- Oct 9, 2012
- 32,489
- 31,413
He has a modified NTC 3 team list, I’m sure he’s fine sitting in the AHL making 6-7 million instead of moving somewhere he doesn’t want to go
Rumor: Sharks working on Evander Kane trade, will eat 50%
- Thread starter LEAFANFORLIFE23
- Start date
Sens Vader
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2016
- 7,496
- 5,334
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 21,086
- 9,168
He is still in San Jose, making more money because escrow doesn't apply. He is doing less for more and he can become a free agent if bought out. Or collect 7 million for three more years. Kane has a lot of control.
KrisLeturnover
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2021
- 265
- 266
- Jun 13, 2010
- 42,655
- 21,466
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I still think Zucker for Kane with salary retained makes a buttload of sense on paper, I'm just not sure whether the Penguins would actually pull the trigger on it. The entire issue is that Zucker is apparently really liked the locker room and is a locker room leader, while Kane....isn't, to put it politely. Purely as a hockey move, it just makes a ton of sense.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,635
- 11,178
Kane for Skinner straight up.
Kane to 3rd team at 50% for a modest pick and/or/roster player to help with possible short term cap considerations.
The Sharks get rid of Kane and get a player on a worse contract, keep their assets.
Sabres get out of Skinner deal and retain 3.5mil on Kane for say a 5th.
3rd team takes Kane at 3.5 for 3years for a 5th.
The deal doesn’t happen for the Sharks or Sabres without the 3rd team ( Kane and Skinner agreeing). So the incentive is riddance for Sharks, nice savings for Sabres.
Kane to 3rd team at 50% for a modest pick and/or/roster player to help with possible short term cap considerations.
The Sharks get rid of Kane and get a player on a worse contract, keep their assets.
Sabres get out of Skinner deal and retain 3.5mil on Kane for say a 5th.
3rd team takes Kane at 3.5 for 3years for a 5th.
The deal doesn’t happen for the Sharks or Sabres without the 3rd team ( Kane and Skinner agreeing). So the incentive is riddance for Sharks, nice savings for Sabres.
Groo
Registered User
Yes, but why would SJ give up assets to move him at 50% or take extra cap dumps coming back when the buyout isn’t much worse than trading him for future considerations at 50%? There’s no incentive to SJ to pay anything more than a 4th round pick to move him at 50% retention for the extra $500K in cap space that a buyout would cost.
So moving him with a 1st or two 2nds or a player for 0 retention is not an option?
BillR10
Registered User
- Nov 16, 2008
- 829
- 249
Sharks are not Kanes cap space from top cup contender so moving him with a 1st or two 2nds would only set the franchise back further. Besides, people in here believe that the Sharks have to attach that to move Kane at 50% let alone 0 retention. Best option is for the Sharks to let him play AHL hockey until the option to move him without any addition players or picks being added while retaining on him becomes available. If that doesn't happen buy him out either this off-season or wait another year. His 1.175 cap space for being in the AHL is enough to accommodate Eklund for the next 3 years and the sharks shouldn't be adding to save 2.375 mil per on a retaining trade compared to just leaving him in AHL.
Honour Over Glory
Blomqvist for Vezina + ROTY
- Jan 30, 2012
- 81,186
- 45,626
If the Pens value their leadership and dressing room chemistry so much then the idea of Evander Kane on this team should concern you. He's a toxic human being. If what he did was ok to forgive then he wouldn't be in the ahl. He'd be on their main roster.
But he's a well established piece of shit person. Then again, a racist twit like DeAngelo found work real quick when the Rangers got rid of him. I'd rather a different team went after Kane. Not us.
I wonder if SJ would include another player to get some value because you aren't getting value for Kane, even at 50% it's not happening
But they might get some value if they packaged him with another player like let's say.
To Toronto Kane at 50%, Reimer
To SJ Ritchie, Marzaek plys whatever picks or prospects need to be added to get Reimer in this deal
Toronto clears about 600k in cap space assuming Reimer isn't retained on and I doubt he would be
And SJ would get some level of value that they wouldn't get for just Kane depending on what needed to be added to get Reimer.
To those that say "we wouldn't need Reimer we have Woll."
I don't think they would allow themselves to be 1 injury away from a Woll/Hutchinson Ttandem.
I know Woll is 3-1 but if they were to trade Marzaek you don't allow yourself to be 1 injury away from a guy that has 4 NHL games in his career as your #1.
You either get a goalie in the deal you trade Marzaek in.
Or if you don't get Reimer back, if for some odd reason SJ was willing to do Ritchie and Marzaek for Kane for some reason which would be odd because they would have 3 goalies.
But if for some odd reason they did do that.
You then need to go get Halak or Holtby because like I said you can't be 1 injury away from a guy that has 4 NHL games in his career being your #1 you can't do that
But they might get some value if they packaged him with another player like let's say.
To Toronto Kane at 50%, Reimer
To SJ Ritchie, Marzaek plys whatever picks or prospects need to be added to get Reimer in this deal
Toronto clears about 600k in cap space assuming Reimer isn't retained on and I doubt he would be
And SJ would get some level of value that they wouldn't get for just Kane depending on what needed to be added to get Reimer.
To those that say "we wouldn't need Reimer we have Woll."
I don't think they would allow themselves to be 1 injury away from a Woll/Hutchinson Ttandem.
I know Woll is 3-1 but if they were to trade Marzaek you don't allow yourself to be 1 injury away from a guy that has 4 NHL games in his career as your #1.
You either get a goalie in the deal you trade Marzaek in.
Or if you don't get Reimer back, if for some odd reason SJ was willing to do Ritchie and Marzaek for Kane for some reason which would be odd because they would have 3 goalies.
But if for some odd reason they did do that.
You then need to go get Halak or Holtby because like I said you can't be 1 injury away from a guy that has 4 NHL games in his career being your #1 you can't do that
riemer has a 5 team NTC. You can bet Toronto is on it. Leaf fans were a nightmare to his wife threatening her and the family. whether it actually was leaf fans who knows. Other teams fans are more interested in to Toronto. Either way. He won’t come back here and I don’t blame him
Then change Reimer to Hill, I don't particularly want either guy but I'm also not convinced the Leafs are fully confident in Marzaek
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
I like how for a week or two we've shown what buy out results look like for the Sharks, and how it's very reasonable to move forward with, without us giving up an asset in a trade, yet fans come in and ask for us to retain money and give up a pick/player.
If you don't want him because he's a headache, then great we won't trade him to you. He's fine sitting on our AHL team until June, when we can buy him out and most of the years are at 1.6M.
If you don't want him because he's a headache, then great we won't trade him to you. He's fine sitting on our AHL team until June, when we can buy him out and most of the years are at 1.6M.
I think trading Kane with 50% retention for nothing is better than buying him out. If you ask the Sharks to add a sweetener or take cap dumps back, the buyout option looks better very quickly.
Reimer has been their #1 goalie this year and given how he left Toronto, I doubt he'd be willing to go there. I'd probably be willing to do a Hill for Mrazek swap if it facilitates a Kane trade easier but I don't know if Mrazek wouldn't have San Jose on his list of 10 teams he would need approval to go to.
cruise past certain dealerships and theres barely any stock due to that computer chip issue
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,635
- 11,178
Tell them to give you the truck at 50% retention and you will take one without the chip!
