(Rumor) - Canucks interested in Evander Kane... Again

[HomeBrew]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

It doesn't, but it also doesn't mean he didn't do it either.

 

It's all grey in the end. That's life.

Well my basic thoughts on potentially bringing him in is that if Trevor Linden is fine with bringing him in, then I'm fine with it as well. If he's not, then I guess he's not on the team. I personally am not going to fabricate my own stories about him and leave those judgements up to the people that know him better.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, HomeBrew said:

Well my basic thoughts on potentially bringing him in is that if Trevor Linden is fine with bringing him in, then I'm fine with it as well. If he's not, then I guess he's not on the team. I personally am not going to fabricate my own stories about him and leave those judgements up to the people that know him better.

Well, keep in mind too that things like the allegations are in the news, etc. It's not us on these forums making so called "fabrications" (unsure if that's what you're implying but I wanted to point that out anyway). There's going to be different opinions on this as a result.

 

Personally, I've expressed already that I'm not for Kane coming here. I just think there are far less risky moves we can make; however, I also realise people can change. Overall though, it seems to me that people want him here more because he's a BC boy and they see diamonds even if they may or may not exist (like the allegations lol).

[HomeBrew]

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Well, keep in mind too that things like the allegations are in the news, etc. It's not us on these forums making so called "fabrications" (unsure if that's what you're implying but I wanted to point that out anyway). There's going to be different opinions on this as a result.

 

Personally, I've expressed already that I'm not for Kane coming here. I just think there are far less risky moves we can make; however, I also realise people can change. Overall though, it seems to me that people want him here more because he's a BC boy and they see diamonds even if they may or may not exist (like the allegations lol).

There is obviously something to the reports, but beyond that it is us choosing to run with the story. There is definitely risk involved with Kane so I do hope we don't get roped into a long term contract that might come back to haunt us. People also seem to think, that given that he trains here during the summer and his family is here, that he will be more professional. I am sure GM JB will have those talks if he is seriously thinking of bringing him in. Most successful teams will have a douche or two on their team. 

 

How do do people feel about MDZ being on the team - reportedly someone who harasses Porn stars?

[SilentSam]

17 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

Think he mysteriously develops a skin alergy to molded plastics?

Hahaha... actually, I think the clown needs a haircut.

maybe that bush could have passed in the 70’s.

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, HomeBrew said:

There is obviously something to the reports, but beyond that it is us choosing to run with the story. There is definitely risk involved with Kane so I do hope we don't get roped into a long term contract that might come back to haunt us. People also seem to think, that given that he trains here during the summer and his family is here, that he will be more professional. I am sure GM JB will have those talks if he is seriously thinking of bringing him in. Most success teams will have a douche or two on their team. 

 

How do do people feel about MDZ being on the team - reportedly someone who harasses Porn stars?

I don't know a whole lot about that incident; however, looking at it, it seems to have settled a couple of years ago.

 

The thing is though, I really think it comes down to how he is in the locker room in the end. We can focus on outside of hockey, and a lot of people have already made good points about other players like Patrick Kane, etc. None of those players though have really had locker room issues (at least not ones that have surfaced into the media).

 

People still look up to those players despite all of the allegations. However, it's pretty evident that in Winnipeg, Evander Kane couldn't really say the same thing. I don't know how he's been in Buffalo, but Winnipeg showed an entirely different side of Kane that makes him stand out like a sore swollen thumb compared with other players who have had similar allegations.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Overall though, it seems to me that people want him here more because he's a BC boy and they see diamonds even if they may or may not exist (like the allegations lol).

I don't think it's really got much to do with him being a BC boy. That may give us a slight leg up on signing him and maybe at a couple hundred k discount but i think the main reason people want him here is because he represents a skill set sorely lacking from our roster and prospect pool and is young enough to be a part of the emerging, next core.

 

A legit top 6 LW'er with speed, size, grit and can score goals. If management thinks they can bring that in at a reasonable price/term and that he's matured enough and we have a strong enough leadership group... All day, every day. 

[SilentSam]

As a young black man At 18-19yrs he goes to Atlanta for 2 seasons,. Atlanta being one of the biggest racist cities on the continent.

Then to Winnipeg, the biggest racist city in Canada,. Then to Buffalo.  No wonder the kid never grew up.

But if you read this article, from a few years back, you’ll see he is all about family, and trains with his father every off season, I do think if he were to move Home to Vancouver, we would get the best out of him.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/evander-kane-problem-child/

[shiznak]

13 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

You are right. It doesn't mean he is still a prick, but have fun progressing your made up narrative in order to hate on a person.

 

Also, you would sign a 34 year old Rick Nash instead of Evander Kane? Sure glad you aren't in charge.

Nash would be a stop gap; a veteran presence in the locker room, if the Sedins were to retire. I'd rather have our young guys look up to a guy like Nash, who has learnt from the best than someone who goes out and flaunt their wealth.

 

Nash would also probably come at a bargain price tag as well. Somewhere along the cap hit of 2-4 million on a short term deal. Not to shabby for a guy who consistently scores 20+ goals and isn't a defensive liability.

[CaptainLinden16]

19 hours ago, SilentSam said:

As a young black man At 18-19yrs he goes to Atlanta for 2 seasons,. Atlanta being one of the biggest racist cities on the continent.

Then to Winnipeg, the biggest racist city in Canada,. Then to Buffalo.  No wonder the kid never grew up.

But if you read this article, from a few years back, you’ll see he is all about family, and trains with his father every off season, I do think if he were to move Home to Vancouver, we would get the best out of him.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/evander-kane-problem-child/

Have you been to Atlanta in the last 15 years?  I mean I get what you are saying.  Its hard to be young with money and act right.  That's incredibly valid.  We all mature at different rates.  Some never do...Kane seems to be getting better.

 

Now back to Atlanta, Atlanta and Houston are the black capitols of the Universe.  You get rappers and athletes living in both, but you also see a very large black middle class and educated upper class in both. Just because they are in the south doesn't mean that they are racist.  That's a little narrow minded on your part, but I assume that you haven't been to either so I will give you a pass.

 

Kane is exactly what this team needs purely in hockey terms.  Green plays an up-tempo high pressure fore checking game.  That's Kane's skill set to a tee.  Volume shooter, hitter, defensively solid, can play 20 minutes a night as a forward no problem.  He is essentially what we hope Jake to be.  Jake also has some swagger hanging out with the Beibs.  Lucic isn't a gentleman, neither is Tkachuk or Perry or Backes or Brown or Kesler or Kreider or Maroon or whomever.  If you play with an edge like the immortal Raffi Torres or Zack Kassian then you are going to have a questionable personality.  I want this kind of player on the team, so I can take the baggage.  I love all these internet types who are perfect human beings who are unsatisfied for the lack of push back from the Sedins and want a monster but with a humble and soft personality.  HAHAHAHAHA

[Me_]

I bet Kane ends up in Edmonton. I'd much rather have him on the Canucks.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Me_ said:

I bet Kane ends up in Edmonton. If much rather have him on the Canucks.

Maybe at the TDL as a rental (if they can actually get themselves playing in to a playoff spot). They can't  afford to add him long term.

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Me_ said:

I bet Kane ends up in Edmonton. If much rather have him on the Canucks.

They already have Lucic though.  

[Watermelon]

How are people saying no to this guy smh. We are a semi-competitive team now and could use him with the cliff fall that is the Sedins production

[tyhee]

3 hours ago, Watermelon said:

How are people saying no to this guy smh. We are a semi-competitive team now and could use him with the cliff fall that is the Sedins production

There are argument for and against.  The arguments in favour are pretty obvious-he's a good, tough hockey player.  The Canucks have some good players and they have some tough players, but it's hard to say they really have any that are really both.  He would help provide grit while providing major help with his play.

 

 I'll try to summarize some of the arguments against.  The reason I'm dwelling on those is that the poster obviously sees the arguments in favour of Kane and is asking what the arguments against would be-so I'm simply going to respond to that.  One could of course expand on arguments in favour of signing Kane-but the poster obviously sees those and is asking how people are saying no to a Kane signing.

 

1.  The first one that gets raised is his character.  There are a couple of elements to that.

 

A.  One consists of some allegations of criminal behaviour.  That includes allegations of violent behaviour and behaviour towards women that would have to be described as being at the very least inappropriate.

 

As some have pointed out, that type of behaviour doesn't necessarily hurt a team.  Being an unscrupulous tough guy can be precisely the sort of thing that creates some space on the ice for a player and his linemates.

 

There are downsides to this.  One is the corporate, or business image.  That will be of different values to different people. 

 

Another is the risk that someone will come up and the player will be drummed out of the league or miss substantial time because of legal difficulties.  (Otoh, usually when that is the case, the team gets to stop paying him and he longer counts against the cap: see for example Voyanov.)

 

A third is the potential for conflict or lack of chemistry in the dressing room if the players' values are inconsistent with those of teammates. 

 

My own view on this is that this element makes a pretty small, almost negligible discount on Kane's value.  Usually the team can stop paying the player if he can no longer play because of legal difficulties, most of the time teammates can live with the player's outside activities without the locker room being poisoned and in sports winning usually trumps the character of players as far as the importance of the team image.

 

B.  Another consists of conflicts with teammates and management.  The reports of him being late for or skipping team meetings, at least one fight with a teammate and that his teammates were so upset that they threw his gear in the shower were concerning. 

 

Are those items still a concern?  Obviously one doesn't forget them, but I don't know whether it has been an issue since he was traded to the Sabres.    I expect there is enough talk around the NHL that insiders should be able to get some decent reports (credible or otherwise) on how he's been with the Sabres.  As an outside I'm not privy to those sorts of reports. 

 

If there aren't any recent reports of team type troubles, then there is the argument whether and to what extent there is a risk of recurrence and whether and to what extent such risk would discount his value.  I'd expect a lot of disagreement on this one, all the way from there should be no discount to his value being low.

 

2.  A second argument concerns team makeup, especially in view of the Eriksson contract, being whether spending dollars and term on a winger is the best use of available resources.  Is it possible that the Canucks with their current makeup should look more at a center or a defenceman instead of a winger?  I'm not seeking to answer that question, merely pointing out the issue.  It could depend, for instance, on whether Elias Pettersson becomes a 1st or 2nd line center for the Canucks, or doesn't fill out his frame, or plays wing.

 

3.  A third, in my view more interesting issue, is whether the Canucks should at this stage of their rebuild be looking at high priced, long term free agents or whether it is better to look at second tier fillins, or looking for reasonably cheap potential diamonds in the rough-or what combination of those possibilities-in free agency.

 

That depends on one's view of where the Canucks are in their rebuild, how long Kane will likely be effective and what the Canucks' cap situation is for the upcoming years.

 

(a) Where are the Canucks in their rebuild?

 

I've seen estimates as low as 2-3 years for when the Canucks might become contenders for more than a low end playoff spot-and estimates as high as ten years.

 

I consider the low end of that wildly optimistic, requiring some combination of excellent management and incredible luck, and the high end ridiculously pessimistic, requiring an extended term of bad management in the future.  That's not to say the Canucks will be contenders in ten years, just that they should be if they get good management.  If they don't, of course, they won't be contenders.  Some are more optimistic, but I consider that figuring on a lineup including most of Virtanen, Boeser, Pettersson, Dahlen, Juolevi, Lind, Gadjovich, Tryamkin, Palmu, MacEwan, Chatfield, McEneny, Labate and Tryamkin to be luck well beyond incredible.

 

Related to this is the poster's point about losing the Sedins' production next season.  To those spending on season tickets and many other fans that is important.  For others anxious for a high-level team in future it takes a secondary role to preparing for future competitiveness-when the team is ready to really contend at a high level.

 

(b) How long would Kane be effective?

 

This is an issue with all long-term signings.  Every long term signing carries a risk that the player will, whether due to the normal wear and tear of playing a physical game, age, injury  which doesn't sideline the player long-term but does hinder his effectiveness, illness, taking less than excellent care of himself or otherwise, be less effective towards the end of the contract than at the beginning.  That is true regardless of age, though obviously the expectation of falloff gets much worse the older a player is.

 

Of course, some players remain effective longer than others, but in general a forward's high point is in his mid-twenties and there is a general trend downwards after that.  Some peak a little later, some a little earlier-the mid-twenties is a generalization.  After that the risk of a drop in effectiveness increases and after 30 it increases rapidly. 

 

Evander Kane will be 27 years of age next season, just at the end of his mid-twenties.  Of course, he could be like Jagr and be effective for years.  His production could also decrease rapidly.  We simply don't know-but in determining his value one has to take that risk into account.  To do otherwise is to assume one will always be lucky.  The mere possibility of decrease due to age or otherwise creates a risk that lowers a player's present value.

 

(c) What will be the Canucks' cap position in the future?

 

Who knows?  There is a fair bit coming off the books in 2018, there are young players who will earn raises.  The Canucks typically operate close to the salary cap.

 

We know they may well face substantial recapture on Luongo's contract starting some time in the next three years, to last through the 2021-22.  If Luongo retires in:

 

2018-recapture is $2.13 million per season for four seasons

2019-recapture is $2.84 million per season for three seasons

2020-recapture is $4.26 million per season for two seasons

2021-recapture is $8.52 million-a crippling amount-for one season.

 

Yes, someone might win the lottery and thus be able to finance one's retirement.  Yes, it is possible Luongo will play out his contract, go in LTIR or the Canucks may find some way to avoid the recapture, but imo failing to plan on how to deal with the recapture would be akin planning to finance retirement by winning the lottery.

 

And here's the thing-the recapture would end in 2022-right about the most likely time the Canucks could become competitive with good management and reasonable fortune.

 

We know the Canucks have Ericksson's contract through 2022, a contract that will be difficult to unload even if Eriksson's play improves from what it has been with the Canucks.  We know that the Canucks will be paying Brandon Sutter $4.375 million through 2021-so every year of the potential Luongo recapture except the last one. 

 

I don't have a crystal ball.  I'm not saying the Canucks will necessarily be in cap hell.  But they historically spend to the cap-and have what could be a boat anchor in Eriksson's contract (unless he improves markedly and plays at a high level through age 36.)  Opinions will differ on Sutter's contract and on others.  The danger in getting into cap hell as the team is just getting into a position that it might contend is that the cap hell could require a team to miss out on available acqusitions, or more likely and perhaps more problemative, make it necessary to jettison a useful younger player or two (or more) to get under the cap. 

 

Does it make sense to take a risk, if there is one, of having to get rid of a good young player  coming off his elc in three years (or 4, or 5) because the Canucks have a couple of long term, relatively high value contracts that may have been decent value when made but where the player may have ceased to hold his value for the entire term of the contract?

 

Questions the doubters may ask include:

 

(a)  can the Canucks afford to gamble on another long-term, high AAV contract to a winger?

(b)  if the answer to (a) is yes, will Kane's period of value on his contract include a period when the Canucks are likely to be contenders, or is it likely that he will be dropping in value by then to the extent that when they become contenders the money can be better used on someone else?

(c) does it make sense to fill out the roster with high value, long term contracts now or to wait on that until the team can be a contender and then fill the needs the team may have at that time, which might not be the same ones they have now?

 

I am not pretending to answer those questions.  Many will believe Kane worth the risk.  Some will think he isn't.  Still others will think it makes sense to struggle through the rebuild signing lower-tier, shorter term free agents until the cap situation and team need in contending years become clearer.

 

I'm not asking anybody to change their opinion.  This post is simply in response to the poster asking why anybody wouldn't want to take Kane, in hopes that setting out some of the potential reasons against it would help show what the alternative point of view is.  Of course, others will have additional reasons both in favour of and against signing Kane.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[SilentSam]

10 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Have you been to Atlanta in the last 15 years?  I mean I get what you are saying.  Its hard to be young with money and act right.  That's incredibly valid.  We all mature at different rates.  Some never do...Kane seems to be getting better.

 

Now back to Atlanta, Atlanta and Houston are the black capitols of the Universe.  You get rappers and athletes living in both, but you also see a very large black middle class and educated upper class in both. Just because they are in the south doesn't mean that they are racist.  That's a little narrow minded on your part, but I assume that you haven't been to either so I will give you a pass.

 

Kane is exactly what this team needs purely in hockey terms.  Green plays an up-tempo high pressure fore checking game.  That's Kane's skill set to a tee.  Volume shooter, hitter, defensively solid, can play 20 minutes a night as a forward no problem.  He is essentially what we hope Jake to be.  Jake also has some swagger hanging out with the Beibs.  Lucic isn't a gentleman, neither is Tkachuk or Perry or Backes or Brown or Kesler or Kreider or Maroon or whomever.  If you play with an edge like the immortal Raffi Torres or Zack Kassian then you are going to have a questionable personality.  I want this kind of player on the team, so I can take the baggage.  I love all these internet types who are perfect human beings who are unsatisfied for the lack of push back from the Sedins and want a monster but with a humble and soft personality.  HAHAHAHAHA

I believe we are on the same page with Kane as a hockey player..

my meaning behind racism in the 3 cities I mentioned implies more of the racial predjudice towards black Americans..  they are rough cities regardless,. And not somewhere best for a young E Kane to have started his professional career at 18 years..

especialy after leaving the nest from a city like Vancouver, which I’m sure you will agree is a little more multi cultural.

 

[PhillipBlunt]

13 hours ago, tyhee said:

There are argument for and against.  The arguments in favour are pretty obvious-he's a good, tough hockey player.  The Canucks have some good players and they have some tough players, but it's hard to say they really have any that are really both.  He would help provide grit while providing major help with his play.

 

 I'll try to summarize some of the arguments against.  The reason I'm dwelling on those is that the poster obviously sees the arguments in favour of Kane and is asking what the arguments against would be-so I'm simply going to respond to that.  One could of course expand on arguments in favour of signing Kane-but the poster obviously sees those and is asking how people are saying no to a Kane signing.

 

1.  The first one that gets raised is his character.  There are a couple of elements to that.

 

A.  One consists of some allegations of criminal behaviour.  That includes allegations of violent behaviour and behaviour towards women that would have to be described as being at the very least inappropriate.

 

As some have pointed out, that type of behaviour doesn't necessarily hurt a team.  Being an unscrupulous tough guy can be precisely the sort of thing that creates some space on the ice for a player and his linemates.

 

There are downsides to this.  One is the corporate, or business image.  That will be of different values to different people. 

 

Another is the risk that someone will come up and the player will be drummed out of the league or miss substantial time because of legal difficulties.  (Otoh, usually when that is the case, the team gets to stop paying him and he longer counts against the cap: see for example Voyanov.)

 

A third is the potential for conflict or lack of chemistry in the dressing room if the players' values are inconsistent with those of teammates. 

 

My own view on this is that this element makes a pretty small, almost negligible discount on Kane's value.  Usually the team can stop paying the player if he can no longer play because of legal difficulties, most of the time teammates can live with the player's outside activities without the locker room being poisoned and in sports winning usually trumps the character of players as far as the importance of the team image.

 

B.  Another consists of conflicts with teammates and management.  The reports of him being late for or skipping team meetings, at least one fight with a teammate and that his teammates were so upset that they threw his gear in the shower were concerning. 

 

Are those items still a concern?  Obviously one doesn't forget them, but I don't know whether it has been an issue since he was traded to the Sabres.    I expect there is enough talk around the NHL that insiders should be able to get some decent reports (credible or otherwise) on how he's been with the Sabres.  As an outside I'm not privy to those sorts of reports. 

 

If there aren't any recent reports of team type troubles, then there is the argument whether and to what extent there is a risk of recurrence and whether and to what extent such risk would discount his value.  I'd expect a lot of disagreement on this one, all the way from there should be no discount to his value being low.

 

2.  A second argument concerns team makeup, especially in view of the Eriksson contract, being whether spending dollars and term on a winger is the best use of available resources.  Is it possible that the Canucks with their current makeup should look more at a center or a defenceman instead of a winger?  I'm not seeking to answer that question, merely pointing out the issue.  It could depend, for instance, on whether Elias Pettersson becomes a 1st or 2nd line center for the Canucks, or doesn't fill out his frame, or plays wing.

 

3.  A third, in my view more interesting issue, is whether the Canucks should at this stage of their rebuild be looking at high priced, long term free agents or whether it is better to look at second tier fillins, or looking for reasonably cheap potential diamonds in the rough-or what combination of those possibilities-in free agency.

 

That depends on one's view of where the Canucks are in their rebuild, how long Kane will likely be effective and what the Canucks' cap situation is for the upcoming years.

 

(a) Where are the Canucks in their rebuild?

 

I've seen estimates as low as 2-3 years for when the Canucks might become contenders for more than a low end playoff spot-and estimates as high as ten years.

 

I consider the low end of that wildly optimistic, requiring some combination of excellent management and incredible luck, and the high end ridiculously pessimistic, requiring an extended term of bad management in the future.  That's not to say the Canucks will be contenders in ten years, just that they should be if they get good management.  If they don't, of course, they won't be contenders.  Some are more optimistic, but I consider that figuring on a lineup including most of Virtanen, Boeser, Pettersson, Dahlen, Juolevi, Lind, Gadjovich, Tryamkin, Palmu, MacEwan, Chatfield, McEneny, Labate and Tryamkin to be luck well beyond incredible.

 

Related to this is the poster's point about losing the Sedins' production next season.  To those spending on season tickets and many other fans that is important.  For others anxious for a high-level team in future it takes a secondary role to preparing for future competitiveness-when the team is ready to really contend at a high level.

 

(b) How long would Kane be effective?

 

This is an issue with all long-term signings.  Every long term signing carries a risk that the player will, whether due to the normal wear and tear of playing a physical game, age, injury  which doesn't sideline the player long-term but does hinder his effectiveness, illness, taking less than excellent care of himself or otherwise, be less effective towards the end of the contract than at the beginning.  That is true regardless of age, though obviously the expectation of falloff gets much worse the older a player is.

 

Of course, some players remain effective longer than others, but in general a forward's high point is in his mid-twenties and there is a general trend downwards after that.  Some peak a little later, some a little earlier-the mid-twenties is a generalization.  After that the risk of a drop in effectiveness increases and after 30 it increases rapidly. 

 

Evander Kane will be 27 years of age next season, just at the end of his mid-twenties.  Of course, he could be like Jagr and be effective for years.  His production could also decrease rapidly.  We simply don't know-but in determining his value one has to take that risk into account.  To do otherwise is to assume one will always be lucky.  The mere possibility of decrease due to age or otherwise creates a risk that lowers a player's present value.

 

(c) What will be the Canucks' cap position in the future?

 

Who knows?  There is a fair bit coming off the books in 2018, there are young players who will earn raises.  The Canucks typically operate close to the salary cap.

 

We know they may well face substantial recapture on Luongo's contract starting some time in the next three years, to last through the 2021-22.  If Luongo retires in:

 

2018-recapture is $2.13 million per season for four seasons

2019-recapture is $2.84 million per season for three seasons

2020-recapture is $4.26 million per season for two seasons

2021-recapture is $8.52 million-a crippling amount-for one season.

 

Yes, someone might win the lottery and thus be able to finance one's retirement.  Yes, it is possible Luongo will play out his contract, go in LTIR or the Canucks may find some way to avoid the recapture, but imo failing to plan on how to deal with the recapture would be akin planning to finance retirement by winning the lottery.

 

And here's the thing-the recapture would end in 2022-right about the most likely time the Canucks could become competitive with good management and reasonable fortune.

 

We know the Canucks have Ericksson's contract through 2022, a contract that will be difficult to unload even if Eriksson's play improves from what it has been with the Canucks.  We know that the Canucks will be paying Brandon Sutter $4.375 million through 2021-so every year of the potential Luongo recapture except the last one. 

 

I don't have a crystal ball.  I'm not saying the Canucks will necessarily be in cap hell.  But they historically spend to the cap-and have what could be a boat anchor in Eriksson's contract (unless he improves markedly and plays at a high level through age 36.)  Opinions will differ on Sutter's contract and on others.  The danger in getting into cap hell as the team is just getting into a position that it might contend is that the cap hell could require a team to miss out on available acqusitions, or more likely and perhaps more problemative, make it necessary to jettison a useful younger player or two (or more) to get under the cap. 

 

Does it make sense to take a risk, if there is one, of having to get rid of a good young player  coming off his elc in three years (or 4, or 5) because the Canucks have a couple of long term, relatively high value contracts that may have been decent value when made but where the player may have ceased to hold his value for the entire term of the contract?

 

Questions the doubters may ask include:

 

(a)  can the Canucks afford to gamble on another long-term, high AAV contract to a winger?

(b)  if the answer to (a) is yes, will Kane's period of value on his contract include a period when the Canucks are likely to be contenders, or is it likely that he will be dropping in value by then to the extent that when they become contenders the money can be better used on someone else?

(c) does it make sense to fill out the roster with high value, long term contracts now or to wait on that until the team can be a contender and then fill the needs the team may have at that time, which might not be the same ones they have now?

 

I am not pretending to answer those questions.  Many will believe Kane worth the risk.  Some will think he isn't.  Still others will think it makes sense to struggle through the rebuild signing lower-tier, shorter term free agents until the cap situation and team need in contending years become clearer.

 

I'm not asking anybody to change their opinion.  This post is simply in response to the poster asking why anybody wouldn't want to take Kane, in hopes that setting out some of the potential reasons against it would help show what the alternative point of view is.  Of course, others will have additional reasons both in favour of and against signing Kane.

 

Cheers.

 

 

That's a summary?

[Odjick_fan]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's a summary?

lol

[VegasCanuck]

On 11/7/2017 at 10:11 AM, Nessnuck27 said:

 

 

Thoughts?

Sign him July 1st. There is no reason to make a trade for him, unless we are trying to go over the top for the cup this year, which, we're not!

 

We need at least another 2 - 3 years of building and maturing to be really ready to compete.

 

Not being negative, just realistic on where our prospects are in development. Things look bright on the horizon and if Kane sees that and can keep his personal life in check, I think he could be a fit here.

 

To trade for him, we'd have to give up prospects and that's not a good thing to do right now.

[sonoman]

Too much money/term and potential locker room issues. No thanks.  With the exception of LE, who seems to be rounding into form (hopefully), Benning seems to have an uncanny ability to identify underperforming players who with a change of scenery can fill roles on this team.  

[CanuckleHorse]

I’m not buying the locker room issues Bs Big Buff is a big douch also I’d rather have someone who learnt from their mistakes than someone who is pretending to be a goody two shoes.

ps: him doing charity work in Van in the off season puts us ahead of all other suitors I’d think.