Jump to content

Patrick Kane


tom webster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pretty much agree with everything Brawndo wrote above, the only thing I'd add is maybe the only other trade for Kane now option would involve multiple players and multiple picks for Kane AND DeBrincat. Something I'd spend time on the phone looking in to if I was KA.  If he can convince Chicago we will keep sucking for several years maybe he can entice them with picks from '24, '25, '26.... which I'd be okay with if our cupboard gets sufficiently loaded full with this year and next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

Ullmark’s Camp kept moving the goalposts in negotiations, something to keep in mind. 
 

 

 

People get irritated when I bring up the Ullmark negotiation. So, I apologize for the belabored responses on this issue.  Many don't understand what my position is on this goalie issue. Ullmark was an UFA player. And it was apparent that his contract demands were increasing (as you noted). My criticism of the GM on this issue is that he didn't have an adequate fallback position if a deal couldn't be worked out with the goalie. Finding an adequate goalie is not an easy task under any circumstances. But when your primary goalie is an UFA, and he is equivocating in his negotiations, then a better backup option should have been prepared prior to the conclusion of the futile negotiations. 

I'm hoping this offseason the GM will be able to come up with a better option for the position. In my view, how he addresses the issue will be the most significant transaction he will make this offseason. 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Pretty much agree with everything Brawndo wrote above, the only thing I'd add is maybe the only other trade for Kane now option would involve multiple players and multiple picks for Kane AND DeBrincat. Something I'd spend time on the phone looking in to if I was KA.  If he can convince Chicago we will keep sucking for several years maybe he can entice them with picks from '24, '25, '26.... which I'd be okay with if our cupboard gets sufficiently loaded full with this year and next. 

DeBrincat would be a great add, the problem is His Qualifying Offer next July would be 9 Million per season. 
With Tage, Cozens, Mittlestadt, Power and Dahlin all needing new deals in the next two off seasons, that would be hard to fit under the cap. Plus Skinner has an additional five years left at 9 Million, paying two wingers 18 Million would hamper Adams Ability to make other moves. 
 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brawndo said:

DeBrincat would be a great add, the problem is His Qualifying Offer next July would be 9 Million per season. 
With Tage, Cozens, Mittlestadt, Power and Dahlin all needing new deals in the next two off seasons, that would be hard to fit under the cap. Plus Skinner has an additional five years left at 9 Million, paying two wingers 18 Million would hamper Adams Ability to make other moves. 
 

This is definitely true. You'd want to be able to sign him long term for a reasonable number. The question would be what his number would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 12:12 PM, inkman said:

As I mentioned, along with at least one other poster, (apologies for not remembering who) make Chicago an offer that looks attractive on paper but in reality, is not too asset heavy.  Portillo (who knows what he’s gonna do after his collegiate season, Olofsson (Kane immediately slots into his role and improved upon it significantly), and some non first round picks.  It gives Chicago something to hang their hats on.  It makes a lot of sense for both teams. 

Even better.  Wait a year and get him for nothing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crusader1969 said:

Even better.  Wait a year and get him for nothing 

Is that the cool way of saying, “I don’t think we should try to get Kane,” because you won’t get him if that is your plan.

Teams don’t let their top assets walk for nothing. Not smart teams, anyway (the Sabres have done it a few times.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Brawndo said:

DeBrincat would be a great add, the problem is His Qualifying Offer next July would be 9 Million per season. 
With Tage, Cozens, Mittlestadt, Power and Dahlin all needing new deals in the next two off seasons, that would be hard to fit under the cap. Plus Skinner has an additional five years left at 9 Million, paying two wingers 18 Million would hamper Adams Ability to make other moves. 
 

As you project, in a couple of years our young core players will require a major boost in salary in order to retain them. If the GM sticks with his build from within strategy (as the GM has often stated), the current low budget Sabres will become a mid to high budget team. So how he is handling contracts and avoiding the high end free agent market is a prudent course. Based on the future contract projections it is unlikely that the GM is going to splurge on outside players or commit to any long-term contracts from players on the market. But even under the constraints of a conservative payroll approach, the GM has enough wherewithal to make a few meaningful player moves that will positively impact this mostly assembled roster. That's what I'm hoping for. 

With respect to the Skinner contract, if he is able to continue with his 30 goal pace, the 9 M per year won't be so debilitating. Even if he is more of a $7 M player at his current performance level, that overpayment isn't so problematic. It is the term. If it was 2 to 3 yrs shorter it would have been a more reasonable contract.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is definitely true. You'd want to be able to sign him long term for a reasonable number. The question would be what his number would be. 

Forsberg and Fiala have similar stats and Evolving Wild projects them both on max deals north of 9 Million AAV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Is that the cool way of saying, “I don’t think we should try to get Kane,” because you won’t get him if that is your plan.

Teams don’t let their top assets walk for nothing. Not smart teams, anyway (the Sabres have done it a few times.)

Kane has a full no move clause, so it’s entirely up to him and not the team.

And this is also why the cost to acquire Kane now or at the deadline would be a lot loss than most would presume.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Forsberg and Fiala have similar stats and Evolving Wild projects them both on max deals north of 9 Million AAV 

So should we pay Kane 9 million? I'd be reluctant to go that high but maybe if the term was no more than 3 years. 

3 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Kane has a full no move clause, so it’s entirely up to him and not the team.

And this is also why the cost to acquire Kane now or at the deadline would be a lot loss than most would presume.  

So we can Taylor Hall them and give up a 2nd rounder and Bjork? I'd definitely do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

So we can Taylor Hall them and give up a 2nd rounder and Bjork? I'd definitely do that. 

Think the Giroux deadline deal (also had a full no-move clause and only wanted to go to Florida): Phili got back an AHL/NHL tweener forward (33pts in 99 NHL games, 23 years old), a first round pick in two years (top ten protected), and third round pick next year. AND Phili retained 50% of salary in that deal.  
 

Assuming the Hawks don’t retain any salary, you could expect something less than the above. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Think the Giroux deadline deal (also had a full no-move clause and only wanted to go to Florida): Phili got back an AHL/NHL tweener forward (33pts in 99 NHL games, 23 years old), a first round pick in two years (top ten protected), and third round pick next year. AND Phili retained 50% of salary in that deal.  
 

Assuming the Hawks don’t retain any salary, you could expect something less than the above. 

Yes but if Kane says I want to end my career in Buffalo and I will only go to Buffalo, and then KA says we want Kane but we are quite happy to wait until the season is over and sign him as a UFA but we will give you a 2nd and Bjork if you want to do it now what can Chicago do? Absolutely nothing. 

The question might rest on whether either team (Buffalo or Chicago) is a playoff contender at the time. That changes it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

So should we pay Kane 9 million? I'd be reluctant to go that high but maybe if the term was no more than 3 years. 

So we can Taylor Hall them and give up a 2nd rounder and Bjork? I'd definitely do that. 

No, Kane should come in at 3x6million. Forsberg is 27 and Fiala is 25, meaning they will be higher AAV with longer term. 
 

Besides Kane’s Actual Salary the His Contract’s Last Three Years was 7 Million, 6.9 Million and 6.9 Million. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SwampD said:

Is that the cool way of saying, “I don’t think we should try to get Kane,” because you won’t get him if that is your plan.

Teams don’t let their top assets walk for nothing. Not smart teams, anyway (the Sabres have done it a few times.)

I honestly don’t understand your point.  Please clarify. 

The guy is a UFA at the end of next season, I’m not giving up 1st rounder, prospect and a 20 goal scorer for 1 year of Kane when I can get him for free in a year

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crusader1969 said:

I honestly don’t understand your point.  Please clarify. 

The guy is a UFA at the end of next season, I’m not giving up 1st rounder, prospect and a 20 goal scorer for 1 year of Kane when I can get him for free in a year

 

 

 

My point is that we won’t get him for free in a year, because we won’t get him at all. He will be moved by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

My point is that we won’t get him for free in a year, because we won’t get him at all. He will be moved by then.

He won’t be moved if he doesn’t waive his NMC.  

Edited by Mr. Allen
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL today reported record revenue, $5.3 billion or more, another indication that salary cap concerns will vanish in two or three years. Teams smart enough to lock up young players now will be in even better position.  Again, the next two years are the time to take advantage of any salary cap room.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tom webster said:

NHL today reported record revenue, $5.3 billion or more, another indication that salary cap concerns will vanish in two or three years. Teams smart enough to lock up young players now will be in even better position.  Again, the next two years are the time to take advantage of any salary cap room.

You are giving the organizations' perspective in getting players signed sooner rather than later because it would be cheaper. (I've been making the point with Tage.) On the other hand from the players' perspective it might make more financial sense to sign short term bridge deals now and then sign longer term deals later when the cap goes up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are giving the organizations' perspective in getting players signed sooner rather than later because it would be cheaper. (I've been making the point with Tage.) On the other hand from the players' perspective it might make more financial sense to sign short term bridge deals now and then sign longer term deals later when the cap goes up. 

It definitely makes sense for the players to sign shorter term, especially if they are confident in their abilities  but most of them stupidly jump at what they see as financial security and guarantees and a lot of their agents push for it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SwampD said:

My point is that we won’t get him for free in a year, because we won’t get him at all. He will be moved by then.

He’s an unrestricted free agent in a year.  Free to sign with whatever team he wants.  Even if he is moved, he can still sign with the Sabres 

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

He’s an unrestricted free agent in a year.  Free to sign with whatever team he wants.  Even if he is moved, he can still sign with the Sabres 

Oh, yeah.

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...