Hortankin Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 TO BUF Gaunce Subban CLB 2nd TO VAN Kane TO me whoever gets Subban will be laughing in a few years because he is that good. The only reason we trade him is because we have a better small guy in Stecher. The only way I see Subban playing in the future for us is if he moves to wing which I doubt is going to happen. Maybe Subban is the exact player Buffalo was scouting from Utica? To me this trade works great for both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 We don't need Kane at his salary and with his off ice issues. People think he is our savior. He has no goals and 2 assists in 10 games this season last time I looked. Why are we giving up anything at all for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJSkingz Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 If management wanted Kane that badly why not wait until he is a UFA? I don't understand why people want this clown on the team and why anyone would be willing to part with any of our prospects to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 That trade won't work cap wise. We'd have to throw Dorsett into the deal to make it work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I still say overpayment for Kane, he has too many question marks and is not deserving of a return that includes a roster player, a prospect and a pick (potentially three NHL players for one??). The pick alone should get him, anything more is too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuman491 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said: I still say overpayment for Kane, he has too many question marks and is not deserving of a return that includes a roster player, a prospect and a pick (potentially three NHL players for one??). The pick alone should get him, anything more is too much. Agreed. Anything more than a 3rd for Kane is over payment. He is by no means a sure thing (injuries and declining production) and his off ice issues aren't going to help the team either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeekz37 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 We don't want or need the problems that Kane will bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Right now it would be pointless for the Sabres to trade Kane. The return just isn't there. Nobody wants to take the chance on him, for good reason. The Sabres will hold onto him and hope that he improves and behaves himself. They have no choice unless they want to give him away for peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 9 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Right now it would be pointless for the Sabres to trade Kane. The return just isn't there. Nobody wants to take the chance on him, for good reason. The Sabres will hold onto him and hope that he improves and behaves himself. They have no choice unless they want to give him away for peanuts. Kane + Sam Reinhart could get Tanev + Virtanen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: Kane + Sam Reinhart could get Tanev + Virtanen? There is only so many times and different ways in different threads that I can explain how that makes no sense for the Sabres. I just posted a third time about it in the newer Sam Reinhart proposal thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said: There is only so many times and different ways in different threads that I can explain how that makes no sense for the Sabres. I just posted a third time about it in the newer Sam Reinhart proposal thread. I know, but this time I have on my ruby red shoes, so it's different:) to be fair, Sam has not taken the step forward the Sabres expected him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Alflives said: I know, but this time I have on my ruby red shoes, so it's different:) to be fair, Sam has not taken the step forward the Sabres expected him to. Quote He and Eichel played off of each other well last year. Eichel is still injured and that high ankle sprain will hamper him for most of the rest of the year. Sam has been stuck with a rotating carousal of linemates for him including more than one AHL'er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I just realized who Kane reminds me of. Chris Stewart, but with less class, and with only a touch more offensive talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Alflives said: Kane + Sam Reinhart could get Tanev + Virtanen? I will bite, Alf Kane, Sam Reinhart and 2-2017 2nds for Tanev, Baertschi, and Virtanen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 we already said NO to Kane time to move on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.