Jump to content

Patrick Kane


tom webster
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You know I’m optimistic as well but that doesn’t mean that I have to be completely on board, especially if they weren’t at least considering the possibilities of jumpstarting things. I’m one hundred percent confident, however, that they have at least discussed it.

The upcoming draft is of course important. However, the over-riding issue for me is addressing the goalie position. I'm realistic enough to be aware that whoever is brought in isn't necessarily going to be a long-term solution. Recognizing that, there needs to be an upgrade so that this roster that is coming together can be supported. If you are looking for an impactful jumpstart--- it is at the goalie position. If a goalie such as Fleury could be had, even for a rich price, that we be a significant jumpstart that would reverberate throughout the lineup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The upcoming draft is of course important. However, the over-riding issue for me is addressing the goalie position. I'm realistic enough to be aware that whoever is brought in isn't necessarily going to be a long-term solution. Recognizing that, there needs to be an upgrade so that this roster that is coming together can be supported. If you are looking for an impactful jumpstart--- it is at the goalie position. If a goalie such as Fleury could be had, even for a rich price, that we be a significant jumpstart that would reverberate throughout the lineup. 

Really doubt anybody doesn't believe GT is THE priority to upgrade.  But, even though it is, many of the options aren't available until FA opens in mid-July.  If he's going to be available, a trade for Kane could happen weeks before that.  It doesn't make a Kane trade (should it happen) a larger priority any more than trading for Bishop's cap hit was a priority.  That wasn't a priority, but it opened flexibility.  This isn't the priority but might improve the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Really doubt anybody doesn't believe GT is THE priority to upgrade.  But, even though it is, many of the options aren't available until FA opens in mid-July.  If he's going to be available, a trade for Kane could happen weeks before that.  It doesn't make a Kane trade (should it happen) a larger priority any more than trading for Bishop's cap hit was a priority.  That wasn't a priority, but it opened flexibility.  This isn't the priority but might improve the team.

There is no doubt that adding Kane will improve the roster. I've never argued otherwise.  I just think that his high salary makes it unlikely that it will happen this year even though there is plenty of cap space to handle his acquisition. My sense is that the Sabres are again going to be a low budget team. Again, I'm not criticizing the expenditure strategy. That's how I see things unfolding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

There is no doubt that adding Kane will improve the roster. I've never argued otherwise.  I just think that his high salary makes it unlikely that it will happen this year even though there is plenty of cap space to handle his acquisition. My sense is that the Sabres are again going to be a low budget team. Again, I'm not criticizing the expenditure strategy. That's how I see things unfolding. 

And he ain't worth the money anymore IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

I don’t even know what this means. Why did he type 9) ?

Matt Bove answers 10 questions from Twitter Followers from time to time and He numbers each question as He answers it. 
 

 

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

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

There is no doubt that adding Kane will improve the roster. I've never argued otherwise.  I just think that his high salary makes it unlikely that it will happen this year even though there is plenty of cap space to handle his acquisition. My sense is that the Sabres are again going to be a low budget team. Again, I'm not criticizing the expenditure strategy. That's how I see things unfolding. 

 

7 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

He’s probably not worth his cap hit. But I bet he’d be worth his actual salary (~$6.9M … *nice*).

As Aud points out His actual salary this year is 6.9 Million, of which 4 Million is due as a signing bonus on July 1st. If a trade happens after that date, the Sabres would only be responsible for 2.9 Million for the remainder of the season which fits well into their rumored budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

As Aud points out His actual salary this year is 6.9 Million, of which 4 Million is due as a signing bonus on July 1st. If a trade happens after that date, the Sabres would only be responsible for 2.9 Million for the remainder of the season which fits well into their rumored budget. 

DIZZAM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but the short term impact of adding a very, very good local player is that he may put more fannies in the seats. The team really needs to start bringing people through the door.

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

On 6/20/2022 at 9:23 PM, jsb said:

As long as the cost isn't prohibitive, the reasons the Sabres make this deal:

  1. Kane is still productive and would immediately become our best RW if not best winger period
  2. If he agreed to come here it's because he WANTS to be here, a KA prerogative
  3. Not only does Granato know him but Adams if I'm not mistaken played with him for a year also
  4. He's only owed 6.9M this year plus the added bonus of fan enthusiasm and season ticket sales would skyrocket compared to last year, don't discount this because it would probably be the #1 reason we make this deal
  5. If things don't work out they could probably recoup whatever it is they give up at the trade deadline. 

If this is true, you make the deal. 16, Portillo and Johnson (who probably won't sign here anyway) you make this work.

 

On 6/20/2022 at 9:57 PM, jsb said:

I feel like you're arguing semantics, I'm having a hard time not believing having Tuch, Kane, Thompson, Dahlin and Power as the faces of the franchise to start the year doesn't put way more fannies in the stands this coming year than last year.

 

13 minutes ago, SDS said:

I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but the short term impact of adding a very, very good local player is that he may put more fannies in the seats. The team really needs to start bringing people through the door.

Just in case you missed the previous posts

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

4 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

As Aud points out His actual salary this year is 6.9 Million, of which 4 Million is due as a signing bonus on July 1st. If a trade happens after that date, the Sabres would only be responsible for 2.9 Million for the remainder of the season which fits well into their rumored budget. 

I'm not against adding mature talent to the roster. It just seems that it goes against the GMs often stated comments about blocking the ice time of developing young players. In addition, what makes it even more unlikely in my opinion if Kane is dealt is that he would be more inclined to go to a serious cup contending team after leaving his current rebuilding team. Another issue is what would the GM be willing to give up to make the transaction happen? I don't see it happening although it would be exciting if it actually did happen. 

 

16 hours ago, Taro T said:

Really doubt anybody doesn't believe GT is THE priority to upgrade.  But, even though it is, many of the options aren't available until FA opens in mid-July.  If he's going to be available, a trade for Kane could happen weeks before that.  It doesn't make a Kane trade (should it happen) a larger priority any more than trading for Bishop's cap hit was a priority.  That wasn't a priority, but it opened flexibility.  This isn't the priority but might improve the team.

How did trading for Bishop's cap hit create more flexibility? 

 

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

A post July 1 deal would be much more expensive, I reckon.

If Chicago, in a rebuilding mode, trades Kane, they would want high upside prospects back in return. I just don't see KA deviating from his rebuild from within approach by giving up some of his prized young players or prospects to add Kane. There is no doubt that the addition of Kane would excite the fanbase. But this type of transaction would be an obvious deviation from how he has been running the operation. Chicago is not in the charity business. Many are focusing on what a Kane trade would do for the Sabres without giving much consideration on what the return would be for Chicago for its valuable asset. 

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

55 minutes ago, JohnC said:

blocking the ice time of developing young players.

if the sabres were to trade VO as part of the deal, kane would block nobody. who else is there on RW? tuch. he'd be aces on the 2nd line. perfect fit, imo. jack quinn can be sheltered on the "third" line. okposo can keep plugging away. anyone else i'm missing?

36 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If Chicago, in a rebuilding mode, trades Kane, they would want high upside prospects back in return. ... Chicago is not in the charity business. Many are focusing on what a Kane trade would do for the Sabres without giving much consideration on what the return would be for Chicago for its valuable asset. 

this makes sense, generally. the more jazzed i become about this idea, the more i'm in favour of the sabres throwing the 16th pick in there. why the eff not. let's go. playoffs or bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

How did trading for Bishop's cap hit create more flexibility? 

Gives them, assuming your presumption of them being a low salary team, the ability to make a trade in season where they have more $'s going out than coming back while still staying above the cap floor.  

Or, with the team now being closer to reaching the floor, with nearly no effect towards restricting their spending to the cap limit, it could allow Adams to not chase a Meszaros to reach the cap floor.

Maybe both.

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

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I'm not against adding mature talent to the roster. It just seems that it goes against the GMs often stated comments about blocking the ice time of developing young players. In addition, what makes it even more unlikely in my opinion if Kane is dealt is that he would be more inclined to go to a serious cup contending team after leaving his current rebuilding team. Another issue is what would the GM be willing to give up to make the transaction happen? I don't see it happening although it would be exciting if it actually did happen. 

As You know the GM isn’t going to make His Whole Offseason Plan Public by any stretch. 

In terms of blocking younger players adding another veteran, they do need to add some more playoff experience to the group and I believe that Adams realizes this as well.  I would rather they sign Andrew Copp or Palat TBH.

I would not trade any 1st Round Picks or Top Prospects for Kane especially when they could sign Him for Free in 373 Days. 
The List of Players I would move includes Olofsson, Portillo and Johnson. 
 

Add on top of that the rumor Kane was told by Blackhawks Management that He is to avoid Buffalo during the Offseason after the two separate incidents, although He most likely has grown since then. 

48 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Gives them, assuming your presumption of them being a low salary team, the ability to make a trade in season where they have more $'s going out than coming back while still staying above the cap floor.  

Or, with the team now being closer to reaching the floor, with nearly no effect towards restricting their spending to the cap limit, it could allow Adams to not chase a Meszaros to reach the cap floor.

Maybe both.

I’ll add that it decreases the opportunity for agents to use the negotiation tactic of You need to pay My Client more to reach the cap floor. 

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

I can get behind having Kane in Buffalo to finish his career and help the team have some playoff runs. My preference is to get him as a UFA. He is still very productive and Chicago would want a similar return to what a top end rental would fetch.

He is not a cap dump.

Toews, on the other hand, is in cap dump territory. The Hawks need him to be more than a 3 or 4C, but that is what he is now. His illness and missing a season have taken a lot out of him. 
The Sabres have the cap space, but he would be very expensive for what he brings. He would be an upgrade from Eakin and brings leadership and a winning pedigree. He may be too “serious” for this dressing room but guys like Cozens and Krebs would benefit from his mentorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a few pages ago to this thread but after thinking more about it, I have slightly changed my mind...

Looking at his stats and trends with his age, and after putting more thought to the handful of BH games I have watched him in over the last few years...I really don't want him at all.

As a free agent giving up zero assets on a mid-level, short term deal MAYBE.  But to be honest, I don't see him being a 30+ goal scorer for the next couple of years anymore (at least not with this sabres team).  I don't want him taking up ANY spot that could be used for one of the younger guys. 

I don't want ANYONE over 30 taking up ANY spot up front unless they are on a short-term, low dollar deal, comes free (no draft pick or prospect assets given up) and are great in the locker room and a stellar 2-way player that can kill penalties.  That is not Kane.  

So if they take a run at him, fine, but not at the expense of any assets at all for me.

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

37 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

As You know the GM isn’t going to make His Whole Offseason Plan Public by any stretch. 

In terms of blocking younger players adding another veteran, they do need to add some more playoff experience to the group and I believe that Adams realizes this as well.  I would rather they sign Andrew Copp or Palat TBH.

I would not trade any 1st Round Picks or Top Prospects for Kane especially when they could sign Him for Free in 373 Days. 
The List of Players I would move includes Olofsson, Portillo and Johnson. 
 

Add on top of that the rumor Kane was told by Blackhawks Management that He is to avoid Buffalo during the Offseason after the two separate incidents, although He most likely has grown since then. 

I’ll add that it decreases the opportunity for agents to use the negotiation tactic of You need to pay My Client more to reach the cap floor. 

To the bolded, there's that, too.

Personally, wouldn't want to see Olofsson in a package for Kane, but if it were one for one, would be more open to it.

 

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

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

As You know the GM isn’t going to make His Whole Offseason Plan Public by any stretch. 

In terms of blocking younger players adding another veteran, they do need to add some more playoff experience to the group and I believe that Adams realizes this as well.  I would rather they sign Andrew Copp or Palat TBH.

I would not trade any 1st Round Picks or Top Prospects for Kane especially when they could sign Him for Free in 373 Days. 
The List of Players I would move includes Olofsson, Portillo and Johnson. 
 

Add on top of that the rumor Kane was told by Blackhawks Management that He is to avoid Buffalo during the Offseason after the two separate incidents, although He most likely has grown since then. 

I’ll add that it decreases the opportunity for agents to use the negotiation tactic of You need to pay My Client more to reach the cap floor. 

The argument that agents will use the necessity to meet the cap floor as a leverage doesn't resonate with me. KA has clearly stated that when signing players in-house or out they will place a value on the player and stick with it. He stated that is what happened in the Ullmark negotiations. That same stance would apply to an Olofsson negotiation. If Olofsson wants more than what the GM is willing to pay, he will simply allow that player to walk.

I agree with you that the organization has to add some experience to the roster. How does buying contracts without adding players advance that preference? Instead of buying a contract in order to write it off why not dedicate the dead money to players that could be brought in?

As I have repeatedly stated, I don't give a dam how much or how little the organization is willing to spend. Even spending at the cap floor they are still in position to add a goalie or whoever at whatever position.  

 

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

4 hours ago, Brawndo said:

In terms of blocking younger players adding another veteran, they do need to add some more playoff experience to the group and I believe that Adams realizes this as well.  I would rather they sign Andrew Copp or Palat TBH.

I would not trade any 1st Round Picks or Top Prospects for Kane especially when they could sign Him for Free in 373 Days. 
The List of Players I would move includes Olofsson, Portillo and Johnson. 

I'd really like to see them sign Copp as well but why can't they do both? 

Olofsson out Kane in why not? Maybe add a conditional pick and/or Johnson IF we sign Kane to an extension. Johnson I'm not overly concerned with, but I'd be reluctant to let Portillo go unless they have a sense he isn't interested in signing or if they could convince Levi to sign. I'd hate to run the risk of trading one and then having the other not sign. I'd rather we had both and then had 3 young goalies fighting for the starting role until we have to trade one.

The bottom line on hockey trades is are you a better team after the deal, and if we added Kane we'd be a better team. He may not be who he was, but he's still got several decent years in him I think and more hometown hero will just help with the rebuild idea. 

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

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

The argument that agents will use the necessity to meet the cap floor as a leverage doesn't resonate with me. KA has clearly stated that when signing players in-house or out they will place a value on the player and stick with it. He stated that is what happened in the Ullmark negotiations. That same stance would apply to an Olofsson negotiation. If Olofsson wants more than what the GM is willing to pay, he will simply allow that player to walk.

I agree with you that the organization has to add some experience to the roster. How does buying contracts without adding players advance that preference? Instead of buying a contract in order to write it off why not dedicate the dead money to players that could be brought in?

As I have repeatedly stated, I don't give a dam how much or how little the organization is willing to spend. Even spending at the cap floor they are still in position to add a goalie or whoever at whatever position.  

 

Eliminating or at least reducing The Number of Your Counterparts Positions is key to any negotiations 

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

The Sabres will have to pay a bad team tax and pay more in AAV and/or term with desirable UFAs.  (See Andrew Copp and Jack Campbell). As a result there will be times when the team might have to exceed their perceived value. 
 

Bringing in contracts such as Bishop’s to get to the cap floor doesn’t preclude other moves as has been discussed at great length. It also lessens the number of UFAs brought in that will possibly block younger players. Adding a veteran forward with playoff experience such as Palat who will probably require 4x5 Million or Copp 6x7 Million would be a smart play.
This and adding one or two defenseman along with two credible NHL goalies would make the team better and keep with the stated goal of not blocking younger players. 

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'd really like to see them sign Copp as well but why can't they do both? 

Olofsson out Kane in why not? Maybe add a conditional pick and/or Johnson IF we sign Kane to an extension. Johnson I'm not overly concerned with, but I'd be reluctant to let Portillo go unless they have a sense he isn't interested in signing or if they could convince Levi to sign. I'd hate to run the risk of trading one and then having the other not sign. I'd rather we had both and then had 3 young goalies fighting for the starting role until we have to trade one.

The bottom line on hockey trades is are you a better team after the deal, and if we added Kane we'd be a better team. He may not be who he was, but he's still got several decent years in him I think and more hometown hero will just help with the rebuild idea. 

Sure they could do both, but My Reasoning for not trading for Kane this year is right after the phrase you bolded. I’m not trading a first or quality prospect for a player that will be an UFA next July 1st and that’s exactly what Chicago will want for Kane. The starting point will the Giroux Return which was a First and Owen Tippett. If Olofsson and Johnson or Portillo could get the deal done I would pull the trigger in a heartbeat, it’s not going to be enough though. 
 

Things could change, but there are indications are that Levi will sign with the Sabres when Northeastern completes the 2022-23 Season so I’m less apprehensive about moving on from Portillo particularly if He wants to test FA

 

  • Like (+1) 2
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...