to the bolded, come on man, you start slinging this stuff, expect to be debated without pre-emptively hand waiving those debating you, or don’t bother
Kane‘s sharks contract was all spoken for with creditors, so I don’t see how that changes how much he should have been paid on the next contract.
Like I said, he had come off a great bounceback season and a dominant playoffs (didn’t he have two hat tricks??). Of course skepticism about past behaviour would have put him off with other teams (pretty much every player aside from the most elite, has teams that would not be interested in). He was going to get paid here or elsewhere.
What do you feel would have been a fair deal? $4.5M? Do you think that would be a lot easier to move? Or do you think a $6M deal without NMC (NMC gets you a discount, this is known to be the case) would be easier to move?
Cause I’ve had this debate before and know where it goes.
I’m not slinging stuff. I saw that whole Kane negotiation go down. I have an opinion on how it went down.
At the time I said Kane would resign here. Reading the situation I didn’t think it was a risk he would go elsewhere and predicted we’d get him resigned.
I also thought it likely that Sharks would have to top off his contract. And they did. Thought something was fishy with how the NHL was handling it, and it still seems to me they waited for Kane to resign before allowing their arbitrator to make a decision on the Kane that the Sharks were in the wrong.
I also have a general impression of how Holland operates in negotiations. It’s lazy and bad negotiating, like he’s negotiating against himself.
My opinion is that Kane could have been had for cheaper in some form that could have included a lower AAV and/or less restrictive NMC if a better negotiator was at the helm. If JJ was at the helm, maybe we see discounts like Henrique, Brown, Skinner etc.