Evander Kane

[Hockey Talker29]

Having a young player with a bad attitude is frowned-upon...

except when the player isn't named Nazem Kadri.

Kadri has been torched for allegedly having a bad attitude (despite very little supporting evidence, if any), meanwhile Kane all but says that he doesn't see a future with the Jets and we're ready to welcome him with open arms.

With that being said, I think Kane is a very talented player. I'd even like the Leafs to acquire him, but he doesn't really fit. We have way too much money tied up in wingers already.

Unless Lupul or Clarkson go the other way (one unlikely, the other impossible), it doesn't make sense for this team to invest more money on the wing when it needs help on defense and up the middle.

 

[Tak7]

I'd rather keep Lupul than go after Kane.

I feel as though Evander Kane is one of the more over-rated players on these boards

 

[mikebel111*]

Having a young player with a bad attitude is frowned-upon...

except when the player isn't named Nazem Kadri.

Kadri has been torched for allegedly having a bad attitude (despite very little supporting evidence, if any), meanwhile Kane all but says that he doesn't see a future with the Jets and we're ready to welcome him with open arms.

With that being said, I think Kane is a very talented player. I'd even like the Leafs to acquire him, but he doesn't really fit. We have way too much money tied up in wingers already.

Unless Lupul or Clarkson go the other way (one unlikely, the other impossible), it doesn't make sense for this team to invest more money on the wing when it needs help on defense and up the middle.

You know why.
One player's name is Nazem Kadri. Sorry but no question his name is one of the reasons for this stupid hatred of Kadri.
There are no issues for Kadri. Garbage attitude issues

 

[Gamble9]

I want Kane but I wouldn't pay market value for him because he obviously wants out and is thoroughly embarrassing the city of Winnipeg and will have to be moved if the organization has any pride

 

[masarume]

What makes him a better cente then a winger? Well for one his game has taken off since being put in a center role, which is his natural position. Perhaps he could take on a winger position better at this stage of his development but he's been doing just fine down the middle and nothing suggests he would do better as a winger. His game has gotten better... and this is what you want from your young players. He's gotten better in his own end and he's better on faceoffs. Improvement has been there for him... why yank him away so suddenly? Because he's struggled with consistency?

Kadri has shown all ready to be a capable center for the Leafs. If he wasn't capable of being one, he wouldn't have put up 94 points in his last 126 NHL games as a 22 and 23 year old center.

Sure he regressed a bit from the shortened season to the full one... but expecting him to flat line in production or even regress further to me is really being close minded. A lot of young players will go up and down in their development, it's not all upwards trajectories or positives every step of the way.

You can't have a more up and down player then Evander Kane anyway. A healthy scratch a few times for Winnipeg in the time they needed him the most... and we're ready to throw some of our best young assets for him? Jesus...

I just find it completely baffling and mind blowing some want to trade good young talent for Evander Kane... I'm almost speechless to be perfectly honest.

You seem very upset at the notion of trading Kadri. This is all discussion, nothing personal here bud.

With that said, a couple of counter points.

The reason for trading Nazem is not solely because of inconsistency. The attributes you credit Nazem, progressing, developing, young, are the same that can be said of Kane. The same reasons you believe in Kadri, you can make the argument for Kane. To believe he's flat-lined and will continue to regress is equally close-minded. Yes Kane is a bit of a headcase, but to be fair, do you even know why he was scratched? Players with no attitude will be crushed by the Toronto media. The only reason why Kadri hasn't folded is because of his attitude.

I also don't see Kadri as doing fine down the middle. Yes, he can score at a more consistent pace. Yes he was burdened with Clarkson at times last year. But he still had Lupul and at times Raymond. Kane was saddled with Jokinen - not exaclty a thriving partner for point production. I don't find Nadri to be significantly better offensively in terms of generating offense versus Kane.
His faceoffs improved by one percentage point. On 1000 draws, that's 10 more wins. Now if he was winning at 50% rate, that's would be decent. He was at 44% the year before and 45% this year. That's not doing fine, he's getting beat at a consistent rate in the faceoff circle.
I'm not going to get into his -11 but it's hard to argue he was a defensive asset last year.

My argument isn't for Kadri to switch back to a winger. It's simply that he hasn't thrived at Centre like we expected. So when you think of the deal as dealing away a quality 2C for a 2Winger, I don't think that's fair. He hasn't established himself as a 2C. There's more to just scoring for Kadri in order for him to realize his full potential. I feel like Kadri for sure has the tools to become a solid player but to write-off Kane just because of what Kadri's done with us to date would be a slight to Kane's game.

I'm also not for trading young assets. If it takes significantly more than Lupul and Kadri, I would turn this deal down too. But you have to realize that you're not only trading away a young asset, you're also getting one back.

 

[mikebel111*]

So we need to keep a guy like Kadri who has way too much in common with a player who was bought out of his contract after one year because of his poor attitude? Sure, sounds like a winning proposition buddy. I know Kane's attitude isn't anything to throw a parade over, but wanting to keep a Ribeiro clone over trading for him is a bit much.

Yup the Knights really torched up the Spitfires. Didn't they?
What a player Frattin is eh?
Give the attitude problem a rest. No issue

 

[SprDaVE]

You seem very upset at the notion of trading Kadri. This is all discussion, nothing personal here bud.

With that said, a couple of counter points.

The reason for trading Nazem is not solely because of inconsistency. The attributes you credit Nazem, progressing, developing, young, are the same that can be said of Kane. The same reasons you believe in Kadri, you can make the argument for Kane. To believe he's flat-lined and will continue to regress is equally close-minded. Yes Kane is a bit of a headcase, but to be fair, do you even know why he was scratched? Players with no attitude will be crushed by the Toronto media. The only reason why Kadri hasn't folded is because of his attitude.

I also don't see Kadri as doing fine down the middle. Yes, he can score at a more consistent pace. Yes he was burdened with Clarkson at times last year. But he still had Lupul and at times Raymond. Kane was saddled with Jokinen - not exaclty a thriving partner for point production. I don't find Nadri to be significantly better offensively in terms of generating offense versus Kane.
His faceoffs improved by one percentage point. On 1000 draws, that's 10 more wins. Now if he was winning at 50% rate, that's would be decent. He was at 44% the year before and 45% this year. That's not doing fine, he's getting beat at a consistent rate in the faceoff circle.
I'm not going to get into his -11 but it's hard to argue he was a defensive asset last year.

My argument isn't for Kadri to switch back to a winger. It's simply that he hasn't thrived at Centre like we expected. So when you think of the deal as dealing away a quality 2C for a 2Winger, I don't think that's fair. He hasn't established himself as a 2C. There's more to just scoring for Kadri in order for him to realize his full potential. I feel like Kadri for sure has the tools to become a solid player but to write-off Kane just because of what Kadri's done with us to date would be a slight to Kane's game.

I'm also not for trading young assets. If it takes significantly more than Lupul and Kadri, I would turn this deal down too. But you have to realize that you're not only trading away a young asset, you're also getting one back.

I've always said that I'm very open to trading Nazem Kadri if the return makes sense for this team. You complete miss the point here. Evander Kane makes no sense for this team. He adds nothing and it leaves us even more exposed down the middle and/or on defence.

We can debate what Kadri did and didn't do well but at the end of the day, he's a good young asset that has played fairly well in a 2nd line center role. He's not a complete player but he's also got limited NHL experience and has a lot of room to grow. The same may be said about Evander Kane but he's got twice as many NHL games with little to no progress made in his game other then being a healthy scratch for a bad Winnipeg team.

Evander Kane is a fine player that has potential to get back to where he was when he broke out. I never denied this. I would easily want him on my team, but the price would be nowhere near what Winnipeg would want, with good reason. I don't think giving up 1 or 2 good young assets for player that has question marks all over him AND he doesn't fill a position of need is completely idiotic and ignorant.

 

[mikebel111*]

I agree Kadri isn't the piece to be trading for Evander Kane

Kadri>Kane

 

[mikebel111*]

Kadri last 41 games had a face off % of near 48%.

 

[Gallagbi]

So we need to keep a guy like Kadri who has way too much in common with a player who was bought out of his contract after one year because of his poor attitude? Sure, sounds like a winning proposition buddy. I know Kane's attitude isn't anything to throw a parade over, but wanting to keep a Ribeiro clone over trading for him is a bit much.

You understand that it is Ribeiro's personal issues that have gotten him moved right? The Kadri - Ribeiro comparison is for style of play, not off-ice issues.

 

[HellasLEAF]

Kane may have some issues at present, but he could also flourish in a place he wants to be (Toronto )

Anyway, I think we should at least explore this option. No I"m not sure I would trade Kadri for him but he plays with an edge, is very skilled, can be an elite goal scorer and will drop the gloves. I think we would fall in love with this player very quickly if he was wearing the blue and white.

 

[TheCLAM]

I'd stay away from Kane unless the price is going to come on the cheap sid. He's a good young player that makes a large salary and has yet to reach his potential. Kane doesn't improve our two-way game, nor does he influence our team in a positive manner.

If you look at the Leafs acquisitions this off-season all are heralded as players with good locker-room presence and leadership. Kane is more of an enigma that while talented makes poor decisions off the ice. In the a hockey crazy market, we would tear him apart. There's a fine line between Kadri's attitude and E. Kane's off ice issues (legal). For that reason alone I would prefer to keep Kadri over consdering to bring in the Kane drama show.

 

[PugFugly]

Do you consider Kane to be as good as Spezza?
I see Kane being moved along the same lines as Spezza ( requesting a trade publicly )
I don't consider Kane as good as Spezza so the return would be less

Spezza returned

a top 6 player
2 prospects
2nd round pick


PS. little bit of a differents between JVR and Kane, 1 played bottom 6 for 3 years and 1 played top 6 for 5 years

Spezza is 8 years older, had a modified NTC and only has one year left on his deal so may leave for nothing at the end of the season.

Tyler Seguin would be a much closer comparison IMO.

 

[calcal798]

Kane may have some issues at present, but he could also flourish in a place he wants to be (Toronto )

Anyway, I think we should at least explore this option. No I"m not sure I would trade Kadri for him but he plays with an edge, is very skilled, can be an elite goal scorer and will drop the gloves. I think we would fall in love with this player very quickly if he was wearing the blue and white.

I think Kane and Kadri could build some nice chemistry to complement one another, also between him, Kessel, and JvR we would have some of the best wingers in the league on our team. That's assuming that Lupul is in any package for him.

 

[masarume]

I've always said that I'm very open to trading Nazem Kadri if the return makes sense for this team. You complete miss the point here. Evander Kane makes no sense for this team. He adds nothing and it leaves us even more exposed down the middle and/or on defence.

We can debate what Kadri did and didn't do well but at the end of the day, he's a good young asset that has played fairly well in a 2nd line center role. He's not a complete player but he's also got limited NHL experience and has a lot of room to grow. The same may be said about Evander Kane but he's got twice as many NHL games with little to no progress made in his game other then being a healthy scratch for a bad Winnipeg team.

Evander Kane is a fine player that has potential to get back to where he was when he broke out. I never denied this. I would easily want him on my team, but the price would be nowhere near what Winnipeg would want, with good reason. I don't think giving up 1 or 2 good young assets for player that has question marks all over him AND he doesn't fill a position of need is completely idiotic and ignorant.

I think you're being a bit unfair when you said Kane would add nothing to this team. I'd say you're also selling Kane short if you believe he's done little to no progressing in his 4 NHL seasons. He's a powerforward - there's not a lot of them at hit their prime at age 22. Yes he's played more than Kadri but only because he was brought up younger. If that's your honest perception of Kane, we can just agree to disagree.

I haven't missed the point. You believe we are weak at C and Kadri fills a need. Kane is a 2nd line winger. So the swap of C for W is dumb in your opinion. I get that. My entire argument is that Kadri isn't that strong of a center for us. He's a good forward with the potential to be great. If you're dealing with baselines, you can't view him as a potential 1C without viewing Kane as a potential 1W.

I agree that Kadri has less questions marks than Kane to be a good player. But the amount of progress Kane has to make to be an elite winger is a lot less than what Kadri has to do to become an elite C.

I find it idiotic and ignorant to only look to improve on our team's perceived weaknesses when we are still far away from contending. We have finished 8/9 years out of the playoffs. We finished 8th last in the league last year. The point of building a team where we are at, is not to simply try to plug the leaking holes. I don't see us being close to contending, so what does it matter if we go one year without a proper 2C? Is that something Nylander can't fill? The question we should be asking is, "what moves can we make to give us better assets in the future?"

At this point, we have to take advantage of market inefficiencies and collect assets to grow them to use or trade at a later date. If Kane fills out, he can be another 1st line winger. This would give us a lot more options in acquiring a 1C with JVR as tradebait. If the deal was in place for us to get a 1C with Kadri, it would be done already.

Where we disagree is the likelihood of Kadri vs Kane developing to their respective potentials. I don't find your argument to be (edit: un)reasonable, we just disagree on our views on the two players under discussion.

 

[Doc300c]

Spezza is 8 years older, had a modified NTC and only has one year left on his deal so may leave for nothing at the end of the season.

Tyler Seguin would be a much closer comparison IMO.

Really?
You're joking right?

SEASON - -- TEAM - GP - G - A - P - +/- - PIM - PPG - SHG - GWG - S - S%

Tyler had 84 points this season
2013-2014 - Dallas - 80 - 37 - 47 - 84 - 16 - 18 - 11 - 0 - 8 - 294 - 12.6
Kane had 41 points this season
2013-2014 - Winni - 63 - 19 - 22 - 41 - -7 - 66 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 250 - 7.6

The most points Kane has ever had in a single season in the NHL is 57

 

[TheCLAM]

Kadri falls into more of the Bryan Little category imo

Seguin is a bonafide #1 center with a good chance to be a franchise player.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I agree Kadri isn't the piece to be trading for Evander Kane

Kadri>Kane

You may have get wish, I cannot see GM Cheveldayoff trading Kane for only Kadri under any circumstance. Leafs would have to seriously add a sweetener and even then it may not be enough.

 

[MuchoMacho]

Really?
You're joking right?

SEASON - -- TEAM - GP - G - A - P - +/- - PIM - PPG - SHG - GWG - S - S%

Tyler had 84 points this season
2013-2014 - Dallas - 80 - 37 - 47 - 84 - 16 - 18 - 11 - 0 - 8 - 294 - 12.6
Kane had 41 points this season
2013-2014 - Winni - 63 - 19 - 22 - 41 - -7 - 66 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 250 - 7.6

The most points Kane has ever had in a single season in the NHL is 57

Seguin had 84 points after he was traded, the year before he was traded he had 32 points in 48 games. A .66 PPG AVG. Kane's 41 points in 63 games is a .65 PPG AVG. You can't base Seguin's trade value on the season AFTER he was traded.

 

[PugFugly]

Really?
You're joking right?

SEASON - -- TEAM - GP - G - A - P - +/- - PIM - PPG - SHG - GWG - S - S%

Tyler had 84 points this season
2013-2014 - Dallas - 80 - 37 - 47 - 84 - 16 - 18 - 11 - 0 - 8 - 294 - 12.6
Kane had 41 points this season
2013-2014 - Winni - 63 - 19 - 22 - 41 - -7 - 66 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 250 - 7.6

The most points Kane has ever had in a single season in the NHL is 57

Right, except Seguin was traded before this season so his breakout in Dallas is irrelevant to my point.

Tyler Seguin (2012-2013): 0.67 PPG
Evander Kane (2013-2014): 0.65 PPG

 

[MuchoMacho]

I'd do Lupul, Franson, Reimer and Percy for Kane any day of the week. Doubt the Jets would though. They don't need RHD, they don't want to pay Reimer the money he's looking for with Pavalec on the books and Lupul's weaknesses are obvious around the league, you're not going to pull a fast one on a team trading Lupul for a young budding star. In a vacuum the value might be there if a team needed a young goalie with #1 potential, a PP specialist who is big and young and a veteran winger who can score 40-50 points. The problem is those aren't even close to Winnieg's needs. They need LHD and they need centermen.

 

[Ratboy]

Cue the hundred or so terrible trade offers.

 

[knorthern knight]

What are Winnipeg's most pressing needs? What's their biggest areas of weakness?

[RANT]Winnipeg's most pressing need is a GM who can admit he made a mistake signing a beer-league goalie to a $3.9 million/year contract, and buy him out. Pavelec is an incompetent goalie, no ifs/ands/ors/buts. Despite a .901 SV% last season he's still called the starter going into next season. The worst part is that with the $1.4 million/year savings from buying out his contract, we could have easiliy signed backup Al Montoya (SV% .920 for the Jets last season), who ended up signing with Florida for just over $1 million/year. To further screw things up, he traded away Pasquale who had .920 in the AHL last year. Hutchinson, who had SV% .923 in the AHL season, and around .940 in the AHL playoffs, and a 3-game stint with the Jets, will now get a shot at the Jets backup goalie position. Our management is stupider than your management... neener, neener. [/RANT]

But seriously, Winnipeg's major needs are a #4 (or better) Dman and a #3 (or better) centre. That sounds a lot like Toronto. I don't see much potential for a trade. And no, we don't want Reimer. At least Kane's "attitude problems" are off the ice. During the "March collapse" Reimer was even worse than Pavelec, so I don't see him being attractive, especially if he gets $2 million plus in arbitration.

 

[Tak7]

Could it be that both Kadri and Kane's "attitudes" have been blown badly out of proportion and really aren't that bad at all?

There's been a witch hunt in Toronto, fueled largely by the organization itself, against Kadri. It's easy to pick on his attitude, but to be honest - what issues are there with his attitude? He has a supreme desire to win and play hard. That's all.

 

[Mitchy]

Could it be that both Kadri and Kane's "attitudes" have been blown badly out of proportion and really aren't that bad at all?

There's been a witch hunt in Toronto, fueled largely by the organization itself, against Kadri. It's easy to pick on his attitude, but to be honest - what issues are there with his attitude? He has a supreme desire to win and play hard. That's all.

It's exactly this. There are no attitude issues. It all really comes down to if you don't behave like a stereotypical "good ol' Canadian boy", then you get crucified. Kane and Kadri are victims of that.