Kane signs with Chicago

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Hoss said:

Still plenty of meat left on that bone

[Night Train]

The assumption that the Sabres could easily fit Kane under their tight cap for a year was dead wrong.

Wasn't even close. 

[inkman]

54 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Based on recent Tweeting, I infer:

Bedard's injury tended to assure Kane of more minutes, a more prominent role on the power play, more O-zone starts, etc. (because the team will need to score goals and Kane can do that).

Kane was waiting to see if Buffalo would "make a couple moves" (some insider's language from Twitter) to clear space for him in the top-6 in terms of total TOI for forwards.

Perhaps Buffalo wasn't enthused about pushing its top prospects down to Roch to accommodate a one-dimensional ~38 year old?

[Hoss]

9 minutes ago, Night Train said:

The assumption that the Sabres could easily fit Kane under their tight cap for a year was dead wrong.

Wasn't even close. 

Nobody on this planet expected Patrick Kane to get $8M even TOTAL over two years, let alone per season.

Edited July 23 by Hoss

[OverPowerYou]

I’ll definitely be going to this game to boo both him and Bryam. 

[Archie Lee]

Considering the numbers Kane put up last year, the contracts we are seeing around the league, and the amount of cap space the Hawks have (had), this really shouldn't be at all shocking. It will have no negative impact on Chicago's cap next season.

The Sabres really are in a one year window where they are constricted a bit by the Skinner buyout. This isn't an excuse. There was/is enough room to allow some flexibility. They could have kept Tuch relatively easily (by trading Zucker and also replacing Danforth or Lyon with a low-level contract). There is still room to trade for Hellebuyck. And after this year they are clear. The problem, as this off-season is proving, is that there are fewer good players available in trade or free agency than there are teams who need those players. Locking up your own young guys early, without giving them restrictive NTCs, is looking like a smart long-term strategy. 

[Nacho Libre]

36 minutes ago, transient said:

Guess all that's left is the off the rails Hellebuyck thread now... 😟

As far as this summer goes..

 

[inkman]

13 minutes ago, OverPowerYou said:

I’ll definitely be going to this game to boo both him and Bryam. 

They chose greener pastures. I can't blame anyone for doing that. Especially two very flawed players I had little interest in.    

[Nacho Libre]

25 minutes ago, Night Train said:

The assumption that the Sabres could easily fit Kane under their tight cap for a year was dead wrong.

Wasn't even close. 

Didn’t have to sign Krebs, so I mean ya they could have. Not an argument for signing him at that price - but an argument for this still nonetheless being our own doing, for better or worse 

Edited July 23 by Nacho Libre

[inkman]

22 minutes ago, inkman said:

@Nacho Libre I have no interest in a seriously flawed defensive chasm of a player, a season after we finally get defensive enigmas like Tage Thompson and Jack Quinn to buy in.  

 

[BullBuchanan]

$8M a year is insane, but what is Kekalainen going to do at this point? It certainly seems we're going into this season worse off unless he can manufacture a miracle, like Larkin.

[Doohickie]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

This seems about right. Add to that: There's most likely some business bounce that the franchise can capture from bringing back (one of) the franchise's all-time great(s).

Yeah, remember what a boost it was when we brought back Pominville?

Edited July 23 by Doohickie

[JP51]

I mean if they were gonna pay Kane 8mm per they woulda just paid Tuch what he wanted... either way it was too high. He wanted another big payday he got it. I am at... whatever dude.. 

[Doohickie]

43 minutes ago, inkman said:

They chose greener pastures. I can't blame anyone for doing that. Especially two very flawed players I had little interest in.    

As a Buffalo fan surely you understand jilted lover syndrome???

44 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Didn’t have to sign Krebs, so I mean ya they could have. Not an argument for signing him at that price - but an argument for this still nonetheless being our own doing, for better or worse 

We'll see how it plays out, but signing Krebs may prove to be the better choice.

[That Aud Smell]

Just now, Doohickie said:

Yeah, remember what a boost it was when we brought back Pominville?

you recently compared ovechkin to tuch.

you're now comparing kane to pominville.

 

[inkman]

1 minute ago, JP51 said:

I mean if they were gonna pay Kane 8mm per they woulda just paid Tuch what he wanted... either way it was too high. He wanted another big payday he got it. I am at... whatever dude.. 

Great point. I still kinda wish they did pay Tuch but the roster has built in replacements, we just don’t know if they will be enough. 

[Doohickie]

Just now, That Aud Smell said:

you recently compared ovechkin to tuch.

you're now comparing kane to pominville.

 

^ Now here's a guy who keeps his receipts ^

[inkman]

Just now, Doohickie said:

As a Buffalo fan surely you understand jilted lover syndrome???

Is it really a good comparison? They didn’t leave because they disliked the Sabres or Buffalo. They left to maximize earning potential. I find it odd when fans boo players who leave on good terms, they just chose a different path.  Then again, we had fans chanting the goalies names in the playoffs when they were pitching a 40 minute shutout out. Maybe I’m not a good gauge. 

[JP51]

Just now, inkman said:

Great point. I still kinda wish they did pay Tuch but the roster has built in replacements, we just don’t know if they will be enough. 

I agree, I wish we still had Tuch, but in the end I get him trying to get cap in order... we finally have people that want to come play for us and little cap space... I would catagorize an abundace of young prospects/players on rookie deals as a positive as long as there is balance. Maybe we do step back, but our future isnt Kane, it could have been Tuch, but not Kane.  I am fine with the lets see what we have approach. 

[Doohickie]

Just now, inkman said:

Is it really a good comparison? They didn’t leave because they disliked the Sabres or Buffalo. They left to maximize earning potential. I find it odd when fans boo players who leave on good terms, they just chose a different path.  Then again, we had fans chanting the goalies names in the playoffs when they were pitching a 40 minute shutout out. Maybe I’m not a good gauge. 

Oh, they're desire to make bank is perfectly reasonable, but it still hurts when the leave to go somewhere else.

[mjd1001]

At this point you can probably rely on Kane for 50-60 games, goals in the mid-teens and maybe 50 points, with below average defensive play.

I think most of the young forwards on the Sabres can/will give you that, and more, and will cost a fraction of the cap.  I'm not sure why adding Kane was a real possibility for this team anyway.

[Doohickie]

I've seen a lot of sports franchises move out big names and do fine the following season.  I don't think this edition of the Sabres is so fragile that the loss of Tuch and Byram will eviscerate them.

[Believer]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Per Twitter 

 

Thank God

[Cheektorado]

2 hours ago, PonyBoy2 said:

 

 

Perfect response.

[PonyBoy2]

2 hours ago, Hoss said:

Through our own lens, that's insanity. Through Chicago's lens, it means legitimately nothing. They've got almost $50M in cap space next season with Kane on board. And then after that he retires as one of the greatest in franchise history.

If anyone ever offers me $8M to return to a workplace where I was one of the greatest to ever do it, I'd gladly let the entire world call me an idiot.

My intent was the Blackhawks, not Kane. 

Agree with your post