Groo
Registered User
Nobody
That's why he's probably not available. Once that clears up( if it does) then and only then
Rumor: San Jose trying to trade Evander Kane
- Thread starter ThreeOfAPerfectPair
- Start date
- Status
That's why he's probably not available. Once that clears up( if it does) then and only then
Nolan11
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2013
- 3,236
- 334
I usually agree with you, but this time the numbers tell me a different story. If we did uy him out after arbitration hearings for Hill, the cap hits would be 1.8, 3.8, 2.8 then 4.8 followed by 1.8 x 4 more years. I could see the team preferring a 3.5 M x 4 then off the books for when we start extending Eklund and others.
Real money is a bit of a wash 14 M to retain 50%, 14. 6 M to buy out. I conclude that, if they need him gone and find a taker that would pay us to retain 50%, they could choose that route for a pair of 2nds or some such). Now, finding that dance partner may be problematic.....
If they didn’t do it for Jones, they probably won’t for Kane either. The Sharks aren’t going to pay anyone to take Kane and they’re not going to retain 50%. There are no numbers for retaining that much for that long. It’s not going to happen and this is just vultures being vultures. Nobody is giving a positive asset for Kane even at 50% even if he’s cleared.
TheGreenTBer
the only language I speak is FAILURE
- Apr 30, 2021
- 9,944
- 12,172
This is exactly the kind of cutting edge thinking that we need in this world
Promote @north49er to moderator!
is being a moderator of this site more of a promotion or a punishment?
OgeeOgelthorpe
Riccis per 60 record holder
- Feb 29, 2020
- 18,064
- 19,585
North Cole
♧ Lem
- Jan 22, 2017
- 11,832
- 13,496
I feel like this guy is the equivalent of the 'Demon core'. Just a matter of time in a locker room before he goes critical and then becomes an irreversible problem.
His on ice production is so good, if he had average problems he would return a pretty penny. I can't recall seeing a player with such huge on ice value where a fanbase would simultaneously want to fire their GM for acquiring him. Maybe someone else knows a similar situation like this, where the positive on-ice contribution is 100% juxtaposed by the negative off-ice?
His on ice production is so good, if he had average problems he would return a pretty penny. I can't recall seeing a player with such huge on ice value where a fanbase would simultaneously want to fire their GM for acquiring him. Maybe someone else knows a similar situation like this, where the positive on-ice contribution is 100% juxtaposed by the negative off-ice?
Nolan11
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2013
- 3,236
- 334
Then we wont be trading him. No reason to pay assets to offload him, especially retained. If he is cleared, he either plays for us, or is in the pressbox or leant to EU, etc. We won't buy him out with the investigation ongoing and that is likely to extend past the 2nd buy-out period.
jMoneyBrah
Registered User
Would they? It’s dead cap regardless of which mechanism is used.
In Kane’s case, retaining 50% reduces Kane’s cap hit in years 2 and 4 and is off the books after 4 seasons. The only years you save more cap by buying out Kane are next season ($1.666M) and year 3 ($0.666M)
| Year | Buyout | 50% Retained | Cost Difference |
| 21-22 | $1,833,333 | $3,500,000 | -$1,666,667 |
| 22-23 | $3,833,333 | $3,500,000 | $333,333 |
| 23-24 | $2,833,333 | $3,500,000 | -$666,667 |
| 24-25 | $4,833,333 | $3,500,000 | $1,333,333 |
| 25-26 | $1,833,333 | $0 | $1,833,333 |
| 26-27 | $1,833,333 | $0 | $1,833,333 |
| 27-28 | $1,833,333 | $0 | $1,833,333 |
| 28-29 | $1,833,333 | $0 | $1,833,333 |
I get that there would be a cost to entice a team to take the other side of Kane’s salary, but from a strictly Sharks cap angle it’s more desirable to trade with retention.
Lt Dan
F*** your ice cream!
You obviously don't know that the mods get a free subscription to the snow globe of the month club
Sempiternal
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2014
- 3,460
- 1,944
KirkAlbuquerque
#WeNeverGetAGoodCoach
HarrisonFord
President of the Drew Doughty Fan Club
Yes they would for two reasons. One, no team wants Kane. The Sharks were the only team that wanted him from Buffalo as a rental. Why would any of the issues that are current with Kane lead anyone to believe that the list of teams has expanded at this point? Two, even if you got one to do so, you can't simply isolate the cap differences and not include the cost to make a trade with another team. The Sharks shouldn't be trading picks and shouldn't be trading prospects. The Sharks have no expendable roster player that another team would be interested in that would cover the cost of having said team take Kane on even at 50% because he is simply too toxic.
Best case scenario for everyone involved is that the league cancels the contract, plain and simple.
Evander Kane had so much goodwill when he did this:
Amazing how quickly that eroded to where he is now.
Amazing how quickly that eroded to where he is now.
Nut Upstrom
You dirty dog!
Yea, but the high rollers in the locker room are going to be stoked!
Any bets on where he ends up?
Nobody? Evander?
Yea, but the high rollers in the locker room are going to be stoked!
Any bets on where he ends up?
Nobody? Evander?
Gecklund
Registered User
I wouldn’t give up Kane straight up for Kessel…. It’s either the investigation comes up negative at which case we get a PPG winger back or it comes up positive and we terminate his contract.
HugeInTheShire
You may not like me but, I'm Huge in the Shire
I feel like somewhere right now Evander Kane is placing a bet on which team he ends up on...... Hope he's betting SJ, cuz I can't see anyone else taking a shot on him with this hanging over his head
Silky mitts
It’s yours boys and girls and babes let’s go!
- Mar 9, 2004
- 4,801
- 3,870
McRpro
Cont. without supporting.
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
Maybe Britney’s dad can be his conservator
- Status
