[proposal] Canucks and Sharks: Eriksson + 9thOA for Evander Kane?

[Bertuzzipunch]

Nah that 9OA has to be for a player 24 or younger.

[wallstreetamigo]

If they could get Kane for garbage sure. But not for anything of top value. Great player, locker room cancer. 

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If they could get Kane for garbage sure. But not for anything of top value. Great player, locker room cancer. 

Yup, and salary has to be going back.  I’d be fine with Loui and Jake for Evander.  No mas.  

[Patel Bure]

2 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Nah that 9OA has to be for a player 24 or younger.

I agree with this, BUT....

 

1) Would there be an added benefit into getting Eriksson off the books immediately?

2) Assuming that the Canucks believe that they have a legit shot of making some noise in 22-23 and beyond, how much would the presence of Evander Kane add to that?

3) With Kane’s contract here, would it lead to future cap complications, given that we’d need to extend Hoglander, Podkolzin, Horvat, and Boeser in the coming year?  (I’m going to assume that neither Miller nor Myers would be re-signed).

 

I also don’t like the idea of moving the 9th (as I stated in the Sam Reinhart thread), but moving Eriksson and getting a strong asset in return would be a huge advantage.   In this hypothetical scenario, if Benning and management had distinctive plans in place that would address my above three questions, then I think it would be worth considering.   Does Evander Kane have issues?  Yes.  However - that’s the only reason why a guy like this could be had.......and the fact that he’d be playing in hometown Vancouver AND on and upward trending team could possibly (and likely) negate any inclinations on Kane’s part to act like a douche.  
 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Kane

Pearson-####-Podkolzin    
 

has the makings for one hell of a top 9.

 

Don’t know if this would work from a cap standpoint, but......

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-E.Kane

Pearson-Granlund-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Schmidt 

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

Canucks don’t sign Edler, Sutter, Hamonic + buyout Virtanen + find a way to move Beagle and Roussel with sweeteners.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Patel Bure

[86Viking]

easy pass for me, want nothing to do with Kane and his 7m salary at his age etc, especially not for the 9th overall, regardless if LE is involved

[Chris12345]

No.

[timberz21]

15 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

Disclaimer - I’ve changed Virtanen to 9OA.
 

[proposal] Canucks and Sharks:  Eriksson + 9thOA for Evander Kane?

 

Why the Sharks do it:

 

-Get rid of a player that is rumored to be causing problems in the dressing room. 
-Get rid of a long term liability and will have dead salary off their books in one year.

 

 

 

Shouldn't these be reasons why the Canucks don't do it???

 

Seriously, we've endured Eriksson for so long, let's not add another big contract in return and lose the 9th overall.  While he may have had a career year, probability is that he won't be able to repeat that and should be in line for a regression (big or small that's TBD).

 

Honestly, trading Eriksson and 9th overall is ok, but they should be 2 separate trades.  With one year left on Eriksson, there's not reason to dangle a 1st rounder to get rid of him, especially since he has some financial benefits with a lower salary than cap.  Let's not diminish the Return on our 9th overall for Eriksson, whether it's via trade or a good player that can join the team in 2-3 years (when "theoretically" our window should be open) 

Edited June 28, 2021 by timberz21

[rawkdrummer]

NO!

[Patel Bure]

31 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Shouldn't these be reasons why the Canucks don't do it???

 

Seriously, we've endured Eriksson for so long, let's not add another big contract in return and lose the 9th overall.  While he may have had a career year, probability is that he won't be able to repeat that and should be in line for a regression (big or small that's TBD).

 

Honestly, trading Eriksson and 9th overall is ok, but they should be 2 separate trades.  With one year left on Eriksson, there's not reason to dangle a 1st rounder to get rid of him, especially since he has some financial benefits with a lower salary than cap.  Let's not diminish the Return on our 9th overall for Eriksson, whether it's via trade or a good player that can join the team in 2-3 years (when "theoretically" our window should be open) 

Fair enough, but....

 

1) Evander Kane has had a long and consistent history of being a 20+ goal scorer and so I don’t think we can label his past season as “a one off” and hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down and/or being dependent on a center like Eriksson was prior to coming here.

 

2) Attitude issues aside, E. Kane would bring a much needed physical presence along with top 6 scoring.  Horvat would finally get a playmate. 
 

Now - would I make this deal?  I’m leaning towards ‘no’ because I’m entirely confident that this wouldn’t cause future cap problems.  
 

Assuming that this E. Kane deal went through, this would be the two year vision that I’d have of this team:

 

2021-2022:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-E.Kane

Pearson-Granlund-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Schmidt 

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

2022-2023:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-E.Kane

Pearson-Granlund-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-MacEwen

 

H. Lindholm-Schmidt 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Myers

 

Demko

Dipietro

Again - I doubt that this would work from an efficient long term cap perspective however (which is why I like my original idea of drafting 9OA and having someone like Dylan Guenther in that RW spot instead of Evander Kane).

 

[Mustard Tiger]

This man has big financial problems. Easy distraction from where it needs to be at ( Hockey 100% ). Sharks problem now. Good hockey skill with a virtanen brain

[philtbc829]

[Freeridebc]

The heats gotten  to you.

[JM_]

5 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If they could get Kane for garbage sure. But not for anything of top value. Great player, locker room cancer. 

isn't that a negative value situation? 

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

isn't that a negative value situation? 

Ya because he is negative value due to his off ice stuff. On icehe is exactly what the Canucks need though.

[sonoman]

Fin says “No, you’re outta here”

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I agree with this, BUT....

 

1) Would there be an added benefit into getting Eriksson off the books immediately?

2) Assuming that the Canucks believe that they have a legit shot of making some noise in 22-23 and beyond, how much would the presence of Evander Kane add to that?

3) With Kane’s contract here, would it lead to future cap complications, given that we’d need to extend Hoglander, Podkolzin, Horvat, and Boeser in the coming year?  (I’m going to assume that neither Miller nor Myers would be re-signed).

 

I also don’t like the idea of moving the 9th (as I stated in the Sam Reinhart thread), but moving Eriksson and getting a strong asset in return would be a huge advantage.   In this hypothetical scenario, if Benning and management had distinctive plans in place that would address my above three questions, then I think it would be worth considering.   Does Evander Kane have issues?  Yes.  However - that’s the only reason why a guy like this could be had.......and the fact that he’d be playing in hometown Vancouver AND on and upward trending team could possibly (and likely) negate any inclinations on Kane’s part to act like a douche.  
 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Kane

Pearson-####-Podkolzin    
 

has the makings for one hell of a top 9.

 

Don’t know if this would work from a cap standpoint, but......

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-E.Kane

Pearson-Granlund-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Schmidt 

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

Canucks don’t sign Edler, Sutter, Hamonic + buyout Virtanen + find a way to move Beagle and Roussel with sweeteners.

Why in the heck, wouldn't we use the 9th for Reinhardt instead?    He's a C/W, plays just as big and is five years younger.    We'd have him for the majority of his prime, and his age fits in with BB/Horvats....Between the two i know which one i would want.   Kane is a good player for sure though too...just if there was a choice, Reinhardt is a better fit for the team. 

[Patel Bure]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Why in the heck, wouldn't we use the 9th for Reinhardt instead?    He's a C/W, plays just as big and is five years younger.    We'd have him for the majority of his prime, and his age fits in with BB/Horvats....Between the two i know which one i would want.   Kane is a good player for sure though too...just if there was a choice, Reinhardt is a better fit for the team. 

A 9th for Reinhart would be great but I don’t think it would work from a cap perspective (taking on 5.2 million straight up) give our cap situation right now.  Reinhart has far more value than Kane (for the reasons you mentioned), but acquiring him wouldn’t be easy.
 

I also don’t think a 9th by itself gets you Reinhart.  
 

Like you said - Reinhart is 5 years younger and still has lots of prime years left.   Sabres should be able to get a pretty good package for Reinhart and likely wouldn’t have to accept a bad contract in return.

 

The only reason why moving Eriksson (and a 1st) for E.Kane might work Is because of Kane’s age, contract, and off ice issues.   
 

One thing about Kane - He would also make us bigger and tougher....which is one advantage that he has over Reinhart.
 

 

[Patel Bure]

14 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Ya because he is negative value due to his off ice stuff. On icehe is exactly what the Canucks need though.

You nailed it.....and it’s exactly why the idea of moving Loui Eriksson and 9thOA for Kane even becomes a legit idea.

 

Taking on Evander would come with risks, there’s no beating around the bush.  However - three factors to consider:

 

1) Canucks will start trending upwards in 22-23

2) Vancouver is Kane’s hometown

3) Kane likely knows that this is his last chance to buck up.

 

Taking these factors into consideration, I think it would be far less likely that Kane would be an off ice distraction or a lockerroom cancer.

[Patel Bure]

17 hours ago, Mustard Tiger said:

This man has big financial problems. Easy distraction from where it needs to be at ( Hockey 100% ). Sharks problem now. Good hockey skill with a virtanen brain

Despite his financial problems and Virtanen-like brain, it hasn’t affected his on ice performance.  This guy consistently produces 20+ goals a season like clockwork.  He was on pace to being 30+ this season.

[Bertuzzipunch]

42 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

A 9th for Reinhart would be great but I don’t think it would work from a cap perspective (taking on 5.2 million straight up) give our cap situation right now.  Reinhart has far more value than Kane (for the reasons you mentioned), but acquiring him wouldn’t be easy.
 

I also don’t think a 9th by itself gets you Reinhart.  
 

Like you said - Reinhart is 5 years younger and still has lots of prime years left.   Sabres should be able to get a pretty good package for Reinhart and likely wouldn’t have to accept a bad contract in return.

 

The only reason why moving Eriksson (and a 1st) for E.Kane might work Is because of Kane’s age, contract, and off ice issues.   
 

One thing about Kane - He would also make us bigger and tougher....which is one advantage that he has over Reinhart.
 

 

Well if buffalo is sincere on wanting another top 10 pick in this draft then they have no choice but to take erikkson with our 9OA. You play hardball with them and say no untill they agree to take on loui contract for the final year otherwise screw em we make our pick.