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

[Chips]

There was a rumour before the season started that Hertl didn't want to play with him. I'm genuinely not sure whether that was discussed again, or was true/false. Kane himself denied it, but it would've been weird if he said no one wants to play with him, so take that as you will. Other than that, as far as I'm aware no one has decided to comment on anything, so it's hard to say.

Could say that nobody has said anything is saying something.

They’d be verbally running to his rescue saying the rumors about his being a shitty teammate are vicious and unfair. They’re not really vouching for him, at least not most of them. It’s mostly “uh, we’re in the middle of the season, we just gotta look forward at the next game”

 

[Rubi]

So one month later and the Sharks are still working on a Kane trade.
Either the Sharks want too much, or 50% retention isn't enough, or GM's don't want him at any cost.

 

[hohosaregood]

So one month later and the Sharks are still working on a Kane trade.
Either the Sharks want too much, or 50% retention isn't enough, or GM's don't want him at any cost.

Definitely wants too much. Nobody wants to pay a premium for an AHLer

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So one month later and the Sharks are still working on a Kane trade.
Either the Sharks want too much, or 50% retention isn't enough, or GM's don't want him at any cost.

A lot of higher cap players have to wait for the deadline to get moved.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Pearson for Kane @ 50% + 4th

 

[Jerkbait]

So one month later and the Sharks are still working on a Kane trade.
Either the Sharks want too much, or 50% retention isn't enough, or GM's don't want him at any cost.

Well we know the latter is false. They wouldn't send thoer scouts for no reason during a pandemic ....there hasn't been a right fit, its early and teams are still trying to figure out what they are. Patience. He will play agina this season in the NHL

 

[lawrence]

So one month later and the Sharks are still working on a Kane trade.
Either the Sharks want too much, or 50% retention isn't enough, or GM's don't want him at any cost.

50% is the most they can retain. Provably asking price is too high.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

50% is the most they can retain. Provably asking price is too high.

They can always involve a 3rd team

 

[zcaptain]

Pearson for Kane @ 50% + 4th

Funny

I was just thinking of a similar trade, which I think is more appropriate

Pearson
for
Kane@50% + 2022-3rd + 2023-2nd

 

[Quinntessential]

He's worth more than that. Pearson, 2nd or 3rd round pick, and a B prospect should get Kane @ 50% if San Jose really wants him gone. But would the Canucks want to touch him? I don't think so.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Funny

I was just thinking of a similar trade, which I think is more appropriate

Pearson
for
Kane@50% + 2022-3rd + 2023-2nd

Sharks won't be giving up that many picks and taking Pearson. By retaining 50% on Kane, and taking Pearson we're in the same spot cap wise as we are right now, so why add 2 picks? The only thing we would gain is 3.25M in 3 years from now.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

He's worth more than that. Pearson, 2nd or 3rd round pick, and a B prospect should get Kane @ 50% if San Jose really wants him gone. But would the Canucks want to touch him? I don't think so.

Nobody is paying that for kane.

 

[inthe6ix]

Sharks won't be giving up that many picks and taking Pearson. By retaining 50% on Kane, and taking Pearson we're in the same spot cap wise as we are right now, so why add 2 picks? The only thing we would gain is 3.25M in 3 years from now.

You would be gaining a decent, serviceable player you can actually use in your lineup.

Better than dead cap space on a guy who should be up, but isn't.

 

[StumpyTown]

He's worn out his welcome on three teams now. While his physical talents and ability on the ice are unquestionably really good if not exceptional at 50%, he can't seem to get out of his own way with controversy off the ice.
The risk is extremely high for someone picking him up so the final price has to be a bargain basement wholesale amount coming back for him.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

You would be gaining a decent, serviceable player you can actually use in your lineup.

Better than dead cap space on a guy who should be up, but isn't.

Considering we're not a contending team, and like I said wouldn't be gaining any cap space to resign players for this year or next, I would very easily rather have a 2nd and a 3rd than Tanner Pearson.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You would be gaining a decent, serviceable player you can actually use in your lineup.

Better than dead cap space on a guy who should be up, but isn't.

Not when the cost of doing that is a 2nd and a 3rd on a team that isn't going to the playoffs. I'd rather have the dead space instead of the picks and a player in a position we have plenty of options for. Now if you were talking about a center option, I'd be a little more open for discussing that but nobody seems open to any of that for Kane.

If the Sharks aren't doing a simple Kane@50% for another similar level bad contract, even to the point of where they'd be adding cap, then it's not a deal worth doing for a team in their position. They can't give up picks to get rid of players. They can only really justify getting rid of picks to add players with a future to their team.

 

[kylbaz]

Never liked Kane because I always said he was over rated since he was in Winnipeg. Low hockey IQ. Not a star he was touted as. That being said he makes for a great 2nd line player. Guy is a cancer but one of very few guys in the league that gives 100% on every shift and I always respected that. Jets could have been down 5-0 and he would be the only one out there giving 100% still. I don't think many teams want to deal with his off ice circus and dressing room attitude which there clearly is.

 

[kylbaz]

Kassian at $1.8m would be a highly sought after deadline add. GMs are idiots. He's the prototypical 'playoff' forward.

Yes, not sure why they all don't know as much as belair from HF boards. Kassian is garbage. prototypical playoff forward

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Never liked Kane because I always said he was over rated since he was in Winnipeg. Low hockey IQ. Not a star he was touted as. That being said he makes for a great 2nd line player. Guy is a cancer but one of very few guys in the league that gives 100% on every shift and I always respected that. Jets could have been down 5-0 and he would be the only one out there giving 100% still. I don't think many teams want to deal with his off ice circus and dressing room attitude which there clearly is.

Yep this is exactly right. The guy is a complete idiot, but he is great at hockey, and even when his team is getting whooped he'll try everything to score/fight/whatever (half the time it does lead to a dumb penalty against him though)

 

[therealkoho]

What happens if he refuses assignment? Can the Sharks void his contract?

No. Voiding a contract isn't really a thing. Even when LA terminated Mike Richards' contract, they were still left with a cap hit because of it.

Contract Termination | Puckpedia

Contracts can be terminated if both the player and team mutually decides on a termination and the player clears waivers. This often happens for non-NHL players that wish to go play in Europe, so both sides agree to terminate. When the player does not want to terminate (like in DeAngelo's case), the contract can only be terminated if the player does something to violate it. This is very rare. Even if a player refuses to report and play, usually the contract is still valid but the player is suspended and the contract does not count against the cap.

 

[Ita]

He's worth more than that. Pearson, 2nd or 3rd round pick, and a B prospect should get Kane @ 50% if San Jose really wants him gone. But would the Canucks want to touch him? I don't think so.

You won't get anything close to that.

If you look at it from a pure talent pov, Kane is actually worth more but if you consider his toxicity and baggage, most teams wouldn't take him at 50% retention for free.

 

[Wandering Cynic]

I still think this is going to be a 3 way trade.

San Jose will definitely retain salary but they need to make it similar to the price of the buyout (minus the last 3 years of the contract).

To Arizona:
Evander Kane (2.5 million retained).

To San Jose:
7th round pick or Future Considerations

The first 3 years of the buyout are at a cap hit of 3.67, 2.67 and 4.67 million. This gives value back to San Jose in that they save money on retention, as well as the number of years that Kane would be on the Sharks' payroll.


To Toronto:
Evander Kane (2.25 million retained)

To Arizona:
Nick Ritchie
2nd round pick

Kane essentially replaces Nick Ritchie in the lineup. Arizona does this as they are going to have trouble reaching the cap floor for the next few seasons, and they get a good pick out of this deal as well.

Now hurry up and trade the guy.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I still think this is going to be a 3 way trade.

San Jose will definitely retain salary but they need to make it similar to the price of the buyout (minus the last 3 years of the contract).

To Arizona:
Evander Kane (2.5 million retained).

To San Jose:
7th round pick or Future Considerations

The first 3 years of the buyout are at a cap hit of 3.67, 2.67 and 4.67 million. This gives value back to San Jose in that they save money on retention, as well as the number of years that Kane would be on the Sharks' payroll.


To Toronto:
Evander Kane (2.25 million retained)

To Arizona:
Nick Ritchie
2nd round pick

Kane essentially replaces Nick Ritchie in the lineup. Arizona does this as they are going to have trouble reaching the cap floor for the next few seasons, and they get a good pick out of this deal as well.

Now hurry up and trade the guy.

This isn't going to happen. Arizona is not going to help the Sharks out this season given their retention slot status. They will be saving that final slot for Kessel at the deadline or close to it. If this becomes an offseason issue to deal with when Kessel and Kuemper come off the books then a discussion may be had but that may not be given clearance to happen until after the buyout window which could complicate that option. There may be arbitration options to extend the buyout option but it's also possible the team just may not pursue it and buy Kane out when the window opens after the Finals. The Sharks certainly won't get out of having a third team retain for three seasons plus scot-free. The Coyotes won't retain 2.25 million for three plus seasons for a 2nd round pick. That's way undervaluing the service they're providing there. The value of a 3rd team retaining even just 1 mil for three seasons is going to be a 1st round pick. A price that the Sharks will not pay. A price that the team acquiring Kane will not pay either. The 3rd team option in this scenario is likely not feasible. The Sharks retaining half should mitigate the risk enough for an acquiring team should they believe that Kane the person/teammate is worth the risk. If you're willing to acquire Kane at 1.75 mil, you're willing to acquire him at 3.5 mil. Guys like Kane are either do-not-acquire or take him at half.

 

[seanlinden]

This isn't going to happen. Arizona is not going to help the Sharks out this season given their retention slot status. They will be saving that final slot for Kessel at the deadline or close to it. If this becomes an offseason issue to deal with when Kessel and Kuemper come off the books then a discussion may be had but that may not be given clearance to happen until after the buyout window which could complicate that option. There may be arbitration options to extend the buyout option but it's also possible the team just may not pursue it and buy Kane out when the window opens after the Finals. The Sharks certainly won't get out of having a third team retain for three seasons plus scot-free. The Coyotes won't retain 2.25 million for three plus seasons for a 2nd round pick. That's way undervaluing the service they're providing there. The value of a 3rd team retaining even just 1 mil for three seasons is going to be a 1st round pick. A price that the Sharks will not pay. A price that the team acquiring Kane will not pay either. The 3rd team option in this scenario is likely not feasible. The Sharks retaining half should mitigate the risk enough for an acquiring team should they believe that Kane the person/teammate is worth the risk. If you're willing to acquire Kane at 1.75 mil, you're willing to acquire him at 3.5 mil. Guys like Kane are either do-not-acquire or take him at half.

You're bang on with respect to what Arizona will do -- it's going to cost a lot more than a 2nd round pick to retain $2m for 3 years - regardless of team. Personally, I don't think a first even gets it done, unless it's a very good first.

That being said... to me the anaylsis of what San Jose should do breaks down as follows:

1. In a buyout scenario, Kane costs them an AVERAGE of $3.6m for the next 3 seasons, plus $1.6m for the 3 seasons after that.

2. A 50% retention trade costs them $3.5m for the next 3 seasons, and nothing after that. Therefore, they should be JUMPING at the possibility of trading him with 50% retained.

3. Obviously, there are no/limited biters today for Kane at $3.5m, and the consesus on HFboards seems to be that nobody wants the potential sideshow for the next 3 years at $3.5m.

4. Personally, I think there MIGHT be biters for Kane at $3.5m, but it's not a deal that can be done in-season, simply because of cap space constraints.

5. Based on that, I don't think the Sharks should really be in any rush to make a move. He's been good in the AHL, and teams will only view his AHL time as positive for his "rehabilitation". Let him play out the season there, and hope that, combined with teams having a bit more flexibility, that you can do a simple 50% retention deal and call it a day.

6. If that doesn't happen, then it becomes a question of "what is that $1.6m x 3 (starting in 3 years) worth to the sharks?" Is it worth a first round pick today? IMO, yes it should be... but that's a really tough sell from a PR standpoint.... trade Kane @50% plus a first to Arizona for nothing. Arizona retains say ~ $1.5m, and then trades Kane at $2m for a 2nd rounder?

 

[Groo]

You're bang on with respect to what Arizona will do -- it's going to cost a lot more than a 2nd round pick to retain $2m for 3 years - regardless of team. Personally, I don't think a first even gets it done, unless it's a very good first.

That being said... to me the anaylsis of what San Jose should do breaks down as follows:

1. In a buyout scenario, Kane costs them an AVERAGE of $3.6m for the next 3 seasons, plus $1.6m for the 3 seasons after that.

2. A 50% retention trade costs them $3.5m for the next 3 seasons, and nothing after that. Therefore, they should be JUMPING at the possibility of trading him with 50% retained.

3. Obviously, there are no/limited biters today for Kane at $3.5m, and the consesus on HFboards seems to be that nobody wants the potential sideshow for the next 3 years at $3.5m.

4. Personally, I think there MIGHT be biters for Kane at $3.5m, but it's not a deal that can be done in-season, simply because of cap space constraints.

5. Based on that, I don't think the Sharks should really be in any rush to make a move. He's been good in the AHL, and teams will only view his AHL time as positive for his "rehabilitation". Let him play out the season there, and hope that, combined with teams having a bit more flexibility, that you can do a simple 50% retention deal and call it a day.

6. If that doesn't happen, then it becomes a question of "what is that $1.6m x 3 (starting in 3 years) worth to the sharks?" Is it worth a first round pick today? IMO, yes it should be... but that's a really tough sell from a PR standpoint.... trade Kane @50% plus a first to Arizona for nothing. Arizona retains say ~ $1.5m, and then trades Kane at $2m for a 2nd rounder?

That's a lot of words but you could have saved all the trouble. NO!