Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Waivers] Evander Kane


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said:

Because I want to actually hear it from the players instead of a bunch of he said she said?      How dare I not care about the opinion of writers and fans.   Lol.  
Agents ALWAYS have an agenda, so who cares what they have to say?   

I understand. But at this point, Kane’s life is marred by controversy after controversy.

 

Tell me. How many controversies is Horvat involved in?

 

None.
 

We’ve chased Virtanen out of town because of sexual assault allegations. Do you think it wise to bring in Kane?

 

I think not. And Winnipeg, Buffalo and not San Jose all have regretted taking a flyer on him.

 

Edited by Me_
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said:

Because I want to actually hear it from the players instead of a bunch of he said she said?      How dare I not care about the opinion of writers and fans.   Lol.  
Agents ALWAYS have an agenda, so who cares what they have to say?   

The “agenda” is the cancer goes or his player does. How many more red flags do you guys need at this point? 

Edited by canuck73_3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally I wouldn't entertain Evander Kane being a Canuck, but the more I thought about it, it MIGHT be worth a shot if its league minimum or close to it at least, heres the reasons why.

 

1) Alex Chiasson sucks, so Kane would already be a massive upgrade

 

2) Like it or not, Jim Rutherford is in the evaluation stage for this franchise. If we don't make it to the playoffs, he probably gets a pass because of the management turnover, and whatever moves hes bound to make is going to be the mold of what this team is going to look going forward

 

3) The biggest reason probably is that he's playing in Vancouver his hometown, the team he grew up watching, and probably dreaming of putting their jersey on since he was a kid. Most of all, he's going to be playing in front of his FAMILY. This might reign in his antics a bit, theres a bit of a difference playing somewhere else, and you're family isn't there than playing right in front of them on a regular basis. I don't think he'd want them to be dissappointed with his antics, especially in front of them regularly

 

If they don't sign Kane, its cool, understandable why they won't, but just stating some reasons why they should. If he keeps his head on straight, thats a big IF, he'd be a very useful player down the stretch

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I don't quite understand how this way of looking at things proves much of anything. This is a complietely different scenario compared with Kane and you'd have just as much luck comparing a beer leaguer to a fire hydrant. lol

 

17 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Neither are good for the team, nice straw man though 

Im not changing the debate.

 

would you rather have a high salary player on your team who produced roughly a point per game , who could help to get you cup contention, who was a “bad boy” with NO criminal convictions on your team. (Kane)

 

..Or a high salary player (same contract) on your team, who produced nothing in a game, gave gutless efforts, was a ghost,.  But a really nice guy? (Player Name)

 

 

 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

Im not changing the debate.

 

would you rather have a high salary player on your team who produced roughly a point per game , who could help to get you cup contention, who was a “bad boy” with NO criminal convictions on your team. (Kane)

 

..Or a high salary player (same contract) on your team, who produced nothing in a game, gave gutless efforts, was a ghost,.  But a really nice guy? (Player Name)

 

 

 

Straw Man. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, filthycanuck said:

Normally I wouldn't entertain Evander Kane being a Canuck, but the more I thought about it, it MIGHT be worth a shot if its league minimum or close to it at least, heres the reasons why.

 

1) Alex Chiasson sucks, so Kane would already be a massive upgrade

 

2) Like it or not, Jim Rutherford is in the evaluation stage for this franchise. If we don't make it to the playoffs, he probably gets a pass because of the management turnover, and whatever moves hes bound to make is going to be the mold of what this team is going to look going forward

 

3) The biggest reason probably is that he's playing in Vancouver his hometown, the team he grew up watching, and probably dreaming of putting their jersey on since he was a kid. Most of all, he's going to be playing in front of his FAMILY. This might reign in his antics a bit, theres a bit of a difference playing somewhere else, and you're family isn't there than playing right in front of them on a regular basis. I don't think he'd want them to be dissappointed with his antics, especially in front of them regularly

 

If they don't sign Kane, its cool, understandable why they won't, but just stating some reasons why they should. If he keeps his head on straight, thats a big IF, he'd be a very useful player down the stretch

Bringing in a proven locker room cancer is not going to make player evaluation easier.  Kane's family has had thirty years to turn him into a man and has failed spectacularly.  He's already disgraced his family enough and willingly risked their health within the last month.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

Im not changing the debate.

 

would you rather have a high salary player on your team who produced roughly a point per game , who could help to get you cup contention, who was a “bad boy” with NO criminal convictions on your team. (Kane)

 

..Or a high salary player (same contract) on your team, who produced nothing in a game, gave gutless efforts, was a ghost,.  But a really nice guy? (Player Name)

 

 

 

He’s had issues with three organizations already you seriously believe none of that is his fault. You’re either gullible or stupid af to believe Kane plays no part in this. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

Im not changing the debate.

 

would you rather have a high salary player on your team who produced roughly a point per game , who could help to get you cup contention, who was a “bad boy” with NO criminal convictions on your team. (Kane)

 

..Or a high salary player (same contract) on your team, who produced nothing in a game, gave gutless efforts, was a ghost,.  But a really nice guy? (Player Name)

 

 

 

Name one team Kane had helped get into Cup contention.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, filthycanuck said:

Normally I wouldn't entertain Evander Kane being a Canuck, but the more I thought about it, it MIGHT be worth a shot if its league minimum or close to it at least, heres the reasons why.

 

1) Alex Chiasson sucks, so Kane would already be a massive upgrade

 

2) Like it or not, Jim Rutherford is in the evaluation stage for this franchise. If we don't make it to the playoffs, he probably gets a pass because of the management turnover, and whatever moves hes bound to make is going to be the mold of what this team is going to look going forward

 

3) The biggest reason probably is that he's playing in Vancouver his hometown, the team he grew up watching, and probably dreaming of putting their jersey on since he was a kid. Most of all, he's going to be playing in front of his FAMILY. This might reign in his antics a bit, theres a bit of a difference playing somewhere else, and you're family isn't there than playing right in front of them on a regular basis. I don't think he'd want them to be dissappointed with his antics, especially in front of them regularly

 

If they don't sign Kane, its cool, understandable why they won't, but just stating some reasons why they should. If he keeps his head on straight, thats a big IF, he'd be a very useful player down the stretch

This is the middle ground , common sense, low risk reason behind all of my input here.

 

Kane is low risk with the remainder of the season,.  As he was last week if traded for..

 

this week he is possibly a UFA ,.  And could possibly be signed to a single year,. With first options to extend.

 

it’s worth exploring.

 

If this Team,  and I’m saying all Canuck players can’t find the way to play with this player, for the remainder of the season then it is a weak room.

 

The Barracudas embraced and have enjoyed Kane in their ranks.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SilentSam said:

This is the middle ground , common sense, low risk reason behind all of my input here.

 

Kane is low risk with the remainder of the season,.  As he was last week if traded for..

 

this week he is possibly a UFA ,.  And could possibly be signed to a single year,. With first options to extend.

 

it’s worth exploring.

 

If this Team,  and I’m saying all Canuck players can’t find the way to play with this player, for the remainder of the season then it is a weak room.

 

The Barracudas embraced and have enjoyed Kane in their ranks.

How'd they enjoy the covid outbreak?

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

Im not changing the debate.

 

would you rather have a high salary player on your team who produced roughly a point per game , who could help to get you cup contention, who was a “bad boy” with NO criminal convictions on your team. (Kane)

 

..Or a high salary player (same contract) on your team, who produced nothing in a game, gave gutless efforts, was a ghost,.  But a really nice guy? (Player Name)

 

 

 

But you are changing the debate. A strawman argument involves bringing something else up that's easier to debate, in this case Loui.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...