Rumor: Sharks working on Evander Kane trade, will eat 50%

[Sota Popinski]

The land of misfits. If they were able to tame DeAngelo, they can work with anyone.

It's not even halfway through the season and you're claiming they have tamed him? Absurd.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Can a team that doesn't have an affiliation agreement with Chicago just unilaterally assign a player there?

When Sheldon Souray was with the Oilers he was assigned to the Hershey Bears. But AHL trades do happen all the time too. Even Brad Lukowich being assigned to the Texas Stars from Vancouver.

 

[BillR10]

Except that with a buyout, the last 3 years are only at 1.667 million/year.

The only reason to take a contract like Murray's back, is because they are an easier buyout. So retaining cap on that negates the one benefit.

And yes, the Sharks are competing right now. They are more of a retool vs rebuild team.

He's also missing that if the team Kanes traded to doesn't work out and they buy him out the sharks on the hook for half his buyout so it would still be 6 years on the books regardless.

 

[Stubu]

Don't know if anyone replied to you, but Columbus did this last year with both Savard and Foligno, but they were both UFA to be. A team that only wants to hit the floor should be all over this

I did, quoting CapFriendly, post #325.

Short version: yes, consecutive retentions by two teams is allowed.

In E.Kane's case, SJS retains 50% for $3.5m, the second team retains 50% for $1.75m. Both are in for the full duration (4 yr left) of the contract. They also have to share if there's a buy-out.

(Not that I see this happening but anyway.)

yes and no...

you can only retain up to 3.5M (50%) caphit on a contract... but once the 3.5M is allowed, yes you can

so at the 41 game mark, you can retain twice (technically a bit before but whatever)

What's that 41 game mark? From CapFriendly, emphasis mine:

"A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date."

Have to wait a full year before you get the player back. CF doesn't explain if the first retention is then just nullified or if a second helping can be heaped on top of it. (The latter case wouldn't really make any sense...)

 

[blankall]

The land of misfits. If they were able to tame DeAngelo, they can work with anyone.

I honestly think TDA had a bit of a wakeup call. Having to move your life from NYC to Carolina was probably pretty jarring, and also made him realize this was his last chance and he was giving up a very lucrative career.

We'll see how long this lasts.

 

[Stuzchuk]

I did, quoting CapFriendly, post #325.

Short version: yes, consecutive retentions by two teams is allowed.

In E.Kane's case, SJS retains 50% for $3.5m, the second team retains 50% for $1.75m. Both are in for the full duration (4 yr left) of the contract. They also have to share if there's a buy-out.

(Not that I see this happening but anyway.)



What's that 41 game mark? From CapFriendly, emphasis mine:

"A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date."

Have to wait a full year before you get the player back. CF doesn't explain if the first retention is then just nullified or if a second helping can be heaped on top of it. (The latter case wouldn't really make any sense...)

I'm not saying that he's going back to SJ
What I'm saying is the same scenario that we saw in the D.Savard trade last year

 

[Pavelski2112]

Except that with a buyout, the last 3 years are only at 1.667 million/year.

The only reason to take a contract like Murray's back, is because they are an easier buyout. So retaining cap on that negates the one benefit.

And yes, the Sharks are competing right now. They are more of a retool vs rebuild team.

The Sharks may say they're trying to compete, but they are absolutely not a competitive team at this point. At best, they're a first-round exit.

 

[blankall]

The Sharks may say they're trying to compete, but they are absolutely not a competitive team at this point. At best, they're a first-round exit.

Big difference between that and a full rebuild too.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Big difference between that and a full rebuild too.

That's true. I think Doug just thinks he can do what he did in 2015, but this core is nowhere near as good as that one was.

 

[UrbanImpact]

Are Sharks willing to give up a draft pick along with retaining to get rid of him?

I think he owed 20 more million after this year. I cant see the owner being too thrilled with that.

I'd take him in Vancouver

Tanner Pearson
7th rnd pick

for

E Kane (50% retained)
4th rnd pick

 

[BlueSeal]

Package a 1st, 50% retention and a team will bite. You’re not getting any value for him except he’d no longer be your problem.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Package a 1st, 50% retention and a team will bite. You’re not getting any value for him except he’d no longer be your problem.

Sharks aren't trading their first this year, full stop. It's gonna be a lottery pick. We'll just play him in the AHL if no one bites.

 

[mpir3]

The land of misfits. If they were able to tame DeAngelo, they can work with anyone.

Are they similar though? While controversial and easy to view as an opinionated A-Hole DeAngelo has generally been well like by his teammates and from my understanding doesn't have any legal issues. Can the same be said of Kane? That's a different dynamic to bring into a locker room. Much harder IMO.

 

[jetsforever]

Ottawa since they're clearing contracts?

 

[Rafafouille]

Anything in the CBA that forces you to play the guy? I'd take him at full price no retention in MTL later this season if Gorton clears capspace, assign him to the AHL on paper(for the 900k? cap savings) and tell him to stay in California because he's not welcome here. Have to assume there's a rule against that though.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Package a 1st, 50% retention and a team will bite. You’re not getting any value for him except he’d no longer be your problem.

Kane at 50% has value. Maybe not for every team but there is no way the Sharks have to or even would attach an asset to dump Kane at 3.5M.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Kane at 50% has value. Maybe not for every team but there is no way the Sharks have to or even would attach an asset to dump Kane at 3.5M.

If his contract was ending after this season or next season, I would agree. Still a ton of risk 3 years left and all that baggage.

 

[BlueSeal]

Kane at 50% has value. Maybe not for every team but there is no way the Sharks have to or even would attach an asset to dump Kane at 3.5M.

Kane has beyond negative value. His clearing waivers should have proven that. If you want to keep him and pay his full salary, that's cool, but the Sharks have no positive ground if they're trading him. Sharks will have to pay another team to do them the favor.

So you could keep him and have 28m of your cap (7mx4) locked up or you can trade him and pay 14m with a pick for the privilege. It's going to take retention AND assets going with him, to get rid of him. Buyout might be a good option at this point.

You're paying no matter what, so choose your poison and get past this.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Kane has beyond negative value. His clearing waivers should have proven that. If you want to keep him and pay his full salary, that's cool, but the Sharks have no positive ground if they're trading him. Sharks will have to pay another team to do them the favor.

So you could keep him and have 28m of your cap (7mx4) locked up or you can trade him and pay 14m with a pick for the privilege. It's going to take retention AND assets going with him, to get rid of him. Buyout might be a good option at this point.

You're paying no matter what, so choose your poison and get past this.

All that him clearing waivers proves is that no team wanted to take him at $7M. It sure as hell doesn't prove that they have to pay a 1st round pick to trade him at 3.5M.

 

[BillR10]

Kane has beyond negative value. His clearing waivers should have proven that. If you want to keep him and pay his full salary, that's cool, but the Sharks have no positive ground if they're trading him. Sharks will have to pay another team to do them the favor.

So you could keep him and have 28m of your cap (7mx4) locked up or you can trade him and pay 14m with a pick for the privilege. It's going to take retention AND assets going with him, to get rid of him. Buyout might be a good option at this point.

You're paying no matter what, so choose your poison and get past this.

Incorrect. Sharks would get a little over a mil in cap relief each year with him in the minors. More than enough for Eklund to take his slot starting next year and his raise set aside once Kanes contract ends. If the sharks retain 50% then their cap savings is only like 2.4 more than burying him. That's not worth dealing a 1st sorry. They should let him play in the AHL and try to build at least some value rather than paying to move less than half of him

 

[BlueSeal]

All that him clearing waivers proves is that no team wanted to take him at $7M. It sure as hell doesn't prove that they have to pay a 1st round pick to trade him at 3.5M.

The Sharks offered Kane at 50% retention, no buyers and he cleared waivers. If anything, teams are saying that Kane isn't worth -half- of his contract, which is worse.

 

[BlueSeal]

Incorrect. Sharks would get a little over a mil in cap relief each year with him in the minors. More than enough for Eklund to take his slot starting next year and his raise set aside once Kanes contract ends. If the sharks retain 50% then their cap savings is only like 2.4 more than burying him. That's not worth dealing a 1st sorry. They should let him play in the AHL and try to build at least some value rather than paying to move less than half of him

Here's the thing:

Everyone knows that Kane is an excellent hockey player. He proves nothing by playing well in the AHL.

What the Sharks need to do is play him AND work on greatly improving his image as a PERSON. That's the hangup. In the AHL Kane won't be anywhere where he can prove that. That he needs to be in the NHL, especially if you want to trade him for any sort of value.

 

[Groo]

The Sharks offered Kane at 50% retention, no buyers and he cleared waivers. If anything, teams are saying that Kane isn't worth -half- of his contract, which is worse.

If I was a GM I'd want to see Kane perform and see how he's approaching the game/season first before I'd consider adding such a player.

 

[BillR10]

Here's the thing:

Everyone knows that Kane is an excellent hockey player. He proves nothing by playing well in the AHL.

What the Sharks need to do is play him AND work on greatly improving his image as a PERSON. That's the hangup. In the AHL Kane won't be anywhere where he can prove that. That he needs to be in the NHL, especially if you want to trade him for any sort of value.

Yes, he won't prove playing but he could prove to be a better teammate to the point we could move him without adding, let alone adding a 1st. His agent will be doing his best to prove that to possible teams. If not might as well keep him buried until there's less years on his contract. No point in mortgaging serious future pieces for 2.4 mil in cap

 

[Voight]

Kane is a talented player, but he has proven to be a huge headache off the ice and does not seem to be well-liked by other players. Even with 50% salary retention, any team that trades for him needs to be extremely cognizant of what they are getting themselves into.

Hes caused problems every stop of his career and his current team mates dont want him around so yea, this is a tricky one.