I-90 W Posted July 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 Obviously looking like were going to go into the season with him. Wonder what we'll get at the trade deadline next year for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 7, 2017 Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 The Sabres do not sign him. As mentioned he does not fit with with players in the Top 6. If he truly doesn't fit with O'Reilly or Eichel they should move Reinhart to 3rd line center and put Kane on his wing. Pittsburgh wins because of their depth and balance and by basically putting their 3 best forwards (Crosby, Malkin, and Kessel) on 3 separate lines. We should do the same with O'Reilly, Eichel, and Reinhart. We just need another good winger to pair with whichever one of O'Reilly or Eichel doesn't get Okposo until Nylander is ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted July 7, 2017 Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 I bet they keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted July 7, 2017 Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 6 x 6.5-6.75M per season. If we were to retain him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 7, 2017 Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 Tatar and Pearson have similarish-stats for LW; they make less than Kane does now, but mostly because they're still on their post-ELC contracts. JVR is coming off a $4M x 6yr contract is due for a big raise. Saad might be the closest comparable player stats-wise and he signed a $6M x 6 deal in 2015. Drouin just signed for $5.5M x 6; Gaudreau last year for $6.75M x 6; Steen (age 33) just signed for $5.75M x 4. But this is all anecdotal. It's not what we want to pay him, but what he's worth on an open market, and probably more accurately- what his agent believes being a UFA could net him. Let's look at real data. Money: Here's the short list of LW contracts in the last 4 years that make $6M+. Here's the list of LWs contracts in the last 4 years that make $5M-$6M (including Kane now). Term: Not many LWs get 7+ year contracts. Lots of mid-range guys, some not as good as Kane, get 4-5 year contracts. Kane's potential peers seem to get 6 years. An aggressive signing to keep Kane would be $6.5M x 6 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 7, 2017 Report Share Posted July 7, 2017 The contracts to compare to are LW's that hit FA status most recently. Steen might be closest to what Kane's contract might look like $-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 6x6 is what I'd prefer if we intend to re-sign him. Torn between keep or let go however. I am no fan of his publicized off ice issues but it does appear he's played low since last summer. Wonder if those around him have explained he was hurting his own value. Then there is the Pegula's commitment to "character". Is a redemption project in step with that? After all, it's not only the Pegula's looking at good character, but they've led by example in keeping that quality of character as one of their key expectations. It is based on this that I believe if Kane continues to lay low and produce, he will be re-signed. Kane, like Buffalo itself, can become a redemption story, and if championships are involved in the process, a story that we will be telling our grandchildren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Given what we've seen since the Murray firing, it appears the character, structure, etc. comments were not about the team so much as they were about Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Given what we've seen since the Murray firing, it appears the character, structure, etc. comments were not about the team so much as they were about Murray. Murray was not good at instilling good structure, at least in the way the owner wants it. Character is something else in my mind. Murray definitely was a character and in some ways that reflected on the team. I think if Kane did not fit in with the owner's idea of a person with good character I think he would have been traded by now. I expect a long-term contract extension for Kane, if not this summer than during next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 10, 2017 Report Share Posted July 10, 2017 I thought about this for a bit. I would expect Kane to get 5 years and 7.25mil if he has another solid season. I am not saying he is worth that but what I would expect him to get on the open market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 10, 2017 Report Share Posted July 10, 2017 I thought about this for a bit. I would expect Kane to get 5 years and 7.25mil if he has another solid season. I am not saying he is worth that but what I would expect him to get on the open market. The dollars sound right but I would expect longer term Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2017 Report Share Posted July 10, 2017 Pay him to keep him (or possibly trade him down the road) but make sure the contract includes a stringent behavior clause. Any team that signs him should insist on it. If the clause is a problem for Kane, he won't get the money he wants anywhere unless, of course, someone's truly adverse to risk or just plain dumb. I don't think the CBA allows for this -- so anyone signing him to a fat contract is taking a commensurate risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 I don't think the CBA allows for this -- so anyone signing him to a fat contract is taking a commensurate risk. Paging Mike Richards.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetlou Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 I'm still under the belief that Kane will sign an extension some time during the season as he proves he fits in Housley's system. I think it needs to be noted that Jbot is not even talking about extension with Reinhart. I firmly believe that Kane will be the one that signs a 5 year contract while Sam gets a two year bridge deal or may even get traded. Looking around the league the two most comparables are Lucic and Foligno and they are both at 6 AAV. I think a 5 year extension at 30 -32 million is about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 https://twitter.com/evanderkane_9/status/887032129816674304 More, I dunno, unusual Twitter behaviour from Kane? What does this mean, if anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 https://twitter.com/evanderkane_9/status/887032129816674304 More, I dunno, unusual Twitter behaviour from Kane? What does this mean, if anything? He's just playin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 That stuff is funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 For what it's worth, I recently did some back-of-the-envelope calculations on our salary cap situation next season (2017-18) to see if we could keep both Reinhart and Kane long-term. The conclusion was that we absolutely could keep both, and I had Kane down at this poll's high number of $7 million per season. I was also able to keep everyone else we like (Eichel, Lehner, Girgensons, Beaulieu, Baptiste, Bailey, Fasching) and still field a full-23 man roster for next year. The bad news, however, is that there wouldn't be any money for any other needed roster upgrades next year unless we trade or buy out Moulson, Pominville, and/or Bogosian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 He's just playin Seems likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 https://twitter.com/evanderkane_9/status/887032129816674304 More, I dunno, unusual Twitter behaviour from Kane? What does this mean, if anything? Prolly just playing on Jack and Sam's bro-mance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 That stuff is funny. We have different senses of humor then because I can't figure out any of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 Obviously looking like were going to go into the season with him. Wonder what we'll get at the trade deadline next year for him? I almost wonder if Kane has a higher value at next year's deadline than he does being traded now. Assuming he keeps score this coming season, any playoff bound team would bid on him. They'll be no downside and little risk, only the benefits of him point up points in the postseason. Only a few teams are willing to trade for him now because only a few (or maybe none) are willing to deal with a whole year of potential off-ice antics. Those antics are highly unlikely to surface from a 1-2 month long playoff run. Then the team can be done with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 I almost wonder if Kane has a higher value at next year's deadline than he does being traded now. Assuming he keeps score this coming season, any playoff bound team would bid on him. They'll be no downside and little risk, only the benefits of him point up points in the postseason. Only a few teams are willing to trade for him now because only a few (or maybe none) are willing to deal with a whole year of potential off-ice antics. Those antics are highly unlikely to surface from a 1-2 month long playoff run. Then the team can be done with him. Nice scrnario unless Sabres make the playoffs, guess they'll have to assess that issue around the trade deadline. If Sabres are nowhere near probably a good idea and if they are keep he will be needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 I almost wonder if Kane has a higher value at next year's deadline than he does being traded now. Assuming he keeps score this coming season, any playoff bound team would bid on him. They'll be no downside and little risk, only the benefits of him point up points in the postseason. Only a few teams are willing to trade for him now because only a few (or maybe none) are willing to deal with a whole year of potential off-ice antics. Those antics are highly unlikely to surface from a 1-2 month long playoff run. Then the team can be done with him. True, we could get the highest return for him at the trade deadline. The only rub is risking him being injured but other than that it could work great. My blind guess is that JB didn't like what he was being offered so chose to roll the dice and wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 There's also the fact JBot traded two of our top five left wingers, lost a third to expansion and Moulson is the fourth. And he upgraded the D without using the Kane chip. I was wrong. It seems pretty clear trading Kane is not Plan A. 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.