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

[Dan Kelly]

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

but....when he behaves himself, he's a productive power forward that is enough all by himself to put a team on the cusp over the top !

 

[seanlinden]

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

NO! to what?

San Jose sitting on him for the season?

SJ Trading a 1st round pick to a team to avoid having to pay him $1.6m x 3, 3 years from now?

Arizona occupying one of the retention slots at $1.5m of cap hit / proportionate cap outlay for a 1st + 2nd round pick?

Some other team trading a 2nd round pick for Kane at $2m X 3?

 

[Groo]

NO! to what?

San Jose sitting on him for the season?

SJ Trading a 1st round pick to a team to avoid having to pay him $1.6m x 3, 3 years from now?

Arizona occupying one of the retention slots at $1.5m of cap hit / proportionate cap outlay for a 1st + 2nd round pick?

Some other team trading a 2nd round pick for Kane at $2m X 3?

SJ trading a 1st round pick

 

[Pinkfloyd]

NO! to what?

San Jose sitting on him for the season?

SJ Trading a 1st round pick to a team to avoid having to pay him $1.6m x 3, 3 years from now?

Arizona occupying one of the retention slots at $1.5m of cap hit / proportionate cap outlay for a 1st + 2nd round pick?

Some other team trading a 2nd round pick for Kane at $2m X 3?

The no will be to San Jose trading a first to avoid the buyout. There's no convincing reason to do so.

 

[zcaptain]

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.

Hey! I am not trying to lower your cap, I am trying to give you a working player. Pearson is no where near Kane level of player, but he a decent, honest, hard working player. He does play 2nd line in Vancouver with Horvat, so he is not chump change.

And yes, I do think you will pay something like that............it's a 2nd and a 3rd.................it could be a 1st

He has risk for any team..............you will pay for getting rid of that risk

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Hey! I am not trying to lower your cap, I am trying to give you a working player. Pearson is no where near Kane level of player, but he a decent, honest, hard working player. He does play 2nd line in Vancouver with Horvat, so he is not chump change.

And yes, I do think you will pay something like that............it's a 2nd and a 3rd.................it could be a 1st

He has risk for any team..............you will pay for getting rid of that risk

They will pay by retaining and/or taking back a bad contract. They will not be paying in picks.

 

[featherhawk]

Pearson for Kane @ 50% + 4th

perfect, within a month or two after being back in his hometown of Vancouver he will accomplished two things:

1) ruin any momentum that Boudreau had created and be a cancer in yet another NHL locker room
2) end up living on the DTES hanging with his new found buddies

 

[BillR10]

Hey! I am not trying to lower your cap, I am trying to give you a working player. Pearson is no where near Kane level of player, but he a decent, honest, hard working player. He does play 2nd line in Vancouver with Horvat, so he is not chump change.

And yes, I do think you will pay something like that............it's a 2nd and a 3rd.................it could be a 1st

He has risk for any team..............you will pay for getting rid of that risk

Teams pay picks like that to rid themselves of 100% of a contract not half a contract. They'll buy him out before paying that but I think you'll see someone trade for him at the deadline. 30 goal scorer for basically free. If he doesn't work out he only takes up 2.375 mil in cap if you have to bury him into the minors. I'll think you'll see someone bite at the deadline

 

[zcaptain]

Teams pay picks like that to rid themselves of 100% of a contract not half a contract. They'll buy him out before paying that but I think you'll see someone trade for him at the deadline. 30 goal scorer for basically free. If he doesn't work out he only takes up 2.375 mil in cap if you have to bury him into the minors. I'll think you'll see someone bite at the deadline

I can't disagree with you, in most cases
But with his history, he will make it a lot harder
You are right , it will be interesting to see what happens

 

[GoldenSeal]

Why not just call him up and play him, make it a big or event. Build his value that way and get a really good package back.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Tacos

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Why not just call him up and play him, make it a big or event. Build his value that way and get a really good package back.

Because he's not getting a really good package back given the circumstances

 

[seanlinden]

The no will be to San Jose trading a first to avoid the buyout. There's no convincing reason to do so.

SJ trading a 1st round pick

Ignoring the actual dollars outlayed (just focusing on cap)

Buyout:
- $3.6/$2.6/$4.6m cap hit for 3 years
- $1.6m cap hit for 3 years after that

50% Retention:
- $3.5m cap hit for 3 years
- 1 Retention slot occupied for 3 years

Obviously, $100k isn't all that material, so the real question is, what is the "value" of $1.6m x 3, in 3 years from now.

Obviously, SJ's pick is 11 right now, but lets say they figure out a way to get another first that comes in around 20.

The theoretical ideal-case scenario with a 1st round pick in that range is that he makes the team in 2 years, plays on his ELC for 3, and delivers value well in excess of his ELC for 2 of those years. However, when you take an ELC, plus the $1.6m "savings" by trading Kane versus buyout, you're now comparing that guy on an ELC to a player making $2.5m. It would be very rare that ELC players outperform $2.5m guys.

Yes, there is the long term upside that the 1st round pick provides.. but there's also a chance that he turns out into nothing.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Ignoring the actual dollars outlayed (just focusing on cap)

Buyout:
- $3.6/$2.6/$4.6m cap hit for 3 years
- $1.6m cap hit for 3 years after that

50% Retention:
- $3.5m cap hit for 3 years
- 1 Retention slot occupied for 3 years

Obviously, $100k isn't all that material, so the real question is, what is the "value" of $1.6m x 3, in 3 years from now.

Obviously, SJ's pick is 11 right now, but lets say they figure out a way to get another first that comes in around 20.

The theoretical ideal-case scenario with a 1st round pick in that range is that he makes the team in 2 years, plays on his ELC for 3, and delivers value well in excess of his ELC for 2 of those years. However, when you take an ELC, plus the $1.6m "savings" by trading Kane versus buyout, you're now comparing that guy on an ELC to a player making $2.5m. It would be very rare that ELC players outperform $2.5m guys.

Yes, there is the long term upside that the 1st round pick provides.. but there's also a chance that he turns out into nothing.

That 1.6 mil for three years in three years isn’t going to be worth any 1st round pick the Sharks have or will get. If they get a 1st outside of their own, it’s because they’re losing someone of importance they won’t be able to replace whether it’s Hertl this year or Meier next year. They need the draft picks more than they need to lose that dead cap.

 

[BillR10]

Ignoring the actual dollars outlayed (just focusing on cap)

Buyout:
- $3.6/$2.6/$4.6m cap hit for 3 years
- $1.6m cap hit for 3 years after that

50% Retention:
- $3.5m cap hit for 3 years
- 1 Retention slot occupied for 3 years

Obviously, $100k isn't all that material, so the real question is, what is the "value" of $1.6m x 3, in 3 years from now.

Obviously, SJ's pick is 11 right now, but lets say they figure out a way to get another first that comes in around 20.

The theoretical ideal-case scenario with a 1st round pick in that range is that he makes the team in 2 years, plays on his ELC for 3, and delivers value well in excess of his ELC for 2 of those years. However, when you take an ELC, plus the $1.6m "savings" by trading Kane versus buyout, you're now comparing that guy on an ELC to a player making $2.5m. It would be very rare that ELC players outperform $2.5m guys.

Yes, there is the long term upside that the 1st round pick provides.. but there's also a chance that he turns out into nothing.

And what happens if Kane doesn't work out on his new team? If they buy him out then the sharks are on the hook 800k instead of 1.6 mil in those extra years. Face the facts. There's no way to sugar coat this to make it worth giving up a valuable pick to move Kane at 50%

 

[one2gamble]

I think they are going to trade Hertl and then just play Kane sometime after the deadline and trade him in the off-season

 

[seanlinden]

That 1.6 mil for three years in three years isn’t going to be worth any 1st round pick the Sharks have or will get. If they get a 1st outside of their own, it’s because they’re losing someone of importance they won’t be able to replace whether it’s Hertl this year or Meier next year. They need the draft picks more than they need to lose that dead cap.

I guess that depends on how far you think the Sharks outlook is. To commit 4-5-6 years away to being less-than-competitive, should be a tough pill to swallow for any GM.

Obviously, there's some major issues with the Sharks core; notably in the fact that their 4 highest paid players range from 31 to 36, and have a minimum of 3 years left on their deals. Do the Sharks see themselves contending over the next 3 years? or is the next 3 years an opportunity to reset and rebuild?

Personally, I don't see the sharks contending in the next couple of years, so view this as the time to set themselves up for 3-5 years down the road.

And what happens if Kane doesn't work out on his new team? If they buy him out then the sharks are on the hook 800k instead of 1.6 mil in those extra years. Face the facts. There's no way to sugar coat this to make it worth giving up a valuable pick to move Kane at 50%

I'll admit, I didn't neccessarily consider that, and perhaps that possibility does reduce the "value" of getting rid of him with retention.

That being said, it would come with the benefit of his cap hit for the next 3 years being only $1.8m versus $3.5m.

 

[cyris]

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.

So Arizona pays over $10m between Kane’s retention and Ritchie for a 2nd round pick?
What part of that do you think makes sense for them?

No team would have any interest in that but a team that is having money issues can’t do that.

 

[3074326]

For me, would need to be contingencies in place.

Kane at 50%
Plus a 1st rounder
Plus a conditional 2nd rounder

If he plays 55+ games each of the next 2 seasons then there is no 2nd rounder

If he plays less (assuming he gets waived or is a locker room issue) then team acquires a 2nd.

the attached 1st is for the risk

Well, if that's the ask from Vancouver, safe to say he won't be going there.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I guess that depends on how far you think the Sharks outlook is. To commit 4-5-6 years away to being less-than-competitive, should be a tough pill to swallow for any GM.

Obviously, there's some major issues with the Sharks core; notably in the fact that their 4 highest paid players range from 31 to 36, and have a minimum of 3 years left on their deals. Do the Sharks see themselves contending over the next 3 years? or is the next 3 years an opportunity to reset and rebuild?

Personally, I don't see the sharks contending in the next couple of years, so view this as the time to set themselves up for 3-5 years down the road.

1.6 mil in dead cap doesn’t prevent them from competing if they actually have the talent for it. They’re not competing because they don’t have top end talent up front mostly.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I still think Kane at 50% + Either Reimer or Hill

For Ritchie + Marazek + a prospect or 2 makes a lot of sense

 

[seanlinden]

1.6 mil in dead cap doesn’t prevent them from competing if they actually have the talent for it. They’re not competing because they don’t have top end talent up front mostly.

$1.6m in cap is probably the difference between what a ~20th OA pick would be in year 2 or 3 of his ELC (assuming he makes the NHL) saves you versus just going out and signing an equivalent player in free agency.

 

[Bevans]

I still think Kane at 50% + Either Reimer or Hill

For Ritchie + Marazek + a prospect or 2 makes a lot of sense

Shocking that your name is LEAFFORLIFE23. Really would have expected it to be SHARKFORLIFE23 based on this proposal...

 

[DFF]

Shocking that your name is LEAFFORLIFE23. Really would have expected it to be SHARKFORLIFE23 based on this proposal...

I don’t know, hard to tell

Ritchie is overpaid trash and the goalies are pretty even

 

[Bevans]

the goalies are pretty even

That's a theory alright.