Trading for Patrick Kane

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by codynw

Did you miss the part where Kane is being investigated for rape, or...?

Teams won't give up quality assets without knowing how this situation will play out.

You consider the Kessel return as quality assets?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

If Kane is cleared of any wrong doing, why would the Hawks want to trade him?

If he is found guilty, why would any team trade for him?

See Heatley, Dany.

[Benched]

yeah but if Kane is guilty he's probably looking at jail time...

after he's out....different story. but if the guy can't show up to play....

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Hackey

You consider the Kessel return as quality assets?

A first round pick and Kapanen are both quality assets. Did Toronto get enough for Kessel? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the pieces Pittsburgh traded weren't quality.

And nobody is giving up a first and one of their top prospects for someone who may or may not end up in jail in the near future. This is a dumb conversation.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by codynw

A first round pick and Kapanen are both quality assets. Did Toronto get enough for Kessel? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the pieces Pittsburgh traded weren't quality.

And nobody is giving up a first and one of their top prospects for someone who may or may not end up in jail in the near future. This is a dumb conversation.

You seem to be getting worked up over nothing lol. Someone suggested that the Kessel trade would be a comparable. I said if that was the case then I think a lot of teams would have interest. Take the stick out of your butt.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So the guy with "character issues" who's won 3 cups doesn't belong on the team that hasn't won a cup in over 20 years. Not that I want him on the Flames but the character thing does get blown out of proportion at times. I like the way the team is coming together but who knows how Kane would do on the team. He may be a great hockey guy who's awesome and a leader but is just an idiot when it comes to the outside world not related to hockey and he makes bad decisions.

Please explain.

[420since1974]

If he's guilty, I don't want him just for that reason.

If he's innocent, I still don't want him because of his contract, and how much the Flames would have to give up to acquire him.

[Hackey]

If he's guilty he will be in jail.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Please explain.

I mean that at times people get caught up in the "character" of a player. Now I don't mean Patrick Kane because there are issues there, I mean in players in general. Remember how Oli was called a cancer in the locker room by Barnaby or how some were/are saying that Hamilton was a bad team mate or whatever crap they're making up. What I'm getting at is that at times you have to think about the on ice value of a player. You can look at it that the Flames are so stable in their character that they could potentially help someone with character issues. Again, I don't mean with Kane specifically. Kessel for example, people had said he wouldn't fit with the Flames because of his work ethic and poor attitude, I think the team's work ethic and attitude would have affected him more than he would have affected the team.

The comment was more of a generalization about players with character issues, not a specific comment about Kane's issues that's why I preface your bolded part with "Not that I want him on the Flames but..." I believe there are huge issues with Kane but every time a "questionable" player hits the market, people bring up character issues as one of the first reasons not to get him. Again, let me be clear, I do in no way think the Flames should get Kane nor do I condone his actions. I was making a comment specifically about how people bring up "character issues" regarding players in general.

[thefoss1957]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...145929531.html

The accuser has to convince a grand jury that a crime has been committed, and grand juries are hard to predict.

In the State of New York, a Grand Jury is NOT mandatory, and Kane could have been charged without this hearing.

From Wikipedia: In the State of New York, while a person can initially be charged with a felony via a sworn written accusation alone (a "felony complaint"), the state constitution provides a defendant with a right to have all felonies prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment. This right can be waived by a defendant

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...145929531.html

The accuser has to convince a grand jury that a crime has been committed, and grand juries are hard to predict.

In the State of New York, a Grand Jury is NOT mandatory, and Kane could have been charged without this hearing.

From Wikipedia: In the State of New York, while a person can initially be charged with a felony via a sworn written accusation alone (a "felony complaint"), the state constitution provides a defendant with a right to have all felonies prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment. This right can be waived by a defendant

That's not the test. I believe they only have to convince the grand jury that there's probable cause to indict - in other words, that it reasonably might have been. They don't have to be convinced that a crime was committed.

[thefoss1957]

Gio...If the authorities thought they had a strong case, in New York, I would have expected a straight up felony complaint. But all this legal stuff now grinds on slowly.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Gio...If the authorities thought they had a strong case, in New York, I would have expected a straight up felony complaint. But all this legal stuff now grinds on slowly.

Maybe - I don't know the thought process well enough, though I was under the impression that they often directly indict for different reasons. I was just pointing out that the grand jury doesn't have to be convinced a crime was committed. It's a far lesser test.