Player Discussion Evander Kane - What's the verdict?

[bone]

Trading with San Jose and them honoring the 7M x 3 years and retaining 50% is a very good option. 3 years is perfect for the Oilers and Kane as both sides don't want to commit long term.

Kane 3.5M(50% of 7M)

for

Barrie 4.5M

I like that trade idea even with less retention, but don't see how San Jose needs right shot PP specialist with Burns and Karlsson still in their lineup.

 

[Canovin]

I like that trade idea even with less retention, but don't see how San Jose needs right shot PP specialist with Burns and Karlsson still in their lineup.

There was rumours of San Jose looking to move Karlsson and Burns

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

I get the bleak view of the team/management, but don't be silly, even if the contract is reinstated he's not going back to the Sharks, and the deal won't be hard to make, imo.

I mean the deal for the 5.5 million dollar 38 year old, negative 1st round pick value cap dump who only wanted to go to one team, who also happened to have the younger brother of the player they were trying to court, shouldn't be hard to make either. But nope, couldn't even get retention on it.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I mean the deal for the 5.5 million dollar 38 year old, negative 1st round pick value cap dump who only wanted to go to one team, who also happened to have the younger brother of the player they were trying to court, shouldn't be hard to make either. But nope, couldn't even get retention on it.

Yup, that was utterly incompetent, there's no argument here.

 

[bone]

There was rumours of San Jose looking to move Karlsson and Burns

Well good luck with that without massive retention. So then when you combine the retention on either of them with the contract amount for Barrie, you're probably at the same dollar amount but with possibly a lesser player.

 

[harpoon]

Is that how it works?

Nobody knows. But it sure doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the league tie the arbitration ruling to any new deal Kane signs? They are two separate matters. San Jose attempted to void a contract on the most tenuous grounds. The player was forced to move on so as to earn a living and not waste the prime years of his career. It would make sense to me that the arbitrator determines a $ amount that San Jose owes Kane (personally I think they should be made to pay the entire amount outstanding on the contract). What the Sharks did is ‘worse’ than buying a player out so I don’t even think they should get any cap relief. Any contract Kane signs from the moment San Jose terminated him has nothing to do with the deal the Sharks terminated.

 

[bone]

Nobody knows. But it sure doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the league tie the arbitration ruling to any new deal Kane signs? They are two separate matters. San Jose attempted to void a contract on the most tenuous grounds. The player was forced to move on so as to earn a living and not waste the prime years of his career. It would make sense to me that the arbitrator determines a $ amount that San Jose owes Kane (personally I think they should be made to pay the entire amount outstanding on the contract). What the Sharks did is ‘worse’ than buying a player out so I don’t even think they should get any cap relief. Any contract Kane signs from the moment San Jose terminated him has nothing to do with the deal the Sharks terminated.

I'm moreso in the headspace that they basically tried to circumvent the buyout process so the penalty should basically be the same as a buyout, because they always could have just exercised that option at the end of the season.

 

[Fourier]

Nobody knows. But it sure doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the league tie the arbitration ruling to any new deal Kane signs? They are two separate matters. San Jose attempted to void a contract on the most tenuous grounds. The player was forced to move on so as to earn a living and not waste the prime years of his career. It would make sense to me that the arbitrator determines a $ amount that San Jose owes Kane (personally I think they should be made to pay the entire amount outstanding on the contract). What the Sharks did is ‘worse’ than buying a player out so I don’t even think they should get any cap relief. Any contract Kane signs from the moment San Jose terminated him has nothing to do with the deal the Sharks terminated.

It sounds like the arbitrator will have two choices. Agree that voiding the deal was appropriate, or effectively reinstate the contract. Anything else must be agreed upon separately by the team and Kane. This is why a negotiated settlement would seem to make the most sense.

NHL says Evander Kane’s next contract could be voided by arbitrator

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks terminated him without cause, Kane – and his contract – will be reinstated with...

www.dailyfaceoff.com

 

[bone]

It sounds like the arbitrator will have two choices. Agree that voiding the deal was appropriate, or effectively reinstate the contract. Anything else must be agreed upon separately by the team and Kane. This is why a negotiated settlement would seem to make the most sense.

NHL says Evander Kane’s next contract could be voided by arbitrator

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks terminated him without cause, Kane – and his contract – will be reinstated with...

www.dailyfaceoff.com

I just love articles stating what the outcome will be when the arbitrator isn't even available yet. Glorified bloggers commenting as it if they are full on legal experts that know all the ins and outs of contract law.

 

[MessierII]

It sounds like the arbitrator will have two choices. Agree that voiding the deal was appropriate, or effectively reinstate the contract. Anything else must be agreed upon separately by the team and Kane. This is why a negotiated settlement would seem to make the most sense.

NHL says Evander Kane’s next contract could be voided by arbitrator

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks terminated him without cause, Kane – and his contract – will be reinstated with...

www.dailyfaceoff.com

What a gong show. NHLoL

 

[McDoused]

It sounds like the arbitrator will have two choices. Agree that voiding the deal was appropriate, or effectively reinstate the contract. Anything else must be agreed upon separately by the team and Kane. This is why a negotiated settlement would seem to make the most sense.

NHL says Evander Kane’s next contract could be voided by arbitrator

If the arbitrator rules that the Sharks terminated him without cause, Kane – and his contract – will be reinstated with...

www.dailyfaceoff.com

I agree.

I think the most likely outcome is that Kane receives 6-9 mill (2-3 mill per year) in settlement. San Jose doesnt have to retain anything against the cap and Kane can sign a 5-6M contract with another team to offset the money he would if he won and his contract was reinstated.

 

[DutchBoy41]

Trading with San Jose and them honoring the 7M x 3 years and retaining 50% is a very good option. 3 years is perfect for the Oilers and Kane as both sides don't want to commit long term.

Kane 3.5M(50% of 7M)

for

Barrie 4.5M

I wouldn't send Barrie. Offer Kassian and take on a bit more than 50% of Kane's salary.

Barrie has value. If you're moving him with the assumption that Bouchard is taking over the PP you're dealing from a position of strength. You should be able to get decent picks or prospects from a team like Seattle.

You're going to take a hit on moving Kassian regardless but he probably has more value to SJ than most places given that they already have Burns and Karlsson.

 

[bone]

I wouldn't send Barrie. Offer Kassian and take on a bit more than 50% of Kane's salary.

Barrie has value. If you're moving him with the assumption that Bouchard is taking over the PP you're dealing from a position of strength. You should be able to get decent picks or prospects from a team like Seattle.

You're going to take a hit on moving Kassian regardless but he probably has more value to SJ than most places given that they already have Burns and Karlsson.

The thing is, right now the market is rumored to be at least $5, possibly $7M for Kane with teams likely more willing to pay the higher number on a shorter term. So why would SJ agree to retain if the contract is forced into reinstatement? They'd actually have an asset that has now gained significant value since the day they voided his contract.

It's another reason I can't see the scenario people are putting out there where in the event San Jose had no grounds for termination, that they'd force reinstatement of the contract with San Jose retaining his rights.

This result actually favors San Jose as they could possibly move his full hit (or close to it) and get assets on top of it, plus they get to determine his location instead of him. Seems to me that result favors San Jose despite them being found to be the party who did wrong.

Granted they'd be limited to only 3 teams so he could get creative in leveraging this (say by picking Winnipeg and Buffalo and his favored team knowing that Winnipeg and Buffalo would never trade for him), but if he and his favored team gets too manipulative, they could also just waive him again and maybe someone who he has no interest in playing for whatsoever could take him.

 

[DutchBoy41]

The thing is, right now the market is rumored to be at least $5, possibly $7M for Kane with teams likely more willing to pay the higher number on a shorter term. So why would SJ agree to retain if the contract is forced into reinstatement? They'd actually have an asset that has now gained significant value since the day they voided his contract.

It's another reason I can't see the scenario people are putting out there where in the event San Jose had no grounds for termination, that they'd force reinstatement of the contract with San Jose retaining his rights.

This result actually favors San Jose as they could possibly move his full hit (or close to it) and get assets on top of it, plus they get to determine his location instead of him. Seems to me that result favors San Jose despite them being found to be the party who did wrong.

Granted they'd be limited to only 3 teams so he could get creative in leveraging this (say by picking Winnipeg and Buffalo and his favored team knowing that Winnipeg and Buffalo would never trade for him), but if he and his favored team gets too manipulative, they could also just waive him again and maybe someone who he has no interest in playing for whatsoever could take him.

I was going to argue right up until the bit about the Sharks putting him on waivers.

Solid point.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

If the Sharks retain his rights, send them our 1st this year for Kane at 50% retained.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

I don’t think the market for Kane is going to be as strong as people seem to think. I love the player but you would have to be nuts to give him a high paying 5 year contract.

Tons of off ice issues don’t just go away after half a great season (playing with the best player on the planet.)

 

[bone]

I don’t think the market for Kane is going to be as strong as people seem to think. I love the player but you would have to be nuts to give him a high paying 5 year contract.

Tons of off ice issues don’t just go away after half a great season (playing with the best player on the planet.)

You'd think, but hockey GMs always blow our minds every year with bone headed contracts. Seeing a player who's very much in the 25-30 goal a season range over a full season and throw in the typical hard-on they have for physical players, all it takes is one GM to overrate that and underrate history and you find a 5 or 6 year contract at $7M again.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

I agree.

I think the most likely outcome is that Kane receives 6-9 mill (2-3 mill per year) in settlement. San Jose doesnt have to retain anything against the cap and Kane can sign a 5-6M contract with another team to offset the money he would if he won and his contract was reinstated.

San Jose will be getting a cap hit if Kane wins.

Zero chance they don’t have any dead cap from this if they are at fault

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

If the Sharks retain his rights, send them our 1st this year for Kane at 50% retained.

No we need to use the 1st in a package for D. We can't go into the season with only top pair LHD and 2nd pair RHD filled. Even if you think one of Bouchard or Broberg can step up and take a spot we sure as hell can't be trotting out the likes of Keith/Kulak/Barrie vs your Matthews/MacKinnon/Kucherov caliber players.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

No we need to use the 1st in a package for D. We can't go into the season with only top pair LHD and 2nd pair RHD filled. Even if you think one of Bouchard or Broberg can step up and take a spot we sure as hell can't be trotting out the likes of Keith/Kulak/Barrie vs your Matthews/MacKinnon/Kucherov caliber players.

That 1st would be well worth the value of Kane at $3.5 million. Use Barrie and other picks/prospects to add on D. Bouchard whether we like it or not will be top 4 for us next season. Kulak IMO is fine as a #4D. We don't have the cap to get a top pairing RD nor the tradeable assets for such a player.

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

That 1st would be well worth the value of Kane at $3.5 million. Use Barrie and other picks/prospects to add on D. Bouchard whether we like it or not will be top 4 for us next season. Kulak IMO is fine as a #4D. We don't have the cap to get a top pairing RD nor the tradeable assets for such a player.

I like Kulak but he has never been a full time 2nd pair D in his entire career and has never been matched up against elite QoC besides in short bursts as an injury fill in. He's the guy who excels vs bottom 6 forwards, and can hold his own against middle 6s, but he's just not that guy you use to face the freakiest players in the league. High leverage players are high leverage players for a reason and low leverage players like Kulak should not be used in that role nor will his pay scale demand that of him. Like I'm sorry, there's a reason why Woodcroft kept deploying a one-legged Nurse vs Colorado's monster top 6 instead of him, and the second we bumped Kulak up to face MacKinnon in game 2 he immediately got burned and took an elbowing penalty. We already have a 3/4D in Ceci playing above where he should on the top pairing and a guy who needs to be sheltered in Bouchard on the 2nd pairing. Playing another guy above his pay grade is just asking for trouble.

Look at Larsson on Seattle. With us he got the easiest minutes while Barrie/Bear took all the high QoC top 6 minutes while Larsson got all the sheltered bottom 6 opponents. Larsson "looked fine" for us last year b/c he was facing players who didn't have the speed to burn him and he actually played well defensively against these players, but that doesn't make him a great player overall. This year Larsson is being used on the top pairing and posted some of the worst analytics in the entire NHL and is among league leaders in goals against on ice despite not even playing that much.

Barrie isn't gonna land you your Chychruns and Sanheims, even Fletcher isn't that dumb. That deal WILL require our 1st. If we don't add another legitimate difficult matchup top 4 D this offseason then we might as well go next and look at 2023-24 instead.

 

[Connor McConnor]

I don't like signing Kane to a long term deal at $7M. It's the sort of deal that is extremely shortsighted. He's already 30 and plays a very physical style of play. I can see him having a few more prime years left but the back half will be horrible.

Might need to cut bait if we can't get him to a more reasonable contract, say between $5.5-6M. If you're asking me if I'd rather have Kane over Foegele, Yams and Pulju for more money than all 3, the answer is no.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

I like Kulak but he has never been a full time 2nd pair D in his entire career and has never been matched up against elite QoC besides in short bursts as an injury fill in. He's the guy who excels vs bottom 6 forwards, and can hold his own against middle 6s, but he's just not that guy you use to face the freakiest players in the league. High leverage players are high leverage players for a reason and low leverage players like Kulak should not be used in that role nor will his pay scale demand that of him. Like I'm sorry, there's a reason why Woodcroft kept deploying a one-legged Nurse vs Colorado's monster top 6 instead of him, and the second we bumped Kulak up to face MacKinnon in game 2 he immediately got burned and took an elbowing penalty. We already have a 3/4D in Ceci playing above where he should on the top pairing and a guy who needs to be sheltered in Bouchard on the 2nd pairing. Playing another guy above his pay grade is just asking for trouble.

Look at Larsson on Seattle. With us he got the easiest minutes while Barrie/Bear took all the high QoC top 6 minutes while Larsson got all the sheltered bottom 6 opponents. Larsson "looked fine" for us last year b/c he was facing players who didn't have the speed to burn him and he actually played well defensively against these players, but that doesn't make him a great player overall. This year Larsson is being used on the top pairing and posted some of the worst analytics in the entire NHL and is among league leaders in goals against on ice despite not even playing that much.

Barrie isn't gonna land you your Chychruns and Sanheims, even Fletcher isn't that dumb. That deal WILL require our 1st. If we don't add another legitimate difficult matchup top 4 D this offseason then we might as well go next and look at 2023-24 instead.

For the amount that we are paying Nurse, he should be doing nothing but playing the other team's elites unless they have last change anyway. Our 1st is damn near a 2nd rounder, if you want a top pairing guy or even a solid 2nd pairing guy like Sanheim or Chychrun, why would they take 29th overall when they could get a top 10-15 pick +? Unless you are looking at Broberg, Holloway or Bourgault + that pick at minimum Arizona hangs up. I don't see our 1st as having a ton of value but maybe that's just me?

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

For the amount that we are paying Nurse, he should be doing nothing but playing the other team's elites unless they have last change anyway. Our 1st is damn near a 2nd rounder, if you want a top pairing guy or even a solid 2nd pairing guy like Sanheim or Chychrun, why would they take 29th overall when they could get a top 10-15 pick +? Unless you are looking at Broberg, Holloway or Bourgault + that pick at minimum Arizona hangs up. I don't see our 1st as having a ton of value but maybe that's just me?

Late firsts actually have underrated value and have often been used as part of a package for impact players on draft day (Jacob Trouba, Brayden Schenn, Frederick Andersen etc) plus the various late 1sts that are used for big rentals at the deadline. Also if you can use them for a 20 game rental you can use them+a B tier prospect for a 1 year rental. If the Chychrun price is too rich for you (which it probs is for me too) then go after Sanheim instead, Chuck Fletcher is big dum dum and would probably accept something like Niemelainen+1st+3rd or something b/c muh hits.

Also you can't just have one high leverage guy b/c of issues like injuries and when playing against deep teams that run basically 2 1st lines and 3 2nd lines like Tampa/St Louis/Florida. That's why most strong defensive cores have 3 of these guys who can play vs top lines (Colorado with Makar+Toews+Byram, Tampa with Hedman+McDonagh+Cernak, Minnesota with Brodin+Spurgeon+Dumba used to have Suter too).

This playoffs should really hammer in how much Darnell Nurse was carrying this dogwater defense corps. 25 minutes per night in regular season while sheltering defensive sieves like Keith/Barrie/Bouchard (I'm sorry Bouch I love you but you need to improve) is tough enough as is and to his credit he did a great job defensively this year. But the guy had a torn hip flexor and still had to lead all our defensemen in ice time, with zero power play deployment, and facing the opposing team's freaks like MacKinnon/Rantanen/Landeskog/Kadri every shift while the likes of Keith/Bouchard were busy shitting the bed vs... f***ing JT Compher and Andrew Cogliano? That should've been a Chychrun or Sanheim stepping into the top pairing in his stead but instead all we had was a solid low leverage guy in Kulak and the absolute dumpster fire that was Keith. Our defense got carved up in multiple games vs LA too b/c the guy who was 1v11 on defense every night all year long was playing at 20%. Ceci is a solid 2nd pairing guy and Nurse is capable of carrying him into looking serviceable on the top pairing, but is can you play these two for 40 minutes against Florida/St Louis? I believe Bouchard and Broberg have the ability to develop into top 4 dmen who can play vs elites but I'm not willing to bet on both growing into that role next year.

Get Nurse some help FFS

 

[harpoon]

I don’t think the market for Kane is going to be as strong as people seem to think. I love the player but you would have to be nuts to give him a high paying 5 year contract.

If you doubt that he can continue to perform at a high level for three or four years (which I don’t), I can understand this line of thinking. If your hesitation is because you think he’s going to fall back into bad behavior, I’d be willing to roll the dice on that. Whatever Kane may be, I’ve seen enough to understand that he isn’t a stupid man. He knows full well that this is his last shot at a comfortable retirement. He’d have to be a fool to not realize that all he has to do is play hard and keep his nose clean for five years. Five years? Who can’t do that, considering the payoff?

Once hockey players retire they are still relatively young. So after playing out the next five years he can do whatever he wants. Go hog wild if that’s what he feels like doing … and he would then have the money to do it. f*** up in the slightest way over the next five seasons and that’s it for him.

I’d go 5x5 no problem.