Evander Kane tracksuit saga - Page 35 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Street Pharmacist · 02-09-2015, 02:28 PM

Quote:

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.

The thirty wasn't a David Jones 30? The 19 in his sleep isn't like a Backlund 19?

GioforPM · 02-09-2015, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

Not sure what those numbers are but they aren't goals per game.

Weitz · 02-09-2015, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

No people say Glencross is ______ when healthy, Backlund is ______ when healthy.

I haven't seen anyone think that his injuries or the fact he has been playing with 2 of the worst top 9 players on Winnipeg a tribute to his decreased production.

Not really defending the guy or wanting him on my team, but I do think he is capable of putting up good enough numbers to justify his contract.

Where ru Chris O'Sullivan · 02-09-2015, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codynw

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.

I agree, but I wouldn't want to be the GM that gave him away if does decide to dedicate himself to a new team.

It will likely come down to WPG's ownership to decide if they want to give him up for a bit less, just to get away from him or want an overpayment for what he could be.

Fairly sure they would want a top 3-5 pick and a young roster player vs. what Calgary could offer.

Also pretty confident once back from anger and injury, he would really play his best for 2 seasons at least. Just to show WPG, how much he hated that environment, the city, the team etc. After that, no idea.

Enoch Root · 02-09-2015, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Not sure what those numbers are but they aren't goals per game.

Sorry, they are the 82-game pace totals for each year (GPG over 82 games)

Enoch Root · 02-09-2015, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weitz

No people say Glencross is ______ when healthy, Backlund is ______ when healthy.

I haven't seen anyone think that his injuries or the fact he has been playing with 2 of the worst top 9 players on Winnipeg a tribute to his decreased production.

Not really defending the guy or wanting him on my team, but I do think he is capable of putting up good enough numbers to justify his contract.

No, people do in fact hold their injuries against those 2. It's what Calgary fans do.

Locke · 02-09-2015, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

Of course. And his value is relative. Theres positive value and negative value.

At the moment I believe his value is negative. By the time its all said and done his 50 points and 60 GP isnt worth his salary let alone all the other crap that comes with him.

And regardless of whatever Bob says, I dont believe the Flames are even entertaining the 'Kane Sweepstakes' or whatever the hell they want to call it.

If the Jets called right now and wanted to trade Kane for Bollig straight up Treliving would probably have to think about it. And only because the Flames have the cap space. Otherwise he'd hang up.

mikephoen · 02-09-2015, 02:34 PM

I think age is less important than NHL seasons/games played. I wish I had time to check all the stats to know if this is correct, or just something that makes sense in my head.

My hypothesis is that players prime years are from their 4th to 9th full NHL seasons. Doesn't matter if they start at 18 or 23, their careers will peak somewhere in that range. After a player has played 9 or so full seasons (700+ games) they will start to break down and won't hit peak numbers again. Obviously there would be an exception here or there, but my gut says that's going to hold true for most players.

So, under this theory, Kane's current age is irrelevant. By starting young it just means he has gone past his build up years earlier than some players, and now we're into his prime production. He is what he is at this point.

I would love to do all the work to find out if this is true... but alas I have real work to do.

CampbellsTransgressions · 02-09-2015, 02:37 PM

Winnipeg have 8 months to deal him (or until July 1st at the minimum), so of course the price is going to start high.

I doubt they'll get much for him right now considering the issue is still hot, but if they wait a few months while not coming off their price, I think they'll end up with a better return.

Enoch Root · 02-09-2015, 02:37 PM

^ yup, it has more to do with physical maturity than age

Where ru Chris O'Sullivan · 02-09-2015, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The thirty wasn't a David Jones 30? The 19 in his sleep isn't like a Backlund 19?

No, Kane is a pure goal scoring talent. No stempy 20's, or Jonesy 30's.

He's a lock for 19 per year with a bad attitude, wet tracksuits, teammates that hate him, actual injuries that affect performance.

I'm not saying I'm his biggest fan, but he has that type of talent.

CaptainYooh · 02-09-2015, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

I've just heard Treliving on the radio saying that Flames absolutely are interested in Kane but are concerned with how he is off-ice and not sure if Winnipeg would want Kane playing to Calgary.

Coach · 02-09-2015, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

No, Kane is a pure goal scoring talent. No stempy 20's, or Jonesy 30's.

He's a lock for 19 per year with a bad attitude, wet tracksuits, teammates that hate him, actual injuries that affect performance.

I'm not saying I'm his biggest fan, but he has that type of talent.

Who says any of these things change?

Street Pharmacist · 02-09-2015, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

No, Kane is a pure goal scoring talent. No stempy 20's, or Jonesy 30's.

He's a lock for 19 per year with a bad attitude, wet tracksuits, teammates that hate him, actual injuries that affect performance.

I'm not saying I'm his biggest fan, but he has that type of talent.

His goals per game mirror that of Troy Brouwer. So is he that good?

I honestly don't get it. People way smarter than I do, but I just don't understand it. He's young, fair enough. But the trend is in the wrong direction and hasn't been good for a couple years, he's got lots of baggage and at his age they're isn't likely to be a big increase

mikephoen · 02-09-2015, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

No, Kane is a pure goal scoring talent. No stempy 20's, or Jonesy 30's.

He's a lock for 19 per year with a bad attitude, wet tracksuits, teammates that hate him, actual injuries that affect performance.

I'm not saying I'm his biggest fan, but he has that type of talent.

He only got 10 this year.

Blaster86 · 02-09-2015, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikephoen

He only got 10 this year.

Playing with a torn labrum and ending the season early.

GioforPM · 02-09-2015, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Playing with a torn labrum and ending the season early.

Yeah, but supposedly he's a "lock" for 19 even with injuries. I think the opint was that the hyperbole wasn't accurate.

ericschand · 02-09-2015, 02:50 PM

A GM's brief thoughts on Kane.
About half way down the page

Quote:

Lots of interest in Kane: One NHL general manager on Evander Kane says, “Why wouldn’t I want him? He’s 23 years old and has already scored 30 goals once.” And all the talk about off-ice and personal issues? “Says who?” says the GM.

ers

Where ru Chris O'Sullivan · 02-09-2015, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, but supposedly he's a "lock" for 19 even with injuries. I think the opint was that the hyperbole wasn't accurate.

Injuries that he can play through! (and chooses to)
To clarify: Give him around 70 games in the lineup with upwards of 5 things affecting him, and he's a lock for 19.

codynw · 02-09-2015, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericschand

A GM's brief thoughts on Kane.
About half way down the page

ers

Don't be fooled, that's just Chevy trying to pump Kane's tires.