Jump to content


Photo

How much should Kane' s extension be?


  • Please log in to reply
732 replies to this topic

Poll: How much should Kane' s extension be?

How long should the exension be for?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

How much $ should the extension offer be?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#721 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:53 AM


Wow



http://www.thehockey...-agency-looming


Not the usual narrative being spouted about Evander wanting to be here.

Sign him.

#722 Mick O’Manly

Mick O’Manly

    Translate it yourself

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ravaging the coast of Ireland

Posted 18 December 2017 - 01:20 PM

I’m starting to warm to the idea of trading O’Reilly for a top four defenceman and a third-line Centre and using the money to keep Kane.
OReilly could get a nice return.

#723 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 18 December 2017 - 01:20 PM

Not the usual narrative being spouted about Evander wanting to be here.

Sign him.

Nah, trade him now, sign him in off-season.

#724 jsb

jsb

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 18 December 2017 - 01:52 PM

Nah, trade him now, sign him in off-season.

My only issue with this is, if a team trades for him are they also making a ROR deal with him beforehand so they don't just give up assets without retaining him. I'm guessing anyone who trades for him has already made indirect contact with his agent to see what he wants for his next contract and his possible willingness to stay there. 



#725 blåbär

blåbär

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,775 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 December 2017 - 03:52 PM

My only issue with this is, if a team trades for him are they also making a ROR deal with him beforehand so they don't just give up assets without retaining him. I'm guessing anyone who trades for him has already made indirect contact with his agent to see what he wants for his next contract and his possible willingness to stay there. 

 

LIke with Hanzal ?  No way of knowing this.

 

Hanzal got a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick, comparing him with kane, I expect at least that.



#726 utsvävande

utsvävande

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:05 PM

LIke with Hanzal ?  No way of knowing this.

 

Hanzal got a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick, comparing him with kane, I expect at least that.

 

No, he didn't.

 

Hanzel, White, and a 4th in 2017 were traded for a 1st (2017), a 2nd(2018) and a conditional 4th(2019)

 

The condition on the 4th is that it moved if Minnesota lost in the first round, which occurred.

 

The conditional 4th in 2019 is worth a lot less then a 4th in 2017, agreed? So part of the 2nd pick value has to be attributed to the swap of 4ths. Let's say the 2nd and conditional 4th was worth the 4th and a 3rd, thus if we remove the two 4ths, it leaves us with Hanzel, White, for a 1st and a 3rd. What's Ryan White worth, maybe a 3rd? That leaves us with Hanzel for a first, somewhere between 23rd if they lose in the first round, and 31st, if they had won the cup.

 

I think it's true that Kane will return more than Hanzel, but let's not start making up what Hanzel brought back.



#727 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,739 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:13 PM

I’m starting to warm to the idea of trading O’Reilly for a top four defenceman and a third-line Centre and using the money to keep Kane.
OReilly could get a nice return.

I find it unlikely a third line center and top-4 Dman combined take up meaningfully less cap space than O'Reilly. And who is our 2C in your scenario? I don't think weakening the team down the middle is the right move.

Edited by TrueBlueGED, 18 December 2017 - 05:15 PM.


#728 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:15 PM

No, he didn't.
 
Hanzel, White, and a 4th in 2017 were traded for a 1st (2017), a 2nd(2018) and a conditional 4th(2019)
 
The condition on the 4th is that it moved if Minnesota lost in the first round, which occurred.
 
The conditional 4th in 2019 is worth a lot less then a 4th in 2017, agreed? So part of the 2nd pick value has to be attributed to the swap of 4ths. Let's say the 2nd and conditional 4th was worth the 4th and a 3rd, thus if we remove the two 4ths, it leaves us with Hanzel, White, for a 1st and a 3rd. What's Ryan White worth, maybe a 3rd? That leaves us with Hanzel for a first, somewhere between 23rd if they lose in the first round, and 31st, if they had won the cup.

I think it's true that Kane will return more than Hanzel, but let's not start making up what Hanzel brought back.


There was a prospect involved as well. So in the scenario it would be Hanzal (so hot right now) for a 1st and a prospect.

I find it unlikely a third line center and top-4 Dman combined take up meaningfully less cap space than O'Reilly. And who is our 2C in your scenario? I don't think weakening the team down the middle is the right move.


The hypothetical choice between ROR and Kane is an interesting one, though, if we are in a position where we can only afford to keep one.

Ultimately I think I come down on the side that says we need that centre, but Kane has been a better player this season. Kane is a better winger this year than ROR has been a centre, but centres are more valuable.

Imagine the scenario where Sam Reinhart was emerging as a top 2 centre right now, what he was drafted to be. Much easier choice to make.

#729 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,739 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:22 PM

There was a prospect involved as well. So in the scenario it would be Hanzal (so hot right now) for a 1st and a prospect.


The hypothetical choice between ROR and Kane is an interesting one, though, if we are in a position where we can only afford to keep one.

Ultimately I think I come down on the side that says we need that centre, but Kane has been a better player this season. Kane is a better winger this year than ROR has been a centre, but centres are more valuable.

Imagine the scenario where Sam Reinhart was emerging as a top 2 centre right now, what he was drafted to be. Much easier choice to make.


Kane has certainly been the better player this season, but I'm not sure we should discard the previous two where O'Reilly was clearly superior. And 100% agreed on Reinhart. Had he developed into a true #2C, the conversation may be different. Though in that scenario, O'Reilly on the wing would be dreamy.

Ultimately, I don't think we have to choose between Kane and O'Reilly for monetary reasons. Which could better be used in a trade to build the team is an interesting question, however.

#730 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 18 December 2017 - 07:00 PM

Kane has certainly been the better player this season, but I'm not sure we should discard the previous two where O'Reilly was clearly superior. And 100% agreed on Reinhart. Had he developed into a true #2C, the conversation may be different. Though in that scenario, O'Reilly on the wing would be dreamy.
Ultimately, I don't think we have to choose between Kane and O'Reilly for monetary reasons. Which could better be used in a trade to build the team is an interesting question, however.


Very interesting. It's a question for which I could be swayed to either side based on a compelling argument.

I'm not one who thinks ROR in an unmoveable contract. On the contrary, he was viewed as a Team Canada-level centre heading into this season (and that's not easy to be), and he's still relatively young, with what I still consider to be a non-outrageous cap hit. Plenty of GMs would be all too willing write off his struggles this season as due to being in "that losing environment".

But what does Botterill think? Maybe he's asking for a knock-your-socks off offer for Kane because he intends to keep him and move ROR all else being equal.

Who knows, but I'm actually relatively angst-free on the issue as I trust Botterill's judgment. That may be naive, but he exudes a sense of deliberation and patience and intelligence that I find to be soothing.

#731 Crusader1969

Crusader1969

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 11:25 AM

Nah, trade him now, sign him in off-season.

 

 

exactly



#732 erickompositör72

erickompositör72

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 19 December 2017 - 06:39 PM

Who knows, but I'm actually relatively angst-free on the issue as I trust Botterill's judgment. That may be naive, but he exudes a sense of deliberation and patience and intelligence that I find to be soothing.

 

Buffalo sports angst led me to the point where I was actually celebrating when we signed Moulson. I share this confidence in Botterill, though (and McDermott as well, tbh). Hopefully we're not kidding ourselves


Edited by erickompositör72, 19 December 2017 - 06:40 PM.


#733 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 19 December 2017 - 06:40 PM

Buffalo sports angst led me to the point where I was actually celebrating when we signed Moulson. I share this confidence in Botterill, though (and McDermott as well, tbh). Hopefully we're not kidding ourselves


Which is always a distinct possibility.