Kane ain't worth that much.

Colorado decline

What would need to be changed to make it a fair deal?

your money could be better spent elsewhere. give it to dadonov of hoffman and keep all your assets.

@Richard88
Remember your post on Apr 26th

I think we can very much add a $7m player to the roster and still sign all our key guys, but I don't think Kane is the guy to go after. Players like Kane tend to fall off hard in their 30's, and he's already 29 next season, signed for another 5 years after this one. His NTC will also make it very difficult (if not downright impossible) to trade him if needed.

If we're putting a package of good futures together then we're much better off going for someone a bit younger than Kane.

That's a lot of assets to give up for Evander Kane, he is still a useful player but he is 28 turning 29 and PWF don't age well. Sakic is not including a 1st round pick that's for starters. Sakic can just sign Hall or Hoffman without giving up assets.

way too much for E Kane....he is a good target but That is a massive overpayment that hurts both roster depth and futures

Imo COL shouldn't target the guy. He's passed the 50 point mark only twice during his career, yet his salary is that of a player who should be a constant 60 point player. This added to the fact he has a 3-team trade list and his off ice actions are sometimes questionable...too risky if you ask me.

Niiiiiiice record keeping lol

I still stand by every word of that quote. I just saw a Kane to Colorado proposal on another forum and thought it would be interesting to play with the idea in an AGM.

Kane's NTC alone probably makes it unfeasible as it would handcuff us in 2023, and he's unlikely to want to waive it completely and end up somewhere he doesn't like if he can avoid it.

I agree with you guys. Thanks for the feedback!

Is a contractual change in a trade negotiation even possible? It would basically be agreeing the trade but then having a sit down with the player and being like:

"ok, we're acquiring you but you need to change your contract so that in a couple years it's easier for us to sell you off"

What player would agree to that?

Yeah you're probably right. I wouldn't acquire him without that change though. Too much risk that he refuses to be traded in 2023 and forces us to trade Byram or another important young player.

2M retention on Kane. But I doubt the Sharks do it.

Good idea. But yeah, unlikely that they do it.

Why?
I think a 30 goal scoring power forward in his prime is worth more! I would hate to lose Kane we love him here in SJ.
We think it’s not enough to let him go you guys think it’s way too much I see this as dead on arrival and agree you guys should target Hoffman! We would but stupid heartless wonder Karlsson would throw a hissy fit!

With 5 year term we'd probably be better off just targeting an UFA and not paying assets. It would be different if Kane only had 3 years left though.

Yea cause who wants to have a forward locked up through all his productive years and have the contract expire at 34 right when his production should start to drop. This is one is the few contracts Wilson has done that I like and yes he won’t put up 70-80 points but he will put up 25-35 goals each season for the next 3-5 years

If you want a forward who's contract expires at age 34 you can sign Taylor Hall, Toffoli, or Granlund for 7 years; Hoffman for 5 years; or Dadonov for 4 years.

As for continuing to put up 25-35 goals until he's 34, power forwards have a history of falling off a cliff after age 30, so it's far from a guarantee that Kane stays productive that long.