Evander Kane tracksuit saga

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Great post Locke, but that end quote is Calvin Coolidge.

Treliving and Burke have always said they want players that play for the crest on the front not the name on the back. Kane is playing for the name on the back.

I'm fully aware of it. Its one of my favourites and I've posted the full quote numerous times in the E=NG thread.

I didnt credit him because I only used part of the full quote.

But I stand by my post. Talent alone is insufficient.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I would do a package with Backlund + Sven as the main centre pieces.

Kane is going to be a stud of a hockey player.

This wouldn't even get them to open the front door.

You would have to add a first round pick, and because it looks like it wont be a top 5, nor top 10, I can't see WPG having interest.

Kane has made money, and it's not easy competing in the NHL - I'd be very worried with his personality that there is any drive left in him to be someone in this league.

He' be better suited for teams like LA (most years) or CHI which has the players in place to be going deep without him. A place where there isn't the pressure of the world on him.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Wait, what? You would not trade an unproven Bennett for P. Kane? You do know who that is right? I would drive all the way out to Calgary and drive Sam to the airport for that. Nothing wrong with liking a prospects potential but if you could flip him for a proven franchise RW who is only 26 you jump all over that.

my bad....you said p. Kane. Ridicule was not required.

[BurningSteel]

What else do we get? I mean we would need Kane + + for Bennett

[Vinny01]

Funny how some think since a guy was a top 5 pick and scored 30 once in his 6 years in the league he could be worth a 1st, good young roster player, and a top prospect.

Seguin who was younger and a better player signed to the same deal got 3 decent prospects, a good player in his prime and the Bruins got to dump a contract.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

This wouldn't even get them to open the front door.

You would have to add a first round pick, and because it looks like it wont be a top 5, nor top 10, I can't see WPG having interest.

Kane has made money, and it's not easy competing in the NHL - I'd be very worried with his personality that there is any drive left in him to be someone in this league.

He' be better suited for teams like LA (most years) or CHI which has the players in place to be going deep without him. A place where there isn't the pressure of the world on him.

You're greatly undervaluing Mikael Backlund. Possession driving two way centre that's only 25 years old.

At this stage, Backlund = Kane.

This season:
Backlund: .61PPG
Kane: .59PPG

Last season:
Backlund: .51PPG
Kane: .65PPG


Kane over the last 100 GP: .63PPG
Backlund over the last 99 GP: .54PPG

Is Kane better? Offensively, yes - although Backlund is trending in the positive towards Kane's level.

Is Backlund a better two way player? Does he have less baggage? I'd say yes.

What WPG gets for Kane is not going to be amazing. It will be a good package, but not an overpayment.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Really? Cause I would without hesitation. Kane is a proven nhler with elite potential. The risk of Kane's attitude problems are probably equivalent to the chances that prospect will bust.

If you're talking about the player only and his raw abilities, then for sure you pull that trigger. I just don't like his attitude or make-up much, and I really dislike players that have that type of attitude (Dion is another such guy).

Personally, I'd prefer having a slightly lesser player that doesn't have any of the baggage for where the Flames are in the rebuild. Things seem to be working alright for the moment, I don't see the need to add a potential head case to the team. It might distract from the good chemistry on the roster. It might be different if say Monahan etc were 25-26 and vets themselves.

He's the type of player that I hope the Canucks would acquire.

[nemanja2306]

Originally Posted by Locke

You are correct.

However, as I recall the Oilers have done that to the Kings not once but twice!

Although I believe that both of those players got the hell out of Edmonton and got Cup rings so its like going to heaven and then somehow winning some form of heavenly lottery.

Yup, I looked it up. First it was Gilbret Brule then Colin Fraser. Though, the Brule trade did not go through, I believe. But the Fraser situation was funny...the Kings knew he was hurt but were told by the Oilers he would be ready in two weeks....it turned out he needed surgery and would be out four months.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

You're greatly undervaluing Mikael Backlund. Possession driving two way centre that's only 25 years old.

At this stage, Backlund = Kane.

This season:
Backlund: .61PPG
Kane: .59PPG

Last season:
Backlund: .51PPG
Kane: .65PPG


Kane over the last 100 GP: .63PPG
Backlund over the last 99 GP: .54PPG

Is Kane better? Offensively, yes - although Backlund is trending in the positive towards Kane's level.

Is Backlund a better two way player? Does he have less baggage? I'd say yes.

What WPG gets for Kane is not going to be amazing. It will be a good package, but not an overpayment.

Haha. Chris O'Sullivan undervaluing Backlund. Hahaha

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Funny how some think since a guy was a top 5 pick and scored 30 once in his 6 years in the league he could be worth a 1st, good young roster player, and a top prospect.

Who has said he's worth that? He's not. But he's also not the hot garbage a lot of folks here want to pretend he is.

Look, every deal is a risk. A GM looking at Kane might consider:

• 30 per cent chance he plays up to his full potential and becomes a 25-35 goal guy who brings physical play with a rare combination of strength and speed.
  
• 40 per cent chance he's an inconsistent guy who brings 15-25 goals a year and turns the intensity on and off (what he is now).
  
• 30 per cent chance he completely flakes out and plays himself off the team and the league in a few years.

Now, compare that to mid 1st round pick. The pick is probably even less likely to pan out. Compare it to prospects the team already has. A lot of teams don't have a single forward prospect with an odds profile better than Kane's.

There are a lot of teams Kane could go to where he would immediately be one of the top two or three assets under 24 years of age that they have.

Also, it's dumb that the fact Kane broke into the league as an 18 year old is being held against him. If he had taken a more conventional route and started in the NHL when he was 20 or 21, would his stats be regarded as more impressive? Again, the guy is one year older than Sven Baertschi.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

You're greatly undervaluing Mikael Backlund. Possession driving two way centre that's only 25 years old.

At this stage, Backlund = Kane.

This season:
Backlund: .61PPG
Kane: .59PPG

Last season:
Backlund: .51PPG
Kane: .65PPG


Kane over the last 100 GP: .63PPG
Backlund over the last 99 GP: .54PPG

Is Kane better? Offensively, yes - although Backlund is trending in the positive towards Kane's level.

Is Backlund a better two way player? Does he have less baggage? I'd say yes.

What WPG gets for Kane is not going to be amazing. It will be a good package, but not an overpayment.

Though not a fan of Backs at all, I was suggesting that the draft pick we would need to add would not be enticing enough for WPG.

Kane dropped 30 goals in 74 games 3 seasons ago, he does have elite level talent. It wasn't what i like to refer to as a "Stempniak 20" where GM's like Feaster go crazy to collect these types of former 20 goal scorers as they believe he did it once, he can do it again consistently.

He's the type of player that scores 19 in his sleep, any combination of luck, supporting playmakers and desire can easily see him hit 30+ in a year, consistently.

Wpg's GM would dig his own grave if gave up Kane for that package without at least a top 10 pick coming back.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Just saw the update..

Bennett?...ahhahhahaha...hahaha!!! Bennett...

Keep dreaming, Winnipeg.

Fata.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Who has said he's worth that? He's not. But he's also not the hot garbage a lot of folks here want to pretend he is.

Look, every deal is a risk. A GM looking at Kane might consider:

• 30 per cent chance he plays up to his full potential and becomes a 25-35 goal guy who brings physical play with a rare combination of strength and speed.
• 40 per cent chance he's an inconsistent guy who brings 15-25 goals a year and turns the intensity on and off (what he is now).
• 30 per cent chance he completely flakes out and plays himself off the team and the league in a few years.

Now, compare that to mid 1st round pick. The pick is probably even less likely to pan out. Compare it to prospects the team already has. A lot of teams don't have a single forward prospect with an odds profile better than Kane's.

There are a lot of teams Kane could go to where he would immediately be one of the top two or three assets under 24 years of age that they have.

Also, it's dumb that the fact Kane broke into the league as an 18 year old is being held against him. If he had taken a more conventional route and started in the NHL when he was 20 or 21, would his stats be regarded as more impressive? Again, the guy is one year older than Sven Baertschi.

Not sure where you are going with this. His best season was as a 20 year old. His PPG has declined in each of the last 3 seasons.

We are not talking about a young player that is just hitting his stride here, we're talking about a guy that was physically mature early and has not progressed AT ALL since 2011/12

[H2SO4(aq)]

People saying he had one good season or is just a flash in the pan are just plain wrong.

in the lockout shortened season he had 17 goals or ~29 in an 82 game season. last year he scored at a 25 goal pace. Kane knows how to put the puck in the net. He is a damn good young player on the ice.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Though not a fan of Backs at all, I was suggesting that the draft pick we would need to add would not be enticing enough for WPG.

Kane dropped 30 goals in 74 games 3 seasons ago, he does have elite level talent. It wasn't what i like to refer to as a "Stempniak 20" where GM's like Feaster go crazy to collect these types of former 20 goal scorers as they believe he did it once, he can do it again consistently.

He's the type of player that scores 19 in his sleep, any combination of luck, supporting playmakers and desire can easily see him hit 30+ in a year, consistently.

Wpg's GM would dig his own grave if gave up Kane for that package without at least a top 10 pick coming back.

There's no doubt that Kane is talented, it's what's in his head that worries people. If he didn't have an attitude problem we wouldn't even be having this conversation because he'd likely be an elite player and Winnipeg wouldn't be shopping him. His attitude lowers his value a lot. Teams know it's risky taking him.

[Weitz]

He has also been playing injured for a lot of the last 2-3 years.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

People saying he had one good season or is just a flash in the pan are just plain wrong.

in the lockout shortened season he had 17 goals or ~29 in an 82 game season. last year he scored at a 25 goal pace. Kane knows how to put the puck in the net. He is a damn good young player on the ice.

No one has said that. No one.

Here are his goals per game for his career:

2010: 17.4
2011: 21.3
2012: 33.2
2013: 29.0
2014: 24.7
2015: 22.2
not the greatest trend there

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

He has also been playing injured for a lot of the last 2-3 years.

People hold that against Glencross and Backlund, should it be an excuse and a free pass for Kane?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

People saying he had one good season or is just a flash in the pan are just plain wrong.

in the lockout shortened season he had 17 goals or ~29 in an 82 game season. last year he scored at a 25 goal pace. Kane knows how to put the puck in the net. He is a damn good young player on the ice.

No one is arguing that hes good, I've said it before, its a question of whether he's good enough to overlook all of his faults, defects, injuries, attitude and acquisition costs.

And my opinion is no. Especially not here in Calgary where 'THE TEAM' is the ultimate priority.

This team shipped out Jarome Iginla who at 37 years old is twice the player that Evander Kane will ever be because, through no fault of his own, he became bigger than the team and the culture had to change in order to move forward.

I appreciate the opinions of people that think Hartley and the leaders in the room can 'fix' Kane. I dont agree, but I understand.

Even if they're right, will that offset his acquisition cost? Again, I believe no.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

No one is arguing that hes good, I've said it before, its a question of whether he's good enough to overlook all of his faults, defects, injuries, attitude and acquisition costs.

And my opinion is no. Especially not here in Calgary where 'THE TEAM' is the ultimate priority.

This team shipped out Jarome Iginla who at 37 years old is twice the player that Evander Kane will ever be because, through no fault of his own, he became bigger than the team and the culture had to change in order to move forward.

I appreciate the opinions of people that think Hartley and the leaders in the room can 'fix' Kane. I dont agree, but I understand.

Even if they're right, will that offset his acquisition cost? Again, I believe no.

You realize that just because people think Kane has value, that doesn't mean they think the Flames should deal for him, right?