'm going based on what the current numbers say, which leaves us with not a lot of cap space to sign a lot of players for next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 I hope you're right, but until one of those things happens, I'm going based on what the current numbers say, which leaves us with not a lot of cap space to sign a lot of players for next season. If you're counting Reinhart as one of those we need to sign, think twice... he's as good as gone... ...which is too bad, I think he will be really good one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBaltimore Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 If you're counting Reinhart as one of those we need to sign, think twice... he's as good as gone... ...which is too bad, I think he will be really good one day. I'm simply comparing the number roster size this year (26) to the projected roster size for next year (16) given current contracts. But that must be counting IR, since max is 23, so really the number is 7 not 10. However having exactly 23 people signed would give us no depth. Total contracts (which includes prospects and minors, etc) we're down from 45 this year to 26 next year. 45 seems to be the standard across the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyldnwoody44 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 In a league where you can trade a retired player (Datsyuk) then anything is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Terrible contracts are traded every season. No reason it can't be Moulson or BOGO. Plenty of stupid gms out there not to mention if JBot is creative enough he can get it done. I'm tired of this rhetoric because it's just not true. Dion Phaneuf, Phil Kessel, David Clarkson just to name a few awful contracts that were moved with ease. Yes. I will go as far as to say it's not impossible for Botterill - it's necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 Wow It’s possible, then, that Botterill wants to re-sign Kane, though the Sabres and Kane’s camp at Newport Sports had reportedly not yet engaged in any contract talks. http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/kane-at-home-in-buffalo-with-trade-deadline-and-free-agency-looming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 Wow http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/kane-at-home-in-buffalo-with-trade-deadline-and-free-agency-looming Nothing wrong with wanting to re-sign the leading scorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 Wow http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/kane-at-home-in-buffalo-with-trade-deadline-and-free-agency-looming Not the usual narrative being spouted about Evander wanting to be here. Sign him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 I’m starting to warm to the idea of trading O’Reilly for a top four defenceman and a third-line Centre and using the money to keep Kane. OReilly could get a nice return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 Not the usual narrative being spouted about Evander wanting to be here. Sign him. Nah, trade him now, sign him in off-season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 Nah, trade him now, sign him in off-season. My only issue with this is, if a team trades for him are they also making a ROR deal with him beforehand so they don't just give up assets without retaining him. I'm guessing anyone who trades for him has already made indirect contact with his agent to see what he wants for his next contract and his possible willingness to stay there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 My only issue with this is, if a team trades for him are they also making a ROR deal with him beforehand so they don't just give up assets without retaining him. I'm guessing anyone who trades for him has already made indirect contact with his agent to see what he wants for his next contract and his possible willingness to stay there. LIke with Hanzal ? No way of knowing this. Hanzal got a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick, comparing him with kane, I expect at least that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 LIke with Hanzal ? No way of knowing this. Hanzal got a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick, comparing him with kane, I expect at least that. No, he didn't. Hanzel, White, and a 4th in 2017 were traded for a 1st (2017), a 2nd(2018) and a conditional 4th(2019) The condition on the 4th is that it moved if Minnesota lost in the first round, which occurred. The conditional 4th in 2019 is worth a lot less then a 4th in 2017, agreed? So part of the 2nd pick value has to be attributed to the swap of 4ths. Let's say the 2nd and conditional 4th was worth the 4th and a 3rd, thus if we remove the two 4ths, it leaves us with Hanzel, White, for a 1st and a 3rd. What's Ryan White worth, maybe a 3rd? That leaves us with Hanzel for a first, somewhere between 23rd if they lose in the first round, and 31st, if they had won the cup. I think it's true that Kane will return more than Hanzel, but let's not start making up what Hanzel brought back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 (edited) I’m starting to warm to the idea of trading O’Reilly for a top four defenceman and a third-line Centre and using the money to keep Kane. OReilly could get a nice return. I find it unlikely a third line center and top-4 Dman combined take up meaningfully less cap space than O'Reilly. And who is our 2C in your scenario? I don't think weakening the team down the middle is the right move. Edited December 18, 2017 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted December 18, 2017 Report Share Posted December 18, 2017 No, he didn't. Hanzel, White, and a 4th in 2017 were traded for a 1st (2017), a 2nd(2018) and a conditional 4th(2019) The condition on the 4th is that it moved if Minnesota lost in the first round, which occurred. The conditional 4th in 2019 is worth a lot less then a 4th in 2017, agreed? So part of the 2nd pick value has to be attributed to the swap of 4ths. Let's say the 2nd and conditional 4th was worth the 4th and a 3rd, thus if we remove the two 4ths, it leaves us with Hanzel, White, for a 1st and a 3rd. What's Ryan White worth, maybe a 3rd? That leaves us with Hanzel for a first, somewhere between 23rd if they lose in the first round, and 31st, if they had won the cup. I think it's true that Kane will return more than Hanzel, but let's not start making up what Hanzel brought back. There was a prospect involved as well. So in the scenario it would be Hanzal (so hot right now) for a 1st and a prospect. I find it unlikely a third line center and top-4 Dman combined take up meaningfully less cap space than O'Reilly. And who is our 2C in your scenario? I don't think weakening the team down the middle is the right move. The hypothetical choice between ROR and Kane is an interesting one, though, if we are in a position where we can only afford to keep one. Ultimately I think I come down on the side that says we need that centre, but Kane has been a better player this season. Kane is a better winger this year than ROR has been a centre, but centres are more valuable. Imagine the scenario where Sam Reinhart was emerging as a top 2 centre right now, what he was drafted to be. Much easier choice to make. 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.