CanuckinEdm Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Alflives said: No matter who we expose, I think Vegas only gets to select one. As it is we will have to expose one of them, which means we lose that player anyway. They only get to pick one player from each team. That being said right now IMO there is only 2 players that we will expose that will garner interest Sbisa and Granlund/Hansen(if he isnt traded for a pick) if we trade a dman for a player that we need to protect we will have 3 forwards that will be exposed Granlund, Baertschi/Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyg43 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 This concept trade is dead in the water an if JB does do it he should be left unprotected in expansion draft. only a second an possibly Burrows would be of interest + one of there prospects. These home town players never rarely come home to play let alone home town discounts forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 7 hours ago, goblix said: Do not like, Besides the fact that you are trading a young player with potential for a player with 1 year left but you are also trading away a exempt expansion player for another contract we'd be forced to protect.. Probably take more than just Virtanen to get Kane also. but even so in the end it would cost Virtanen + Baertschi / Granlund / Hansen just because of the exposure rules. Unless you want to do this after the expansion draft then it's more digestible, still wouldn't want to trade Virtanen myself as I think it's ludicrous to give up on a player so early but I would rather not get into an opinion based war on that topic here that happens enough on the Virtanen prospect thread lol Ya I don't think there's a GM out there that's willing willing to meet the asking price for Kane. But Kane is as good as gone after next year so maybe they'll lower it in the offseason? Makes you wonder what a guy like Hansen is worth. Same term on his contract but half the cap hit and 10x the character. I'd hate to see him go but it's exciting to think about what the return could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 On 2/8/2017 at 11:56 AM, PhillipBlunt said: I don't think it will cost one of those players, mind you. SabreFan1 might have a better idea, but from what I have heard, Sabres ownership have not been happy with Kane's extracurricular activities and were prodding Murray to get rid of him. That may have changed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't. If the Canucks are willing to put up with his off-ice problems then they should probably wait until he screws up again. Then he can be had for very little. For now though, his price would be quite high for a rebuilding/retooling team like the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 On 2/8/2017 at 0:06 PM, Provost said: That is fine, he is a UFA next year. On 2/8/2017 at 0:40 PM, PhillipBlunt said: Good points, Provost. Not really. He's under contract next year to the Sabres. He won't become a UFA until the 2018-19 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: If the Canucks are willing to put up with his off-ice problems then they should probably wait until he screws up again. Then he can be had for very little. For now though, his price would be quite high for a rebuilding/retooling team like the Canucks. As many have pointed out, he'll be a UFA in a season, so that would be the time to pick him up. Now, with how he's playing, he would cost too much. From what I've heard from locals here, he's made a concerted effort to grow up and stay out of environments that have the potential for problems. Supposedly the possible conviction had an effect on him, what with the possibility of losing his career and jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said: Not really. He's under contract next year to the Sabres. He won't become a UFA until the 2018-19 season. Don't want Kane. The ONLY player we want from Buffalo is... Sami boy:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Not really. He's under contract next year to the Sabres. He won't become a UFA until the 2018-19 season. I think Provost meant that he is a UFA at the end of next season (2017/2018) which would make him a UFA in the season you stated. Semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: As many have pointed out, he'll be a UFA in a season, so that would be the time to pick him up. Now, with how he's playing, he would cost too much. From what I've heard from locals here, he's made a concerted effort to grow up and stay out of environments that have the potential for problems. Supposedly the possible conviction had an effect on him, what with the possibility of losing his career and jail time. Just now, PhillipBlunt said: I think Provost meant that he is a UFA at the end of next season (2018/2019) I see that. I'm just catching up with the thread now. I didn't realize it became active again. As talented as he is, right now he would be a poor investment no matter how much term he had left. His game has really picked up big time after starting the year so slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: Don't want Kane. The ONLY player we want from Buffalo is... Sami boy:) The only way that JB has a chance at getting him is by tendering him an RFA offer after his ELC is up. GMs don't try and poach RFAs anymore as much as they used to years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Just now, SabreFan1 said: The only way that JB has a chance at getting him is by tendering him an RFA offer after his ELC is up. GMs don't try and poach RFAs anymore as much as they used to years ago. Why should the Sabres get to have both Eichel and Reinhart? No fair:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 On 2/8/2017 at 2:30 PM, canucklehead80 said: At what point does Bo stop being considered a prospect? He said Boeser, not Bo. Brock Boeser is still a prospect who plays for his University team. Bo (Horvat) is a 3rd year veteran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Why should the Sabres get to have both Eichel and Reinhart? No fair:( Because the tank came rumbling through Buffalo those 2 seasons!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Because the tank came rumbling through Buffalo those 2 seasons!!! The Canucks need that tank:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 21 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Not really. He's under contract next year to the Sabres. He won't become a UFA until the 2018-19 season. It is 2017.... 2018 is next year. I didn't say next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Alflives said: The Canucks need that tank:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Provost said: It is 2017.... 2018 is next year. I didn't say next season. That's a weird way to put it, but if you read what I wrote after my initial response, I got the gist of what you were saying afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 18 hours ago, VIC_CITY said: Ya I don't think there's a GM out there that's willing willing to meet the asking price for Kane. But Kane is as good as gone after next year so maybe they'll lower it in the offseason? If Kane keeps out of trouble for the rest of this year and next, the Sabres will more likely than not keep him as long as they can afford his contractual asking price. If he stays clean, he'll probably fetch one heck of a rental price if the Sabres aren't in the running for a playoff spot then. Then they can attempt to re-sign him in the offseason if they're still interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said: The tank failed us last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 40 minutes ago, Jam126 said: The tank failed us last year. Only so far as the Auston Matthews sweepstakes are concerned. The Canucks just didn't tank hard enough. It was a failed tank job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.