Jump to content

Patrick Kane


tom webster
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Yes.  And Doug Bodger.  And the other Turgeon.  We go the better brother.

I actually did place Bodger in that picture.  I assumed Hawerchuk but wasn't 100% sure.  But now that it's confirmed, I officially call BS on that "best hockey player" label.

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

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Trading VO is more about cap and roster space moving forward than it is about the player: Skinner and Tuch are in the top 6 for a while. Peterka and Quinn are challenging. One of our young centres is going to switch to the wing. Rosen and more might be coming.

Kane and Olofsson is cap expense that is probably better allocated elsewhere. I see Kane more as an Olofsson upgrade that better fits our cap. You can wait, but one of them will have to get moved.

Well, I love the fact that we've reached the point in the summer where we're arguing over how to fit Kane into our lineup, but here goes:

Skinner-TT-Kane (yeah baby!  yeah!)

VO-Cozens-Tuch

Mitts-Krebs-Quinn

Zemgus-Asplund-KO

1st guy subbing in:  JJP

 

Then, after this year, at least 1 of Zemgus and KO will be gone, making room for JJP and whomever else is pushing.

It's also fairly likely that one or more of Quinn, Mitts, Krebs and JJP turns out not to be ready for prime time, gets hurt, etc.

Does that not work?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I love the fact that we've reached the point in the summer where we're arguing over how to fit Kane into our lineup, but here goes:

Skinner-TT-Kane (yeah baby!  yeah!)

VO-Cozens-Tuch

Mitts-Krebs-Quinn

Zemgus-Asplund-KO

1st guy subbing in:  JJP

 

Then, after this year, at least 1 of Zemgus and KO will be gone, making room for JJP and whomever else is pushing.

It's also fairly likely that one or more of Quinn, Mitts, Krebs and JJP turns out not to be ready for prime time, gets hurt, etc.

Does that not work?

 

It does work. I don’t like it as much, but I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way.

You trade #28 in the 22 draft and keep VO for 2 years, then, when the cap crunch arrives, trade him for a late first in 24, who will help you in 2028.

Or you trade VO now, keep your late 1st who will help you in 2026 and acquire a good short-term 3C to help this year.

My logic is Peterka might be a more useful 5-on-5 middle six winger than VO, and should a better contract than the $5 million Re-signed VO. A team that adds Quinn and Kane isn’t going to need a PP specialist nearly as much as we did this year.

It’s just asset allocation.

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

We can discuss and dissect, but the trade cost for 1 year of Kane depends entirely on what Kane wants.

Are the Blackhawks’ options to (1) lose him to UFA after the coming season or (2) trade him to Buffalo?  Or are the options much less restrictive?

If Kane is telling the Hawks that he isn’t going accept a trade to anywhere but Buffalo either now or at the trade deadline, then the price should be quite cheap and it could possibly make sense for Buffalo.

If Kane is willing or desires to go to a contender for a 1 season playoff run, then the price  gets more expensive and it probably makes absolutely no sense for Buffalo.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

We can discuss and dissect, but the trade cost for 1 year of Kane depends entirely on what Kane wants.

Are the Blackhawks’ options to (1) lose him to UFA after the coming season or (2) trade him to Buffalo?  Or are the options much less restrictive?

If Kane is telling the Hawks that he isn’t going accept a trade to anywhere but Buffalo either now or at the trade deadline, then the price should be quite cheap and it could possibly make sense for Buffalo.

If Kane is willing or desires to go to a contender for a 1 season playoff run, then the price  gets more expensive and it probably makes absolutely no sense for Buffalo.

Someone else mentioned it but if the Blackhawks wanted to move him and Kane was receptive to a trade the Rangers would be a good destination for him to land. NYR have a rich farm system and are in position to give up some assets. The Rangers are ready to compete for the cup now. Kane would certainly help to add scoring beyond their top line. If the Sabres were better situated at the goalie position I would be less resistant to the idea of him coming here. But if the team is going to shed some assets or add to their payroll they have to address the backstop position first. 

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

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Someone else mentioned it but if the Blackhawks wanted to move him and Kane was receptive to a trade the Rangers would be a good destination for him to land. NYR have a rich farm system and are in position to give up some assets. The Rangers are ready to compete for the cup now. Kane would certainly help to add scoring beyond their top line. If the Sabres were better situated at the goalie position I would be less resistant to the idea of him coming here. But if the team is going to shed some assets or add to their payroll they have to address the backstop position first. 

The thing about Kane is very few teams are going to be able to absorb his $10.5 million contract.

Hell, 13 teams can’t fit it under the cap right now in the dead of summer with multiple roster spots to fill and all their own free agents unsigned.

The Rangers have $11 million available. They can fit him, but will have to ice a roster of 15 players.

Sure there is retention and taking cap back, but those things lessen Kane’s value.

The Venn diagram of teams willing and able to absorb that contract, teams willing to give up something of significant value, and teams where Kane wants to go will almost certainly be very small.

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

21 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The thing about Kane is very few teams are going to be able to absorb his $10.5 million contract.

Hell, 13 teams can’t fit it under the cap right now in the dead of summer with multiple roster spots to fill and all their own free agents unsigned.

The Rangers have $11 million available. They can fit him, but will have to ice a roster of 15 players.

Sure there is retention and taking cap back, but those things lessen Kane’s value.

The Venn diagram of teams willing and able to absorb that contract, teams willing to give up something of significant value, and teams where Kane wants to go will almost certainly be very small.

Which is why something along the lines of what the Canes got for Skinner is a reasonable presumption of the ballpark of what it would take to make a deal.

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

2 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

IMHO, we would be doing the Black Hawks a salary cap favour AND they won't lose him for nothing.  I am not sending them any of Tuch, Cozens, Quinn, Dahlin, etc. for Kane.  #28, Portillo, and Johnson?  That I can see.

I agree with all of this.

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Both Portillo and Johnson a next to worthless as trade assets, unless Tim Murray is a GM somewhere.

The cap help that Marvin mentioned is also an asset that has to be figured in. A pretty valuable one at that.

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

25 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

How's Chicago apt to get to the cap floor if they part ways with both Kane and Toews this summer? They're just above it, as it is.

Was it Tim Murray that effectively said it was really easy to spend lots of money on bad players and that getting to the cap floor was the easy part?  I believed him.

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

39 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

How's Chicago apt to get to the cap floor if they part ways with both Kane and Toews this summer? They're just above it, as it is.

That’s where VOs value might be in a trade like this.

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

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Both Portillo and Johnson a next to worthless as trade assets, unless Tim Murray is a GM somewhere.

This is demonstrably false. 

As Brawndo pointed out, Johnson is worth a late 2nd compensatory pick at minimum.

The coyotes acquired the rights to soon-to-be college UFA Jack McBain for the 47th pick in this year’s draft just a few months ago.

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

53 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

...

image.thumb.png.835951d89a74a1cf94db5cba1f25e964.png

Relapse Records Aha GIF by Red Fang

In my mind Adams has a secret team of scientists and engineers working in a lab in the bowels of the arena actively building a bionic knee for Bishop and he will announce come September that Bishop is healthy and has never looked better.😁

 

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

I wouldn't give up any real assets for him unless they were allowed to negotiate a home town friendly contract extension. 

50 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

How's Chicago apt to get to the cap floor if they part ways with both Kane and Toews this summer? They're just above it, as it is.

I would presume IF they were actually looking to move Kane they'd have their eyes on free agency and signing others for a more immediate rebuild. They have a lot of RFAs coming up too. 

Which brings me to a more intriguing concept, which would be a multi player deal perhaps for Kane AND DeBrincat . If that was on the table then I'd consider some picks or prospects, maybe Mitts and/or VO or any number of possibilities. Dach might also be an interesting player to add in to a multi player deal. Chicago might not part with him but if they are impatient they might not want to re-sign him for what he wants. 

How to make that sort of trade work is almost impossible to speculate on as there are too many possibilities BUT the key for me would be for KA to properly identify what he sees as the true core of the team, definitely not move any of them, and then work around that with the rest. And by true core of the team you can't throw every decent player in, it's just the leaders and the ones you are relatively sure will keep developing into greatness. About 10-12 players at most. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is demonstrably false. 

As Brawndo pointed out, Johnson is worth a late 2nd compensatory pick at minimum.

The coyotes acquired the rights to soon-to-be college UFA Jack McBain for the 47th pick in this year’s draft just a few months ago.

And if a Team acquires Johnson in a trade and He still chooses to sign as an UFA with another organization, the team that hold His Rights when they expire on August 15, 2023 would still get the 62nd Pick in the 2024 

Edited by Brawndo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

BUT the key for me would be for KA to properly identify what he sees as the true core of the team, definitely not move any of them, and then work around that with the rest. And by true core of the team you can't throw every decent player in, it's just the leaders and the ones you are relatively sure will keep developing into greatness. About 10-12 players at most. 

And I have to say:  I trust Kevyn to do this more so than any other GM of the Pegula era.

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

55 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I wouldn't give up any real assets for him unless they were allowed to negotiate a home town friendly contract extension. 

I would presume IF they were actually looking to move Kane they'd have their eyes on free agency and signing others for a more immediate rebuild. They have a lot of RFAs coming up too. 

Which brings me to a more intriguing concept, which would be a multi player deal perhaps for Kane AND DeBrincat . If that was on the table then I'd consider some picks or prospects, maybe Mitts and/or VO or any number of possibilities. Dach might also be an interesting player to add in to a multi player deal. Chicago might not part with him but if they are impatient they might not want to re-sign him for what he wants. 

How to make that sort of trade work is almost impossible to speculate on as there are too many possibilities BUT the key for me would be for KA to properly identify what he sees as the true core of the team, definitely not move any of them, and then work around that with the rest. And by true core of the team you can't throw every decent player in, it's just the leaders and the ones you are relatively sure will keep developing into greatness. About 10-12 players at most. 

 

 

And I think one of the reasons why you probably aren't going to see Adams make many big moves with long-term contracts or trades is he hasn't yet identified who's in his core, or in what place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I love the fact that we've reached the point in the summer where we're arguing over how to fit Kane into our lineup, but here goes:

Skinner-TT-Kane (yeah baby!  yeah!)

VO-Cozens-Tuch

Mitts-Krebs-Quinn

Zemgus-Asplund-KO

1st guy subbing in:  JJP

 

Then, after this year, at least 1 of Zemgus and KO will be gone, making room for JJP and whomever else is pushing.

It's also fairly likely that one or more of Quinn, Mitts, Krebs and JJP turns out not to be ready for prime time, gets hurt, etc.

Does that not work?

 

Trade V O and regular shift JJP, and you’ve got yourself a deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

The thing about Kane is very few teams are going to be able to absorb his $10.5 million contract.

Hell, 13 teams can’t fit it under the cap right now in the dead of summer with multiple roster spots to fill and all their own free agents unsigned.

The Rangers have $11 million available. They can fit him, but will have to ice a roster of 15 players.

Sure there is retention and taking cap back, but those things lessen Kane’s value.

The Venn diagram of teams willing and able to absorb that contract, teams willing to give up something of significant value, and teams where Kane wants to go will almost certainly be very small.

I agree that it would be difficult to trade Kane due to his gilded contract even if the player was amenable to being dealt. I brought up the Rangers because if they seriously wanted the player they would be in a better position to take him on than most teams. As far as for the Sabres, there is zero chance that KA would trade for him not only because of his contract but he doesn't fit in with how he is constructing this rebuild. That is not to say that Kane wouldn't help this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

And I think one of the reasons why you probably aren't going to see Adams make many big moves with long-term contracts or trades is he hasn't yet identified who's in his core, or in what place.

idk, maybe, but do you really think it's that difficult? Now first off, he should know better than us as he gets to talk to them one to one and can know them better than we can but some of it is kind of obvious from what we see and hear. 

From the top line Thompson and Tuch are no brainers. Skinner because of the contract is also here to stay (debate his core value as you see fit). Add Cozens to that for sure. On D it's Power and Dahlin and you can extend it to add Samuelsson and Jokiharju if you want. I'd also add in Krebs because of his proven leadership in junior although he isn't quite there yet at an NHL level. It would take a very good offer to pry away Quinn or Peterka so that'd be my list of no moves. That's 11 guys. 

I don't hate Mitts, VO or Asplund, but I don't consider them core and for the right deal they, and all others on the roster are replaceable. 

Give or take a name that's pretty much it. I don't particularly want to move out any other prospects or picks but none of them are proven and if we can get better now it's a consideration. Not advocating any kind of Murray style shift in philosophy, more of strategic moves balancing a roster around that core. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I agree that it would be difficult to trade Kane due to his gilded contract even if the player was amenable to being dealt. I brought up the Rangers because if they seriously wanted the player they would be in a better position to take him on than most teams. As far as for the Sabres, there is zero chance that KA would trade for him not only because of his contract but he doesn't fit in with how he is constructing this rebuild. That is not to say that Kane wouldn't help this team. 

I strongly disagree with the bolded.

Adams said he would not not make a move to make the team better today if it meant making the team worse in the future.

He meant getting handcuffed by long-term salaries. Kane would not do that.

He meant blocking young players from opportunities. As an upgrade replacement for Vinnie Hinostroza or (dare I suggest) Victor Olofsson, Kane would not do that.

He meant sacrificing important pieces of the Sabres future. At the right price (like my Olofsson/Portillo trade) Kane would not do that.

I don’t expect the Sabres to trade for Kane unless Kane himself manoeuvres the Hawks into that position.

But that does not mean the Sabres are philosophically not interested in adding Kane or a similar player to the team at should the right circumstances present themselves.

Further, but perhaps more importantly, even if he was philosophically opposed, Kevyn Adams does not own the Sabres.

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...