Proposal: Leafs Get A Kane After Losing Their 'Foot: TOR + S.J.

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

Perennial

Registered User
Jun 27, 2020
3,492
1,523
Toronto would be the one receiving the 1st from San Jose

nobody is paying a 1st for kane
they are getting one for taking that clown on their roster

Like I said in the preamble, I'm not sure what value Kane has around the league...

If the Leafs could get Kane at 50% retention without giving up a 1st, even better!
 

McJedi

Registered User
Apr 21, 2020
10,651
7,575
Florida
Preamble
Kane's value around the league right now is completely subjective... some teams likely wouldn't want him under any circumstances, whereas others may be willing to put up with his off-ice antics so long as he produces during games. Given their Cup aspirations, need at LW, and Kerfoot's expendable contract, Toronto seems like one of the teams that should be willing to gamble on Kane. So, what would a trade look like built around Kerfoot for Kane with 50% retention? Here's my attempt...



The Trade
To Toronto: Kane (50% retained)

To San Jose: 2022 1st, Kerfoot, plus some B level prospects if there are any in Toronto's system that San Jose want included



Toronto get a huge upgrade at LW on one of their top 2 lines without taking on additional salary

San Jose get a 2022 1st for essentially paying Kerfoot 7 million each of the next 2 seasons to replace Kane in their lineup, and then having 3.5 million in dead cap space in 2025. They also get a couple of B level prospects if there are any in Toronto's system they really like
Probably your best pun yet. Clever.

Though I was partial to the low brow “Bros before Foes”.
 
Last edited:

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,158
14,784
Folsom
Yeah sure, you'd rather use up cap on nothing by buying him out than getting a 1st, a prospect and decent player in Kerfoot. You must be Doug Wilson.

Kerfoot is not a decent player and the Sharks don't need or want him. The first and the prospects are meaningless. They're not going to retain 3.5 mil for three or four seasons.
 

Dust

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 20, 2016
5,767
6,813
Yeah sure, you'd rather use up cap on nothing by buying him out than getting a 1st, a prospect and decent player in Kerfoot. You must be Doug Wilson.

There isn't a single GM willing to give up anything close to that at this point. Sharks are probably hoping they can terminate his contract and be done with it. That's best case scenario.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,158
14,784
Folsom
How much will you be retaining buying him out?

Less than the cost of bringing on a player that offers the team nothing at 3.5 mil for two years while also holding 3.5 mil for Kane. Paying 7 mil for Kerfoot is a stupid idea. Now you want to trade Kane at full hit for Kerfoot and future assets then fine but not this shit.
 

Perennial

Registered User
Jun 27, 2020
3,492
1,523
Kerfoot is not a decent player and the Sharks don't need or want him. The first and the prospects are meaningless. They're not going to retain 3.5 mil for three or four seasons.

That's a bit of an odd declaration...

Wouldn't that depend on who the Sharks take with the pick, and how the prospects develop?
 

BrannigansLaw

Grown Man
Sponsor
Sep 3, 2006
12,181
11,732
Boston, MA
Less than the cost of bringing on a player that offers the team nothing at 3.5 mil for two years while also holding 3.5 mil for Kane. Paying 7 mil for Kerfoot is a stupid idea. Now you want to trade Kane at full hit for Kerfoot and future assets then fine but not this shit.

https://puckpedia.com/player/evander-kane/buyout?s=2021-2022

He'd literally take up significant cap for 8 years if you bought him out today; up to 4 or 5 million in certain seasons. Whatever though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Missing Piece

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,158
14,784
Folsom
That's a bit of an odd declaration...

Wouldn't that depend on who the Sharks take with the pick, and how the prospects develop?

Not in this situation. Why would it be worth a late first and likely a nothing prospect for the Sharks to retain 3.5 mil for four seasons and bring in a useless player for us like Kerfoot and pay him 3.5 mil for two seasons when he wouldn't have a spot in our lineup now?

The team can sit him until there's a real trade or a buyout or a termination if they assign him to the AHL and he doesn't report. They're not going to add that much dead weight for next to nothing.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,158
14,784
Folsom

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,057
141,815
Bojangles Parking Lot
The only possible way this could work out for the Leafs is if Kane is an effective player for 4 more years, taking him to age ~34. It is extremely hard to believe that we will be sitting around in 2025 talking about Evander Kane the effective player.

The only possible way this could work out for the Sharks is if that draft pick turns into someone really valuable -- so valuable that you would take four years of $3.5M dead cap in order to acquire them.

By comparison, that's similar to what Carolina did for the Kotkaniemi offer sheet... except that's a one year offer sheet, not four years. You would have to be talking about a much better prospect than Kotkaniemi, which means either an absolute home run in the late round or (much more likely) a top-5 pick. If it's a top-5 pick which lands a major prospect, then no matter what Kane does this is a disaster for Toronto.

The most likely outcome on both sides is:
- Kane's career declines quickly and he ends up being bought out, meaning Toronto wasted a 1st and a roster player for little-to-nothing.
- Toronto finishes in the upper half of the league, so the 1st turns out to be a B prospect at best. Kerfoot does nothing noteworthy. SJ wastes a total of $14M cap space for little-to-nothing.

Basically both teams are spinning a roulette wheel hoping for the ball to land perfectly. I don't see either of them being this reckless with their assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreatSaveEssensa

Perennial

Registered User
Jun 27, 2020
3,492
1,523
San Jose will not be receiving ANY assets in a kane trade

absolutely none
That’s even with Max retention

they’ll be the ones giving up assets and they be taking back a bad contract as well

That could very well be the case...

With that said, assuming his vaccination status is cleared up, and he's eligible to return once his current suspension is over, 4 seasons of Kane at 3.5 million is worth more to the Leafs than their 2022 1st...
 

King Karl

five-year run of unparalleled suffering
Mar 18, 2014
1,129
1,426
Halifax, NS
Craig MacTavish went on to play 876 games after being convicted for manslaughter... what exactly has Kane done to warrant having his career end?
WHAT? I had no idea. Maybe there is hope for Evander after all, but he doesn't seem to be even remotely contrite about his actions.
 

Le Rosbeef

Registered User
Jul 27, 2007
3,539
1,051
All this conjecture about what other teams would give up is fruitless. Any trade will only be consummated by SJ brass who - aside of the clear EK off-ice distractions - see nothing less than owning an asset. You might think he's a distressed asset so you can justify doing the Sharks a 'favour', but he's pretty clearly not if you take off the blinkers to look at what he brings.

He'll be back on the ice in 21 games and was our best forward last year (which people seem to keep overlooking). Would Doug Wilson like a doves-singing-and-lambs-leaping-type locker of room harmony? Maybe? But it doesn't discount his value as a hockey player. I know plenty of unlikeable people, but many of them are still damn good at their jobs.

Let's think it through:

* Sharks aren't retaining 50% on Kane, and definitely not for 4 years - just isn't happening. $14m against the cap because your team feels 'edgy' about taking his salary on? Give your heads a wobble. Besides, there is absolutely no indication the team feels it has to trade him. Kicking the tyres doesn't count - it's what any GM would do.

* This Sharks team already lacks proven scorers. Kane is the 24th highest forward for goals scored in the NHL in the last 3 (and a handful of games this one!) years. That's ahead of Gaudreau, Crosby, Tkachuk, Huberdeau, Laine and a fair few other names. This isn't Ondrej Kase here. The guy has over 500 NHL points and, even at a clip of about 20 per season for the remainder of his contract, will put him in the top 150 or so all time goalscorers in NHL history.

* Kane is a few months into his 30s. We're not looking at a guy anything beyond his prime right now, which is what Wilson would be trading as an asset. Speculating what he's worth against his contract in 3 years is largely irrelevant given how many other variables move - right now, he's very much worth $7m per and that's hard to say in San Jose given the number of bone-rattling contracts we have on the books.

You might not like Kane. But this is what Sharks brass see. Hurt feelings won't negate those circumstances which is why he's not going to go on the cheap.
 

jetsforever

Registered User
Dec 14, 2013
27,873
24,075
Did Kane suddenly have his 21 game suspension lifted and the ongoing domestic abuse investigation halted? Is he suddenly fully vaccinated? Unless all three of these issues are solved Kane is the definition of a negative value player. Even his teammates have had enough of him.

I wouldn't be surprised if two of those issues are solved already, and on 11/30 the last will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad