Rumor: Sabres / Wild discussed Kane

[Djp]

How is it a logical flaw? It doesn't hurt to inquire/talk, so it is not illogical for them to talk or for the Wild to suggest such a deal. It makes a great deal of sense for the Wild to suggest that option actually.

Potential 18/19 Sabres Roster and cost:

xxx-ROR($7.5M)-Okposo ($6M)
Nylander(ELC)-Eichel(???)-Reinhart(???)
Foligno( ???)-Larsson(???)-Girgensons
xxx-xxx-xxx
Moulson ($5M), Ennis($4.6M)

Kulikov ($5.5M)-Risto ($5.4M
McCabe($1.6M)-Bogo ($5.1M)
Guhle (ELC)-Nelson (???)
vet Dman ($1.5M)

Lehner( ???)
backup ($1M)

RFAs to sign: xxx=Bailey, Baptiste, Fasching, Carrier--say bridges are $1.25M each ($5M)

Foligno+Larsson+ Girgensons=total of $8.4M

Forwards
5+13.5+1+8.4+9.6= $37.5M+ Reinhart+ Eichel

Defense
16+1.6+1+1+1.5= 21.1M

Goalie:
Lehner proves a starter and get $4.5M
goalies= $5.5M

$5.5M+$21.1M+37.5M = $64.1M+ Reinhart+ Eichel

If Reinhart + Eichel combined get at least $12M that puts them over $76M in cap hit. They cant take on another $5M in cap hit unless they unload Ennis or Moulson

This is why Buffalo will push Vegas to take Ennis or Moulson and then likely trade the other or trade Ennis or have him taken in draft and hope Moulson retires in 2018.

In making a trade for another Dman the they will likely move some of Foligno, Girgensons, Larsson, and possibly Reinhart

 

[AOSC]

Uh...this thread and my post is based on your reporters story. I'm starting with that. Buffalo needs a LHD, and Minny has been reported as wanting a top six FW. My post follows the most obvious logic from there. "Absolutely not"?? Whatever.

No, not whatever. We had talks with Buffalo before Staal signed. Talks obvious went no where so this thread shouldn't even be a rumor. If we acquired Kane before Staal, Granlund or Coyle would still be at Center.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

No, not whatever. We had talks with Buffalo before Staal signed. Talks obvious went no where so this thread shouldn't even be a rumor. If we acquired Kane before Staal, Granlund or Coyle would still be at Center.

Obviously!!! Geeez, this is about when talk happened in the summer...per your reporters story. My god....

 

[rynryn]

i do know we were looking for top six left wing.
so makes sense i guess. Still he's a guy with warts so i'm sure we weren't offering much.

 

[Circulartheory]

Whether or not Kane is a good player, his value will be extremely low. He has had his fair share of negative publicity, hasn't been a consistent threat on the ice, and is extremely expensive.

Honestly don't see how the Wild could do the trade with the lack of cap space. If there WAS a trade in the works, I would expect it to be around the Nino Niederreiter (he also had an off year when he was traded but alot cheaper). He was traded for a good 3rd/2nd line tweener in Cal Clutterbuck and a 3rd.

In other words, it would be a trade like Pominville + 2nd for Kane (if Pominville waives his NMC).

Don't see how the Wild would trade Scandella, Spurgeon or any young players (Granlund, Coyle, Brodin) for Kane unless BUF adds to their side. Again, its isn't about whether the player is good or not, its about his perceived value and his negative publicity, huge contract, and inconsistent performance doesn't work in his favor.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Whether or not Kane is a good player, his value will be extremely low. He has had his fair share of negative publicity, hasn't been a consistent threat on the ice, and is extremely expensive.

Honestly don't see how the Wild could do the trade with the lack of cap space. If there WAS a trade in the works, I would expect it to be around the Nino Niederreiter (he also had an off year when he was traded but alot cheaper). He was traded for a good 3rd/2nd line tweener in Cal Clutterbuck and a 3rd.

In other words, it would be a trade like Pominville + 2nd for Kane (if Pominville waives his NMC).

Don't see how the Wild would trade Scandella, Spurgeon or any young players (Granlund, Coyle, Brodin) for Kane unless BUF adds to their side. Again, its isn't about whether the player is good or not, its about his perceived value and his negative publicity, huge contract, and inconsistent performance doesn't work in his favor.

Why is this so hard? The story from Russo said he was told, "by multiple sources multiple times" about trade talks. They likely started before draft day - the day Kane got into his latest drama. His value wasn't low then, he just came off a 20 goal season with no in-house, teammate related drama. His value was more than adequate at that time for a Scandella/Brodin trade. Now after Kane's legal issues have been basically swept aside (I don't exactly like it, but the charges will be dropped for good behavior and lack of pursuit by victim/witnesses) there's nothing to legally/physically prevent him from playing. His value is/will be creeping back up.

Next, Buffalo has zero need for another FW. They just drafted Nylander as a top-line FW and have Fasching, Bailey, Baptiste, and now Carrier as middle-six/bottom-six heavy FWs on ELCs. They need a LHD, by FAR AND AWAY a LHD as their biggest hole.

Why would Minny trade one of their D-men? Exactly why the Russo article said - because they can't protect all their D-men (even if they go 4-4-1) and they likely prefer to protect 7-3-1.

I don't blame anyone from any fanbase for not wanting E Kane. I think he is the epitome of an all-purpose tool, with a free tool bag thrown in to get him off the clearance shelf. Despite all that, we can't ignore the fairly obvious team needs that would cause these two GMs to talk. We also can't ignore that no matter how much we disagree, some GMs will care more about the on-ice product than off-ice drama. Some GMs will gamble that "it won't happen here" under the pressure of getting their team in a revenue-generating playoff run.

Argue all you want about how you personally don't want it to happen, but don't argue against the clear logic behind a trade that balances out the needs of two teams.

 

[rynryn]

Why is this so hard? The story from Russo said he was told, "by multiple sources multiple times" about trade talks. They likely started before draft day - the day Kane got into his latest drama. His value wasn't low then, he just came off a 20 goal season with no in-house, teammate related drama. His value was more than adequate at that time for a Scandella/Brodin trade. Now after Kane's legal issues have been basically swept aside (I don't exactly like it, but the charges will be dropped for good behavior and lack of pursuit by victim/witnesses) there's nothing to legally/physically prevent him from playing. His value is/will be creeping back up.

Next, Buffalo has zero need for another FW. They just drafted Nylander as a top-line FW and have Fasching, Bailey, Baptiste, and now Carrier as middle-six/bottom-six heavy FWs on ELCs. They need a LHD, by FAR AND AWAY a LHD as their biggest hole.

Why would Minny trade one of their D-men? Exactly why the Russo article said - because they can't protect all their D-men (even if they go 4-4-1) and they likely prefer to protect 7-3-1.

I don't blame anyone from any fanbase for not wanting E Kane. I think he is the epitome of an all-purpose tool, with a free tool bag thrown in to get him off the clearance shelf. Despite all that, we can't ignore the fairly obvious team needs that would cause these two GMs to talk. We also can't ignore that no matter how much we disagree, some GMs will care more about the on-ice product than off-ice drama. Some GMs will gamble that "it won't happen here" under the pressure of getting their team in a revenue-generating playoff run.

Argue all you want about how you personally don't want it to happen, but don't argue against the clear logic behind a trade that balances out the needs of two teams.

LISTEN: we do have extra D and we ARE (most likely) going to lose one in expansion. if we trade one for Kane, that means we'll lose two. This balances out ****. it means we'll be looking for another top four defenseman. it's not clear logic. We're not going lose two young defensemen on long, good value contracts and just get an expensive Evander Kane for two years. That would be stupid.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

LISTEN: we do have extra D and we ARE (most likely) going to lose one in expansion. if we trade one for Kane, that means we'll lose two. This balances out ****. it means we'll be looking for another top four defenseman. it's not clear logic. We're not going lose two young defensemen on long, good value contracts and just get an expensive Evander Kane for two years. That would be stupid.

It's not about balancing out the roster only in regard to expansion. It was (maybe still could be) about having too many quality D-men and not enough top-four minutes, while also having a lack of top-six quality FWs...while your team is in position to make a Cup run now (not just maybe push for a playoff appearance like Buffalo).

 

[rynryn]

It's not about balancing out the roster only in regard to expansion. It was (maybe still could be) about having too many quality D-men and not enough top-four minutes, while also having a lack of top-six quality FWs...while your team is in position to make a Cup run now (not just maybe push for a playoff appearance like Buffalo).

when you say quality FWDs...they wanted Nino on the third line. He's a 20 goal guy like Kane.

I will say they wanted more snarl to their game and Stewart was supposed to address that, but hasn't, so Kane would be a fit that way. I just don't think it makes sense in the long term. Our D are signed to longer, friendlier cap hits than Kane. I think we could do better if we're trading that safety blanket of good D for goals on the front end.