Call me crazy but I'd do this trade. Yeah Michalek and Weir can be useful players but when you have a chance of getting a superstar like Kane, you go for it. I believe he is the most clutch player in the league. Kane makes a lot of money but in a few years salaries will be even higher and it'll be a good contract. Losing so much potential hurts but this is the type of trade that can put you over the top. (Maybe take out or change one of the 1sts to a 2nd).
It is basically equal to the Gretzky or Lindros deals in the Cap era. The money they paid to get those players is the huge Cap the Sens take back in the highest cap player at 10.5 mil in the league and Bickell's cap dump.
Is Kane currently anywhere remotely close to the value of a 27 year old Gretzky or an 18 year old Lindros?
It is a ridiculous proposal. Absurd. We make that deal and we remain a bubble team but fleece most of our future. You make that offer on MacDavid (i still would not). You don't do it for a relatively one dimensional winger, signed to the absolute highest Cap hit in the league... Who by the end of the deal is almost assuredly not as good as he is now.
It is far, far, far too much value. Draft picks and young players are everything in competing now. We would have few cheap entry level or early RFA guys to fill in for years.
It is far, far, far too much to give up for anyone... Let alone Patrick Kane... Who is good... But really how much better then Hoffman? To get 15 more goals 25/30 more points then Hoffman with Kane we give up 2 decent roster players and 4 straight firsts and take on like $10 million extra in salary over Hoffman at $4 million? Why? Why? Why? Even if you consider Mikalek a cap dump that is a roster player, 4 firsts and $6 millionish in cap space to get a better game breaker then Hoffman? Who is better than Hoffman but that much better? I want 1991 Brett Hull as my offensive gamebreaker in that deal not Kane. Still would not be worth it.