Jump to content

Patrick Kane


tom webster
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

 

Are you sure about that?

I would still pay a lot for Kane and he is worth it.

That does not mean that I think KA will do it.  I don't think KA will do anything on the Kane front this year.

Nope.

Given your  post and Aristocrat's, I'm dead wrong 😄

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

I wonder if he or his agent have had quiet conversations with CHI mgmt.  They must have talked about this at the exit interview.

Maybe CHI, perhaps mistakenly, believes they can rebuild with Toews and Kane in place.   ...but in that scenario, they trade Debrincat... which wouldn't make sense.

I think the only floatable theory is that CHI is negotiating for best return value, which has likely changed since the draft is done and simply requires more time.

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

What are we thinking the price is for Kane?

I was under the impression of 2 B-level prospects and a 2nd or 3rd for him but then I’m also seeing suggestions like Oloffson, a 1st AND Peterka? Absolutely not, at that price I’m out. 

But if you can send Portillo, Ryan Johnson and a 2nd? Why would there be any reason to say no to that? 

I don’t see how the price can get very high for a 1 year rental, with a NTC, at 33-34 years old, and a team that is clearly tanking and should be desperate to move him for anything they can get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2018, the Sabres were desperate for a 1LW. How desperate? Here are the other LWs that 2018-19 opening night: Sheary, Sobotka, Girgensons. (Remie Elie was scratched and Wilson was injured.) Knowing that, they traded for Skinner: Pu, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 6th.* That's the desperation-level package to a Carolina team looking to ship him out and clear cap. I'm giving up that package at the most for 1 year of Kane because currently, my projected RWs on opening day are VO, Tuch, Okposo, and Quinn. Is Kane better than them? Absolutely, he'd push each player one line down. Are we desperate for a RW like we were for a LW in 2018? Nope.

I'm against giving up valuable assets (future firsts, our top prospects, or VO) for Kane. He's a UFA next year, sign him then if VO/Quinn can't deliver.

*FWIW, the equivalent Skinner package today would be: Sardarian (2021 3rd, our 2020 3rd was traded for Skinner), 2023 2nd (PHI, BUF, VGK to choose from), 2024 3rd, and 2024 6th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, elijah said:

What are we thinking the price is for Kane?

I was under the impression of 2 B-level prospects and a 2nd or 3rd for him but then I’m also seeing suggestions like Oloffson, a 1st AND Peterka? Absolutely not, at that price I’m out. 

But if you can send Portillo, Ryan Johnson and a 2nd? Why would there be any reason to say no to that? 

I don’t see how the price can get very high for a 1 year rental, with a NTC, at 33-34 years old, and a team that is clearly tanking and should be desperate to move him for anything they can get

Chicago are going to need cap. Sending them Ben Bishop would probably be a part of it.

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

16 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

*FWIW, the equivalent Skinner package today would be: Sardarian (2021 3rd, our 2020 3rd was traded for Skinner), 2023 2nd (PHI, BUF, VGK to choose from), 2024 3rd, and 2024 6th.

If this is the price you don’t say no imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman on 32 Thoughts wondered about Colorado for Kane. They would probably need Chicago to retain 5 million and another team to retain 2.5 Million. 

Chicago needs to retain all the salary they can get.  I believe if they unload Kane and Toews they’ll be $30 million below the floor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the spirit of the post talking about people talking past each other… I think most people advocating for this type of trade is inferring a Taylor Hall situation where Chicago can’t get Kane’s true value because Kane forces his way to one team. 

If Chicago is only interested in true value and doesn’t want to unload a salary, then the deal is dead for everyone.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, elijah said:

If this is the price you don’t say no imo

Maybe, but nothing more. As @Flashsabre noted, Bishop's salary would be pretty handy for Chicago.

Whatever you do, you don't overpay. Chicago has no leverage because they're dead set on stinking: shedding DeBrincat and Dach, letting Strome walk as an RFA (no, Strome's not great, but that's simply poor asset management, especially since you could sign him for 1 tank season if you believe he'll actually benefit your tank -- heck, you deal him as a rental if he's playing too well just like GMTM did with our goalies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SDS said:

In the spirit of the post talking about people talking past each other… I think most people advocating for this type of trade is inferring a Taylor Hall situation where Chicago can’t get Kane’s true value because Kane forces his way to one team. 

If Chicago is only interested in true value and doesn’t want to unload a salary, then the deal is dead for everyone.

So what your saying is in this scenario, unless Chicago is able to get what they think Kane is worth they won’t trade him? 
I don’t think that makes a whole lotta sense. IMO they are tanking, and are currently trying to accumulate young assets. If they don’t trade Kane they get nothing for him. I would think they will take what they can get for Kane, similar to how we took what we could for Hall. It wouldn’t surprise me if it took until the trade deadline for him to be traded though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman on 32 Thoughts wondered about Colorado for Kane. They would probably need Chicago to retain 5 million and another team to retain 2.5 Million. 

So what your saying is the Sabres could acquire Kane then flip him for assets in a salary laundering.

But in the brief window of ownership, they could legally negotiate the terms of the UFA deal he will sign with them as a UFA next summer.

Now that’s some serious 4D chess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say wait until next off season, you give up no assets and the first wave of the new youth in Buffalo are 1 year further along in their NHL experience gained. It also allows the team the time to address further roster tweaking.

Give nothing to acquire Kane now, wait the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

Maybe, but nothing more. As @Flashsabre noted, Bishop's salary would be pretty handy for Chicago.

Whatever you do, you don't overpay. Chicago has no leverage because they're dead set on stinking: shedding DeBrincat and Dach, letting Strome walk as an RFA (no, Strome's not great, but that's simply poor asset management, especially since you could sign him for 1 tank season if you believe he'll actually benefit your tank -- heck, you deal him as a rental if he's playing too well just like GMTM did with our goalies).

I think it's fairly obvious Chicago is completely deconstructing and tanking for a shot at Bedard so (I think) they will make any deal possible. Just a question of what they are willing to settle for. In the end, if it came to that, they would do a Taylor Hall type deal if there was no alternative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sabresparaavida said:

So what your saying is in this scenario, unless Chicago is able to get what they think Kane is worth they won’t trade him? 
I don’t think that makes a whole lotta sense. IMO they are tanking, and are currently trying to accumulate young assets. If they don’t trade Kane they get nothing for him. I would think they will take what they can get for Kane, similar to how we took what we could for Hall. It wouldn’t surprise me if it took until the trade deadline for him to be traded though.

I would love a change of scenery where we bring in a player like Kane at the trade deadline instead of trying to sell off our spare parts and then being disappointed that nobody wanted our spare parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

You haven’t visited the hockeybuzz comments section where the poster ( a Sabres fan) was adamant  on giving up Cozens, Krebs and two 1sts for Kane🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Clearly hasn't been paying attention to the offseason.  Cozens and Krebs are too old for Chicago.

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...