Evander Kane tracksuit saga

[united]

Cheveldayoff is the guy in fantasy hockey who complains how boring the pool is because nobody wants to trade, yet throws out ludicrous offers like this all the time. What a joke of a proposal - even as a starting point to a negotiation.

[GGG]

Is Kane a legit top line scorer or just Glencross but with a bad attitude.

Kane is on a bad contract if he doesn't get back to 30 Goals and he has a bad attitude. At best you are trading for a 1st line winger at worst a cancer who will play on your 3rd line.

The problem is that you aren't going to get a premium talent back for him but that is what winnipeg wants.

I could see along the lines of a top 6 player and a 1B prospect. So a Pourier and Hudler type deal. Or else a problem for problem type deal like a Kadri for Kane.

No one is going to give up top 5 picks for this guy.

[tvp2003]

E. Kane for Bennett is about as likely as E. Kane for Monahan, Gaudreau and a 1st...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

No one is going to give up top 5 picks for this guy.

You underestimate the stupidity of Kevin Lowe.

[kyuss275]

Maybe some should read the article. It's Mckenzie spit balling. He is just guessing what Jets might ask for. He even says Calgary would not do it in his own fantasy proposal.

[Poe969]

I don't think Kane would be a good fit on the oilers, he doesn't seem like a toe-drag kind of player

[Enoch Root]

Taking this back to the poll thread and the people that answered: yes, if the price is right.

Well yeah, but it doesn't work that way. The price is going to be higher than you want it to be, so again: do you want to trade for him?

The only sensible answer here is no.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Maybe some should read the article. It's Mckenzie spit balling. He is just guessing what Jets might ask for. He even says Calgary would not do it in his own fantasy proposal.

I knew he was doing that too after reading the article. I hate when he does that, it's just as bad as Eklund. Stick to the real rumors, he should know better than to throw out names he would be ask for if he was fantasy GM.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I knew he was doing that too after reading the article. I hate when he does that, it's just as bad as Eklund. Stick to the real rumors, he should know better than to throw out names he would be ask for if he was fantasy GM.

Some teams, like the Oilers, need writers like McKenzie to come up with trade scenarios. Other wise they, the Oilers, wouldn't know what to do.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Might as well ask, but every GM in the world know they have to trade him at some point so they'll keep low-balling him and he'll have to bite eventually.

The Jets have a ton of good prospects, but they also have a core that is going to be past its prime by the time they all are ready. They basically have one line and then a couple of pieces in Scheifele and Perrault.

While that strategy might work, if you low ball Chevy, the next guy might not and you don't get him. He'll still get a good package is bet.

Not a Bennett type mind you. Bennett is going to be easily as good as Kane IMO, so that'd be dumb

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Taking this back to the poll thread and the people that answered: yes, if the price is right.

Well yeah, but it doesn't work that way. The price is going to be higher than you want it to be, so again: do you want to trade for him?

The only sensible answer here is no.

I honestly view it the other way. Without knowing what the deal will look like, the only sensible answer is "yes", the team should be open minded to a trade for an asset.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by codynw

Lol @ Bennett for Kane. Unless we're talking about Patrick Kane. And even then, I don't think it would make sense for either team.

Ya dude Calgary would be crazy to trave Sam for Patrick Kane straight up. Makes no sense.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I honestly view it the other way. Without knowing what the deal will look like, the only sensible answer is "yes", the team should be open minded to a trade for an asset.

Thus I started with 'well, yeah'. But that's so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, isn't it?

Do we want to acquire an asset? well, yeah

But what would it realistically cost?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Fan base in Calgary would lose it if Kane lands with the flames unless the deal is completely one sided.

Something like Kane for Flames 5th rounder?

I still don't like it. We don't need a 'project'.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Ya dude Calgary would be crazy to trave Sam for Patrick Kane straight up. Makes no sense.

For a rebuilding team, it really doesn't make sense to trade their top prospect for a 26 year old winger.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thus I started with 'well, yeah'. But that's so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, isn't it?

Do we want to acquire an asset? well, yeah

But what would it realistically cost?

In my view, the difference between "yes" and "no" really isn't that different. Excepting a few extreme posts, it seems most agree that 1) Kane is a d-bag, 2)Jets/management probably could have handled this better, if for no other reason, to maximize the potential return and 3) acquiring Kane is risky, as the talent doesn't always match production and the obvious chemistry issues with the guy.

As for cost, it is at least conceivable that it could be a Phaneuf return. If that is the case, why say no?
I guess I just object to the statement that "no" is the only sensible response. In spite of the warts, I don't think Kane has negative value, and neither do the Jets.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by YogiBerra

That is the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a while. If this is how cheveldayoff values his players its no wonder he hasn't made a trade that has mattered in his tenure. I would do something like 2nd plus klimchuk for him but i think that is all i would do to many issues with Kane.

Kane was drafted 4th overall. He's 3rd in his draft class in career goals, so he's certainly not a disappointment on the ice relative to where he was selected.

I wouldn't want the Flames to trade Bennet for him, but it's not crazy-talk to suggest he's worth a pick or player drafted in the 5th-10th overall range.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Kane was drafted 4th overall. He's 3rd in his draft class in career goals, so he's certainly not a disappointment on the ice.

I wouldn't want the Flames to trade Bennet for him, but it's not crazy-talk to suggest he's worth a pick or player drafted in the 5th-10th overall range.

Third is his draft in career goals doesn't mean all that much without context. He's only had one really good season so far, and that was 3 years ago.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Ya dude Calgary would be crazy to trave Sam for Patrick Kane straight up. Makes no sense.

Actually, it would. Kane is a scoring winger who will turn 27 in the fall. Bennett projects to be a high scoring but still capable two-way center.

but lol@ Evander Kane for Bennett.

[Caged Great]

Unless Ehlers and Schiefele were coming along for the ride to Calgary with Kane for Bennett, then pass (Obviously in that case we'd have to add and I would rather keep Bennett anyway).

I wouldn't trade our 2nd for Kane.