Proposal: SJ/SEA/EDM
- Thread starter Kelevra
- Start date
WSS11
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2009
- 6,204
- 5,494
Taytro
Registered User
Lmao wut. This is a mess. No's across the board.
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
ManofSteel55
Registered User
treple13
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 2,849
- 1,528
This seems great for Edmonton and awful for San Jose
ultradan
hello fellow kids
San Jose would be better off buying Kane out than trading him at 50% and taking Kassian back.
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
San Jose would have to
a) eat 3.5M of Kane's salary for 3 more years
b) add 3.2M of Kassian's salary for 3 more years
c) Give up a 2nd
Essentially meaning we gain 0.3M of cap space, while losing a 2nd round pick, to ice Kassian instead of Kane. That's terrible.
We can buy out Kane, keep our 2nd round pick, and open up a few million in cap space instead.
a) eat 3.5M of Kane's salary for 3 more years
b) add 3.2M of Kassian's salary for 3 more years
c) Give up a 2nd
Essentially meaning we gain 0.3M of cap space, while losing a 2nd round pick, to ice Kassian instead of Kane. That's terrible.
We can buy out Kane, keep our 2nd round pick, and open up a few million in cap space instead.
You guys can have Eklund too, no worries
RainyCityHockey
Registered User
Seattle's not going to retain all that money(especially thanks to that term) and trade three players in order for that package.
Djp
Registered User
Terrible for Seattle. Maybe if you take out Appleton and Donskoi they may consider. Retaining on Kane, even if it isn't as much as SJ is, will cost a lot due to years left. Lavoie is a nothing prospect and Foegele has no value to Seattle with having 2 years at 2.75M left, Turris would be a better cap dump as they get him off the books this summer.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 40,047
- 14,734
Edmonton comes out the best and is still without a goalie or top 4 LD and their 1st is gone.
No team does this although if somehow it went thru Kane at 1.75 million cap hit is worth the risk but I think Edmonton doesn’t have the leadership in the room to handle his addition like a Penguins or Tampa Bay could
No team does this although if somehow it went thru Kane at 1.75 million cap hit is worth the risk but I think Edmonton doesn’t have the leadership in the room to handle his addition like a Penguins or Tampa Bay could
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
too many moving pieces and does not address the goalie situation in Edmonton. Seattle makes out like bandits though. San Jose says no
How does Seattle make out like bandits? They have a 1.75M dead cap for 3 more years retaining on Kane, they have 1.8M dead retaining on Donskoi. Have to take Foegele at 2.75M for the next 2 seasons after this. They give up 2 forwards who are better than Foegele that they don't want to and Jankrok who they probably want to deal but for just picks. All they really get is a late 1st and a 2nd, that's not close at all.
seroes
Registered User
I'm usually all for a deal that gets rid of Kane, but paying for a cap dump is a no go. I can't imagine why Seattle does this either.
Structurally, this trade won't work because Seattle isn't trading anything to San Jose for Kane. For retention trades, there has to be something going the other way and it essentially has to function as two separate trades.
If the Sharks are trading with Seattle to move Kane and giving them a 2nd, Seattle will need to send San Jose back something then send Kane along at 50% to Edmonton for whatever. A Kane deal to anywhere to where the receiving team is going to get him at 25% of his cap hit is not going to include all of this.
The odds that a deal is there to be made where a team gets Kane at 25% is unlikely considering the circumstances. With three seasons to go after this one, it's difficult to ask a third team to eat 1.75 mil in dead cap for that long let alone gauge a good value for it. I think the conversation needs to steer more towards which teams will want Kane at 3.5 mil while also having a similar term contract to send back as the basis for a trade. If things don't work out for that team, the buyout is only 50% on you. That sort of cap hit is 1.8, 1.3, 2.3, and 833k for three more seasons. This assumes that things go south quickly with Kane which seems unlikely. Kane doesn't tend to wear out his welcome until his third or fourth year.
The risk that is there with what is laid out can be determined if it's worth it or not by each individual but it seems super unlikely any of these double retention trades will materialize. The Sharks will buy him out if the cost to move him is really anything beyond retention plus a 3.5 mil contract returned or players they don't value moving forward. Those players likely not being anything anyone else would want to trade for anyway.
If the Sharks are trading with Seattle to move Kane and giving them a 2nd, Seattle will need to send San Jose back something then send Kane along at 50% to Edmonton for whatever. A Kane deal to anywhere to where the receiving team is going to get him at 25% of his cap hit is not going to include all of this.
The odds that a deal is there to be made where a team gets Kane at 25% is unlikely considering the circumstances. With three seasons to go after this one, it's difficult to ask a third team to eat 1.75 mil in dead cap for that long let alone gauge a good value for it. I think the conversation needs to steer more towards which teams will want Kane at 3.5 mil while also having a similar term contract to send back as the basis for a trade. If things don't work out for that team, the buyout is only 50% on you. That sort of cap hit is 1.8, 1.3, 2.3, and 833k for three more seasons. This assumes that things go south quickly with Kane which seems unlikely. Kane doesn't tend to wear out his welcome until his third or fourth year.
The risk that is there with what is laid out can be determined if it's worth it or not by each individual but it seems super unlikely any of these double retention trades will materialize. The Sharks will buy him out if the cost to move him is really anything beyond retention plus a 3.5 mil contract returned or players they don't value moving forward. Those players likely not being anything anyone else would want to trade for anyway.
