Player Discussion Evander Kane - Part 4
- Thread starter dotcommunism
- Start date
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,568
- 6,995
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,568
- 6,995
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
Botterill and other GMs posturing through the media.
It's that time.
It's that time.
OkimLom
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 15,582
- 7,021
At the time of the trade, we traded a soon to be UFA in Stafford, a 1st round pick, a 2011 1st round pick in Armia that was on the brink of being a bust as he was very underwhelming in the AHL, a 2nd round pick prospect in Lemieux, and Myers for essentially Kane, a 23 year old 1st round pick who had multiple years left on his contract, and Bogosian 24 year old 1st round pick who had years left on his contract. Two guys who not only fit the type of team we were shaping up to be, but were already considered vets at a young age, and were NHL ready. Not sure what you expect to give up for those type of players with that amount of term, with that much experience. Bogosian was looked at a shift in the type of defenseman on the backend. Under Nolan, when got here, he played well enough to be a top 4 mainstay. Kane was the big piece, with THE BIGGEST gripe and criticism was his "chemistry" with his teammates, teammates he has been with since he was drafted. We only knew he had issues with THOSE guys. If I'm a betting man, Murray most likely thought he would be better as a teammate if he was in a new locker room. Hindsight is 20/20, but that was correct.
Chemistry is a component for a playoff round for sure. But usually teams that tend to go far in the playoffs already have a locker room that is tough to break as the leaders of the team have full control of the team and have a coaching staff that backs them up. Kane would be looked at much like any other UFA to be is looked at the TDL that is having a good year offensively. The injuries and that factor is probably not going to loom as much as if they had him longer than a 1/2 year. His locker room chemistry is looking more like it was an issue with ONE particular group of guys. I believe Kane with get a 1st round pick at least, and if he is able to string together a few impressive games and the right GM comes along, I believe he could fetch us more.
Murray targeted Kane because he was the type of talent that we didn't have any of and he knew he had to get that . When he became GM he pretty much said, if you want talent you have to get talent. Kane was exactly what he meant by that. Unfortunately, because we didn't have anybody in the pipeline or even on our roster that would be characterized as such, he had to get it. Buffalo had ONE thing, and that was a TON of assets. To pry a player like Kane, who was not favored as much by the organization, out of Winnipeg, and to do so before any other team has a chance, Murray had to move assets and move quickly before losing out on a chance for a player like Kane. Now we're at the point where we can see the final product of the move for Kane. Does it suck he used so many assets for essentially two players? yes. Did we have ANYTHING close in our system for a player like Kane? Nope.
Let's assume that the Myers-Bogo deal is what the value was. Both Cost-controlled defenseman, both 1st round picks, both with warts.
Now let's look at what was moved in the Kane part of the deal: 1st Round pick, UFA to be Stafford, Joel Armia, and Brendan Lemieux
1st round pick - Yes it's a great asset in a really good draft, but you're not going to pry a cost controlled young player like Kane from a team for that.
UFA to be Stafford - Buffalo's only goal dealing with Stafford, especially as sellers, is getting SOMETHING for him. Buffalo shouldn't worry about what the value would be IF he signed with Winnipeg, considering he wasn't willing to re-sign here.
Joel Armia - "prospect" who was drafted for his goal scoring. Couldn't crack a low skilled Buffalo Sabres roster, had trouble scoring at the AHL level, and was looking like a bust. Seeing as he hasn't played a full season, hasn't gotten more than 10 goals(imagine what he would have here) in the NHL, something that he was drafted for back in 2011, I don't have one issue trading him away, and was a perfect example of a guy who needed a change of scenery. If he bounced back, then good for him, but he wasn't producing for Buffalo and IMO if he was more valuable to a GM than the team he was currently on, then they can have him.
Brendan Lemieux - probably the 2nd best chip for this part of the trade. The piece was needed to entice Winnipeg.
So in order of value from Buffalo's POV, 1st Round pick, Brendan Lemieux, Stafford, Joel Armia
Most likely in order of value from Winnipeg's POV - 1st round pick, Stafford to help with playoff push, Brendan Lemieux, Joel Armia.
IMO, the biggest piece we gave up was the 1st Round pick. Armia was a throw in from my perspective. If Winnipeg made something of him, then good on them. I'm not worried about losing at the end of the day, if I'm Murray my goal as GM is to bring as much talent as possible no matter the cost. At the end of the day, it's about QUALITY not Quantity. Murray valued Kane's cost controlled, NHL readiness and perceived value down the road, over drafting a player to develop(in the Sabres system mind you), watching Stafford walk for a 2nd or 3rd round pick, wasting Joel Armia, and waiting for offensive limited Lemieux to develop.
There are issues I take with Murray, but I actually agree with the philosophy behind his moves. I may not agree with his player judgments, but I get what he was trying to accomplish with each of his moves. If there's a fair criticism of Murray, I think it's WHO he liked more so than HOW MUCH he liked someone.
Sorry about the wall.
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,568
- 6,995
There wasn't a pressing need to trade Tyler Myers. Nor was there one to acquire Evander Kane. It's not that he gave up way too much, or that Kane is terrible, but the primary issue I have with it this, what about the Sabres' situation at that time seemed like they were in a position to trade away futures? The only real benefit to the trade was Bogo getting injured right away, which helped the tank. But really, acquiring Kane was a really weird thing to do for a team that was in essentially year one of an earnest rebuild.
Gordo21
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2017
- 978
- 193
Especially when today's game, more than ever, is about speed, and he was signing Moulson, Okposo and O'Reilly to long term contracts. Ironically, the one guy with speed that he traded for, Kane, has not been signed and apparently will be traded at the deadline. I wish someone could explain that to me. I see most every team we play skate circles around us yet we will be trading maybe our 2nd fastest skater at the deadline.
I really don't relish having to watch Toronto, a team filled with speed, downright abusing us for the next five years. Like I said, let alone most other teams we play.
I really don't relish having to watch Toronto, a team filled with speed, downright abusing us for the next five years. Like I said, let alone most other teams we play.
Perhaps not the place to have the discussion, but...
Kane in a UFA year is likely to be paid more than he is worth. This is the second time in his career he's had a "career year" that coincided with a contract year. His history points to someone who won't be this productive on the ice again until the contract is nearly up. Trading UFA's who don't fit long-term plans is not new and not unusual.
Gordo21
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2017
- 978
- 193
I thought he was just as productive last year when he was on the ice. I've heard other's say this and can't really understand. Did anyone watch him last year? Honestly, I thought he was better. He doesn't seem as dominant right now on a nightly basis when I watch him.
Anyway my impression was that he was among the top players, point production wise last year, five on five.
Dreakon13
Registered User
Kane being injured the rest of that season also helped the tank.
It was the tank-iest move of the tank. And it's something to consider, since we were far from locks for last place overall until the last few games of the season... and intentionally or not (probably intentionally), Murray's moves got us the best shot at McDavid, and ultimately Eichel.
Icicle
Think big
- Oct 16, 2005
- 6,055
- 1,007
Myers was awful when he got traded. He was both injured and awful for at least a couple years after he was traded. He’s only looked like a 2nd pairing player recently (which again, huge regression from Calder year).
During that time we had Bogo somewhat holding down the fort and bringing grit to a team that had bent over for bent nose and had Ennis as a 1C. It looks bad now because Bogo has been more hurt and not upped his play recently.
Kane was better than Armia always, and their age difference makes this fine. We would be a weak ass team during those years without him. His biggest problem has not been Kane, who literally hasn’t changed a thing in his game in years, but his usage. That’s coaching.
Lemiux is nothing- but he wasn’t just a second, he was the first second picked and was pissed he didn’t go one earlier. Nothing in the draft that year really has come to since. He’s nothing.
Would I rather do a trade back today? Yeah probably. But the team was in a better position the last few years since it happened. Problem was the rest of the squad didn’t match the timeline.
During that time we had Bogo somewhat holding down the fort and bringing grit to a team that had bent over for bent nose and had Ennis as a 1C. It looks bad now because Bogo has been more hurt and not upped his play recently.
Kane was better than Armia always, and their age difference makes this fine. We would be a weak ass team during those years without him. His biggest problem has not been Kane, who literally hasn’t changed a thing in his game in years, but his usage. That’s coaching.
Lemiux is nothing- but he wasn’t just a second, he was the first second picked and was pissed he didn’t go one earlier. Nothing in the draft that year really has come to since. He’s nothing.
Would I rather do a trade back today? Yeah probably. But the team was in a better position the last few years since it happened. Problem was the rest of the squad didn’t match the timeline.
And a few more wins than that and we have the 3rd overall odds and win McDavid. Which in turn likely lands us Babcock. Which in turn likely has us drafting higher in 2016 where we select McAvoy. And we win the Cup last season. And this season. And the next 5 seasons.
Husko
Registered User
Depends on what you mean by after.
At best I think we'll be the same as we were. But I also don't think Kane makes us that much better.
- Aug 19, 2005
- 16,366
- 5,048
SundherDome
Y'all have to much power
I mean, if Nashville wants to get rid or Ellis of Josi I could live with that instead of a first.
Team Cozens
Registered User
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
They are unlikely to get a blue chip prospect for a rental. Let alone a blue chip prospect AND a 1st round pick.
Icicle
Think big
- Oct 16, 2005
- 6,055
- 1,007
CatsforReinhart
Registered User
A last first is a big deal for Buffalo given that the 2nd round pick will almost be a first and the ability to package say the 25th and 33rd and maybe get to 15th would be great. Especially if someone like Dobson dropped.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
What is your definition of a blue chip prospect since you brought it up?
I would roughly say a player that is on Pronman's top 50 list is a good benchmark. And I would be shocked if the Sabres got a guy off that list in the Kane trade.
Even that is a pretty loose definition of blue chip
To me "blue chip" is a can't miss prospect, usually guys drafted in the top 3-5, or guys who have taken an enormous leap since their draft year (Mittelstadt).... Nylander is #24 on Pronman's list. He's not a blue chip prospect... not even remotely.
Blue Chip prospects don't get traded... period.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: GAME 18 8:08 PM - @ DALLAS - NESN, ESPN+, 98.5 WBZ-FM- Latest: EverettMike
-
