Speculation: Evander: 6x6 or trade

[26CornerBlitz]

I find it actually pretty hilarious that there are posters who (rightly so) think that certain players should have a second chance without Bylsma, because there were clear reasons that those players didn't fit Bylsma's system, who at the same time think that Kane isn't one of them.

During Kane's time in Winnipeg (2011-2015) his 5v5 GF% was 49,8, meaning he really wasn't losing (or winning) his matchups. And if you actually want to cherry pick wowy-stats (like one poster above), you take a player like Byfuglien (who with he played more than with anyone else) and see that his GF% with him during that time was 51,4 and without 44,9 (his impact on Mark Stuart was pretty much the same).

To take a more precise look comparing Kane's and his team's GF% during each of those seasons:

2011-2012
Kane 55,2
WPG 49,3

2012-2013
Kane 49,3
WPG 47,4

2013-2014
Kane 45,1
WPG 48,7

2014-2015 (traded to Buffalo)
Kane 48,8
WPG 53,8

It's clear that there was a clear change after the 2012-2013 season (and the stats from 14-15 are contaminated a bit because of his trade), but given his age and that there really isn't any known injury etc. to affect him, there is no reason he couldn't become again a positive impact player on a right system.

Housley's up-tempo system should be a lot better fit for him than Bylsma's ultra passive system - both offensively and defensively.

I'm not saying that you should offer him a high money/term contract right now, but he should deserve another look, and if he seems like a fit and the contract would be reasonable (like the 6x6), extending him shouldn't be ruled out.

Interesting 2016-17 5 on 5 numbers for Kane and Eichel:

Eichel with Kane

GF: 3.36
GA: 3.36

Eichel w/o Kane

GF: 1.92
GA: 2.52

 

[Heraldic]

Kane works when you can stick him on a line with offensively limited players and not worry about the defensive side of the puck.

We can't do that.

And again, Housley stressed "5-man attack" which Kane is a horrendous fit for because he can't use his teammates.

You mean we can't do what Penguins have been doing?

And if you have watched the playoffs you should know that "up-tempo 5-man attack" relies pretty much nothing at all on wingers being playmakers - like pretty much nothing. Given Kane's explosiveness, speed, straightforward style and forecheck, he fits a lot better to that kind of system as a winger than a slow, soft guy with playmaking abilities.

 

[Aladyyn]

We're not the Penguins...

And yes, the last thing I want Kane to do is play off the puck on offense.

 

[sabrebuild]

For comparison:

Lehner with Eichel

GF: 2.54
GA: 3.29

Lehner w/o Eichel

GF: 1.83
GA: 2.09

Makes sense, Eichel is still learning defense at a critical position.

 

[Husko]

I find it actually pretty hilarious that there are posters who (rightly so) think that certain players should have a second chance without Bylsma, because there were clear reasons that those players didn't fit Bylsma's system, who at the same time think that Kane isn't one of them.

During Kane's time in Winnipeg (2011-2015) his 5v5 GF% was 49,8, meaning he really wasn't losing (or winning) his matchups. And if you actually want to cherry pick wowy-stats (like one poster above), you take a player like Byfuglien (who with he played more than with anyone else) and see that his GF% with him during that time was 51,4 and without 44,9 (his impact on Mark Stuart was pretty much the same).

To take a more precise look comparing Kane's and his team's GF% during each of those seasons:

2011-2012
Kane 55,2
WPG 49,3

2012-2013
Kane 49,3
WPG 47,4

2013-2014
Kane 45,1
WPG 48,7

2014-2015 (traded to Buffalo)
Kane 48,8
WPG 53,8

It's clear that there was a clear change after the 2012-2013 season (and the stats from 14-15 are contaminated a bit because of his trade), but given his age and that there really isn't any known injury etc. to affect him, there is no reason he couldn't become again a positive impact player on a right system.

Housley's up-tempo system should be a lot better fit for him than Bylsma's ultra passive system - both offensively and defensively.

I'm not saying that you should offer him a high money/term contract right now, but he should deserve another look, and if he seems like a fit and the contract would be reasonable (like the 6x6), extending him shouldn't be ruled out.

I don't think you know what "cherry pick" means if you think that looking at his three most frequent linemates over a 3 year stretch equates to "cherry picking."

 

[Heraldic]

I don't think you know what "cherry pick" means if you think that looking at his three most frequent linemates over a 3 year stretch equates to "cherry picking."

When you for no apparent reason neglect Kane's best GF% season and focus solely on forwards, yes, I think I know what that means. And even more so when you neglect the brutal impact that Jokinen has had on Kane (a lot more than vice versa), you're either just not able to see the bigger picture or you're doing what I said. You can pick which one it is.

 

[Heraldic]

We're not the Penguins...

And yes, the last thing I want Kane to do is play off the puck on offense.

So a straw man was the best you could bring up... Great.

A serious question: Did you watch the playoffs and Penguins and Nashville especially? If you did, how would you describe their wingers role on the rush and offensively generally?

 

[Aladyyn]

So a straw man was the best you could bring up... Great.

A serious question: Did you watch the playoffs and Penguins and Nashville especially? If you did, how would you describe their wingers role on the rush and offensively generally?

I'm pretty sure they didn't rush into the zone by themselves to fire a low% shot so I'm not sure how it's related to Evander Kane?

 

[Aladyyn]

Also, again, we can't afford to give Kane 65% zone deployments as a 3rd line driver like the Jets did in his "best GF% season" because if we can do that, why is it not going to Eichel?

 

[Husko]

When you for no apparent reason neglect Kane's best GF% season and focus solely on forwards, yes, I think I know what that means. And even more so when you neglect the brutal impact that Jokinen has had on Kane (a lot more than vice versa), you're either just not able to see the bigger picture or you're doing what I said. You can pick which one it is.

I picked three seasons and did three forwards, in response to someone saying they can't trust anything in a Bylsma system. I picked forwards because forwards play on lines with forwards. If you want to present a "bigger picture" with more years, go for it. Taking a quick look, though, if you add a 4th year, his impact on Jokinen, Wheeler, and Scheifele is still abysmal. It does bring Burmistrov into his top 3, who it looks like he has a nice, positive impact on. And if you want to look at defensemen, which I don't think you should, I will "cherry pick" his impact on Tobias Enstrom just for ***** and giggles:

W/ Kane
GF: 2.96 - GA: 3.25

W/O Kane
GF: 2.44 - GA: 2.11

 

[Heraldic]

I'm pretty sure they didn't rush into the zone by themselves to fire a low% shot so I'm not sure how it's related to Evander Kane?

Also, again, we can't afford to give Kane 65% zone deployments as a 3rd line driver like the Jets did in his "best GF% season" because if we can do that, why is it not going to Eichel?

"I didn't" would have made the job with lesser words.

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers, but if you're referring to 2011-2012 Kane's numbers were:

OZF 35.1%, DZF 25.5%, DZF 36.9%

So what that tells us? That he wasn't used defensively - as he shouldn't. He wasn't fed up offensive starts particularly.

I have preached it for a pretty long time, but proper 4th line is used like Penguins used Cullen, Hawks used Krüger and Babcock used Glendening - pretty much only d-zone-starts and the rest goes to your defensively best top-9 center. That does the job.

 

[Aladyyn]

So we're giving Larsson heavy defensive minutes on the 4th line aaaaaand then we still don't have a spot where Kane fits.

 

[Icicle]

So we're giving Larsson heavy defensive minutes on the 4th line aaaaaand then we still don't have a spot where Kane fits.

And this is why most people want him gone

 

[Heraldic]

I picked three seasons and did three forwards, in response to someone saying they can't trust anything in a Bylsma system. I picked forwards because forwards play on lines with forwards. If you want to present a "bigger picture" with more years, go for it. Taking a quick look, though, if you add a 4th year, his impact on Jokinen, Wheeler, and Scheifele is still abysmal. It does bring Burmistrov into his top 3, who it looks like he has a nice, positive impact on. And if you want to look at defensemen, which I don't think you should, I will "cherry pick" his impact on Tobias Enstrom just for ***** and giggles:

W/ Kane
GF: 2.96 - GA: 3.25

W/O Kane
GF: 2.44 - GA: 2.11

That was exactly what I asked for.

Kane hasn't been so negative impact player his whole career as it has been portrayed here by several posters. It's clear his impact on several players is not positive, but on the other hand there are players who he has had a clear positive impact.

He got clear flaws, but clear strenghts as well. It's about using him properly. Something that Bylsma really wasn't known for...

The point is that with our "speed and up-tempo" system he deserves another look. Doesn't mean handing him an extension right now, but neither it means trading him away for futures/lesser pieces.

 

[Heraldic]

So we're giving Larsson heavy defensive minutes on the 4th line aaaaaand then we still don't have a spot where Kane fits.

We're not giving him "heavy defensive minutes". We're just giving him and his line defensive starts and then coming back to get our top-9 lines out there, when the more dangerous situation has been cleared. That 4th line's minutes overall should be as low as possible - meaning we don't start that much on d-zone.

Our best defensive center (who is not or is not going to be Larsson) will primarily get the d-zone sarts followed by Larsson when that is not possible. For Larsson's line pretty much zero o-zone-starts. With that kind of deployment you will get the results where "Kane's" line can be effective.

 

[Aladyyn]

That was exactly what I asked for.

Kane hasn't been so negative impact player his whole career as it has been portrayed here by several posters. It's clear his impact on several players is not positive, but on the other hand there are players who he has had a clear positive impact.

He got clear flaws, but clear strenghts as well. It's about using him properly. Something that Bylsma really wasn't known for...

The point is that with our "speed and up-tempo" system he deserves another look. Doesn't mean handing him an extension right now, but neither it means trading him away for futures/lesser pieces.

Defensively he has.

 

[Heraldic]

Defensively he has.

Sure. Just like Evgeny Malkin or Phil Kessel.

Were I talking exclusively about Kane's defensive game? If not, did you even try to understand my point or are you just trying to throw **** on the wall?

 

[sabrebuild]

Sure. Just like Evgeny Malkin or Phil Kessel.

Were I talking exclusively about Kane's defensive game? If not, did you even try to understand my point or are you just trying to throw **** on the wall?

Honest question, do Malkin and kessel produce net negatives on their gf/ga splits?

 

[Chainshot]

That's fair based upon previous off ice incidents that have gotten him into trouble. Hopefully he's matured and learned enough to avoid trouble. So far so good in the last year.

What I wonder at is what sort of player he could be with an increased amount of off-ice or practice dedication? What if he spends extra time on video and opponent tendencies? I wonder how good could he could become by trying to improve the areas of his game where he is weak. The physical gifts are impressive, some further self-development would be most welcome and likely get him a lucrative payday.

 

[SamsonReinFart]

Honest question, do Malkin and kessel produce net negatives on their gf/ga splits?

Not sure if this is exactly what you're asking, but no not even close.

Last 2 years (Since Kessel left Leafs)

Malkin
GF 3.00
GA 2.18
GF% 57.9 or +0.82

Kessel
GF 2.84
GA 2.07
GF% 57.9% or +0.77

 

[Heraldic]

Honest question, do Malkin and kessel produce net negatives on their gf/ga splits?

Exactly.

Neither are good defensively, yet have been producing net positives. Just like Kane did couple of seasons ago. Kessel got pretty badly detsroyed match-ups wise in Toronto, but with different line-up usage he has been able to bring clear net positives.

It's about the whole line-up usage. Neither Malkin or Kessel are taking pretty much at all d-zone-starts, yet a lot more o-zone-starts. Whereas Cullen took almost half of his starts on d-zone, and rest on n-zone and d-zone.

 

[wunderpanda]

This ended up closer than expected.

 

[Sabretip]

Not sure whether or not the CBA or NHLPA allow such but I'm more than OK extending Kane at 6x6 if a rider or escape clause is built into the contract for any misconduct incidents that may happen thereafter. If that isn't allowed by league rules, I believe some teams have insurance policies tied to contracts for injury-prone players. I'd think the Sabres would want some contract protection if Kane were extended only to have another misstep with the law or team protocols.

Kane has to know his reputation is shaky and teams are leary, be it the Sabres or any other suitors he may have if he goes to free agency or is traded. He accepted responsibility in some interviews after the Toronto NBA incident and likely had some hard talks with Murray and the Pegulas last summer when the bar incident happened. If he expects a long-term contract and/or raise, one would think that he would consider it fair to hold himself accountable to avoiding incidents in the future.

 

[Sabretooth]

If any player screwed up badly enough, there are already provisions to have contracts terminated (see Richards in LA most recently). No riders, escape clauses , or insurance policies needed. Material breach, etc.