Kane for 1st overall would do it in a heartbeat Kane is good Nail is a heck of a young player, will be on a ELC for 3 years will almost certainly put up 30-40 goals. Easy yes but highly doubt CBJ offers that deal.
I like Nail, but he is small and has already suffered a concusion cutting across the ice with his head down. He does have elite talent but I question how he'll fare physically initially at the NHL level. There is a lot of Taylor Hall in his game, and look at his injury troubles so far and Yakupov is smaller than Hall. I would keep Kane, he adds size goal scoring and physicality to our top 6. I have no doubt Nail will be a great player down the line, but Kane is further a long inhospitable development. I also agree that this move puts us back two years.
I don't see that at all. He got hit once, but that happens. I see more Patrick Kane (with even more talent/offense) than Taylor Hall. Hall is a stupid player that relys on reckless plays and skill. Yakupov is a very very smart player, that sees the ice extremely well. Not concerned about that.
Show me a team built around a one dimensional goal scorer that does not make his linemates better and I will show you a team that underachieves. Kane is not the guy to build around. He is a great player to have and I am not shopping him or wanting to trade him, but if we CAN get a franchise player to build around like Yakupov, you do it, IMO.
I don't see it going back two years, IMO Yakupov/Kane either way we can be a playoff team but not a Cup contender next year with the right moves. I don't think that one player will put us back two years. But I think we would be set up much better to become a serious cup contender in a couple years.
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Kane for 1st overall would do it in a heartbeat Kane is good Nail is a heck of a young player, will be on a ELC for 3 years will almost certainly put up 30-40 goals. Easy yes but highly doubt CBJ offers that deal.
As mentioned, it would only be if the suppositions that they want to move that pick are true.. they give up the chance for an elite player to get an already very good player who is a bit older and more proven.
I would trade Kane for Nail. from what I have seen of Nail he is a more complete talent offensively and I do think he will hit the ground running in the NHL and the drop off will be minimal. I Agree with Holden and also see his upside being 100 points in a season in his prime. I was blown away by him in the world juniors. for my money it's the difference between a 1st pick overall and a 4th pick overall Kane vs Tavares (as an example) in his draft year both gret talents but Taveras is at the next level up and has been since day 1.
Honestly I have more concern about Kane's long term health than Nail's.....this year Kane was concussed and missed time.....EK also took at least three spills (one into the end boards and another bad one into the net in particular) that could have easily been season ending. so far Kane has played 66, 73, and 73 games in his first three years so he's not pitching shut outs himself and he does have a balls to the wall style that can lead to lost time. I think even his most ardent backers have to admit they hve had to hold their breath more than they would like when they see him in a heap on the ice.
I know it seems like a risk but Nail is consensus number 1 pick and from what I hear it's not close.....that is a special talent and from what I have seen I would definately take my chances with him.
I don't see that at all. He got hit once, but that happens. I see more Patrick Kane (with even more talent/offense) than Taylor Hall. Hall is a stupid player that relys on reckless plays and skill. Yakupov is a very very smart player, that sees the ice extremely well. Not concerned about that.
Show me a team built around a one dimensional goal scorer that does not make his linemates better and I will show you a team that underachieves. Kane is not the guy to build around. He is a great player to have and I am not shopping him or wanting to trade him, but if we CAN get a franchise player to build around like Yakupov, you do it, IMO.
I don't see it going back two years, IMO Yakupov/Kane either way we can be a playoff team but not a Cup contender next year with the right moves. I don't think that one player will put us back two years. But I think we would be set up much better to become a serious cup contender in a couple years.
I don't advocate building around Kane as the franchise player either, nor do I advocate building primarily around Nail or any other star winger they are the least important piece of a championship team. If Kane is traded it should be for a legit number one center or number 1 defenseman. Trading for a smaller more skilled winger won't do much for the team as the offense between the two will be quite negligible for the next number of years if Nail lives up to his billing.
As mentioned, it would only be if the suppositions that they want to move that pick are true.. they give up the chance for an elite player to get an already very good player who is a bit older and more proven.
It is a potential vs proven trade.
I know it sounds like a strange idea but I would not be shocked to see Columbus bite on this one. I have heard their organization is a bit concerned about the Russian factor and this could be a politically correct easy to sell way out. I could also see TNSE doing this deal if it was offered but no way if it was Nail for Kane and a 1st.....Maybe Kane and a 2nd in 2013.
The thing about Nail is I have zero fear about the Russian factor with him. This is his second full year living in North America and he is pretty acclimatized. I heard him interviewed And his English is already pretty solid so I see zero cultural shock issues with this kid. when I heard him interviewed this year I even liked him more....the kid has some swagger and personality to go with his big game.
Not debating who is more preferred but Evander Kane is not one dimensional imo. He is not strong in some areas and should/could improve as he further develops.
Kane is one of three players currently that have scored 30 goals and have at least 170 hits. The two players ahead of Kane are Scott Hartnell and Alexander Ovechkin.
He certainly has room to improve in some areas , but at 20 years old he has more than one positive dimension to his game .
Kane's at 56 points and has a PPG of .77 which equates to ~63 points.
Look, Kane has done something that only 11 other players have done since 2000and has done it with IMO significantly worse linemates than nearly every single one of them. I don't get why you'd be willing to give that up for a wildcard that might not even do that. I mean Kane is 59th in the whole NHL in PPG and has been playing with basically 2nd/3rd line tweeners. He is a top-2 forward on many, many, many teams in the league. I think people are selling Kane short in the present and definitely for the the future by capping his potential. If you watched Kane last year, you would know that he has already made huge strides. No reason to think that he done improving.
I'm getting really tired of people throwing that statistic around because it is clearly biased by Kane's late birthday.
If you look at players that scored 30 or more goals within the 3 NHL seasons following their draft year you get a much more representative statistic. Here is that list of players, along with some others that were close.
Player
Goals
Season
Stamkos
51
2
Ovechkin
46**
3
E Staal
45*
3
Nash
41*
2
Crosby
39
1
Kessel
36
3
Toews
34*
3
Malkin
33
3
Kopitar
32*
3
Little
31*
3
Bergeron
31*
3
Tavares
31
3
Skinner
31*
1
P Kane
30*
3
E Kane
30
3
J Staal
29*
1
Horton
28**
3
Stasny
28*
2
Zherdev
27*
3
Duchene
27*
2
Hall
27
2
Seguin
27
2
Two further observations:
1) A lot of the guys that scored 30 as 20 year olds actually scored 40. To this point, I have a lot of trouble putting Kane in the same sentence as guys like Nash and Stamkos.
2) For the players marked with a * that number of goals represents a career high. Players with ** reached their career high in their 4th season. Obviously some of these players still have the potential to put up better numbers in the future, but a surprisingly high percentage of precocious goal scorers reach their peak at a very young age.
Anyways, if you go down that list and look at the players that Kane is comparable to (in terms of style of play and the fact that he's a winger) I think that Holden's argument makes a lot of sense.
I don't see that at all. He got hit once, but that happens. I see more Patrick Kane (with even more talent/offense) than Taylor Hall. Hall is a stupid player that relys on reckless plays and skill. Yakupov is a very very smart player, that sees the ice extremely well. Not concerned about that.
Show me a team built around a one dimensional goal scorer that does not make his linemates better and I will show you a team that underachieves. Kane is not the guy to build around. He is a great player to have and I am not shopping him or wanting to trade him, but if we CAN get a franchise player to build around like Yakupov, you do it, IMO.
I don't see it going back two years, IMO Yakupov/Kane either way we can be a playoff team but not a Cup contender next year with the right moves. I don't think that one player will put us back two years. But I think we would be set up much better to become a serious cup contender in a couple years.
I don't advocate building around Kane as the franchise player either, nor do I advocate building primarily around Nail or any other star winger they are the least important piece of a championship team. If Kane is traded it should be for a legit number one center or number 1 defenseman. Trading for a smaller more skilled winger won't do much for the team as the offense between the two will be quite negligible for the next number of years if Nail lives up to his billing.
I'm getting really tired of people throwing that statistic around because it is clearly biased by Kane's late birthday.
If you look at players that scored 30 or more goals within the 3 NHL seasons following their draft year you get a much more representative statistic. Here is that list of players, along with some others that were close.
Player
Goals
Season
Stamkos
51
2
Ovechkin
46**
3
E Staal
45*
3
Nash
41*
2
Crosby
39
1
Kessel
36
3
Toews
34*
3
Malkin
33
3
Kopitar
32*
3
Little
31*
3
Bergeron
31*
3
Tavares
31
3
Skinner
31*
1
P Kane
30*
3
E Kane
30
3
J Staal
29*
1
Horton
28**
3
Stasny
28*
2
Zherdev
27*
3
Duchene
27*
2
Hall
27
2
Seguin
27
2
Two further observations:
1) A lot of the guys that scored 30 as 20 year olds actually scored 40. To this point, I have a lot of trouble putting Kane in the same sentence as guys like Nash and Stamkos.
2) For the players marked with a * that number of goals represents a career high. Players with ** reached their career high in their 4th season. Obviously some of these players still have the potential to put up better numbers in the future, but a surprisingly high percentage of precocious goal scorers reach their peak at a very young age.
Anyways, if you go down that list and look at the players that Kane is comparable to (in terms of style of play and the fact that he's a winger) I think that Holden's argument makes a lot of sense.
Okay, then. If you want to look at it this way, then he is only one of 15 players to do that. Big difference. Also the guys who almost scored 30 don't really matter to me when I'm looking to see who actually scored 30.
BTW: My point still stands that nearly all of these guys got 30 by playing with much better players than Antropov, Burmistrov, Wellwood, etc.
Last edited by atl thrasher344: 04-07-2012 at 01:15 AM.
I'm getting really tired of people throwing that statistic around because it is clearly biased by Kane's late birthday.
If you look at players that scored 30 or more goals within the 3 NHL seasons following their draft year you get a much more representative statistic. Here is that list of players, along with some others that were close.
Player
Goals
Season
Stamkos
51
2
Ovechkin
46**
3
E Staal
45*
3
Nash
41*
2
Crosby
39
1
Kessel
36
3
Toews
34*
3
Malkin
33
3
Kopitar
32*
3
Little
31*
3
Bergeron
31*
3
Tavares
31
3
Skinner
31*
1
P Kane
30*
3
E Kane
30
3
J Staal
29*
1
Horton
28**
3
Stasny
28*
2
Zherdev
27*
3
Duchene
27*
2
Hall
27
2
Seguin
27
2
Two further observations:
1) A lot of the guys that scored 30 as 20 year olds actually scored 40. To this point, I have a lot of trouble putting Kane in the same sentence as guys like Nash and Stamkos.
2) For the players marked with a * that number of goals represents a career high. Players with ** reached their career high in their 4th season. Obviously some of these players still have the potential to put up better numbers in the future, but a surprisingly high percentage of precocious goal scorers reach their peak at a very young age.
Anyways, if you go down that list and look at the players that Kane is comparable to (in terms of style of play and the fact that he's a winger) I think that Holden's argument makes a lot of sense.
I had no idea so many goal scorers peaked that early
Okay, then. If you want to look at it this way, then he is only one of 15 players to do that. Big difference. Also the guys who almost scored 30 don't really matter to me when I'm looking to see who actually scored 30.
BTW: My point still stands that nearly all of these guys got 30 by playing with much better players than Antropov, Burmistrov, Wellwood, etc.
I really can't understand where you're coming from on this. When I look at that list, it makes me a lot less optimistic about Kane than I was before.
From my point of view I start by dropping the players that scored far more than Kane at the same (or a younger) age (specifically, Stamkos, E Staal, Ovechkin, and Nash).
Then eliminate the Centers that play a completely different style and are far better playmakers than Kane (Crosby, Kopitar, Toews, Stasny, Duchene and Tavares).
I'd eliminate Jordan Staal because his style is also completely different and Bergeron because his career trajectory is not a tool for comparison due to his injury and how he rebuilt his game.
So you end up with a bunch of wingers (or at least guys that played wing then):
Kessel, Little, Skinner, Patrick Kane, Horton, Zherdev, Hall and Seguin.
To me, that does not look too promising. Patrick Kane is not much of a comparison because he's a far superior playmaker. The jury is still out on Skinner, Hall and Seguin. And if Evander Kane ends up being like Kessel, Horton or Zherdev, we're in pretty bad shape IMO.
My point is when you look carefully at young players that have scored a lot of goals and break down the comparisons it doesn't make Evander Kane look all that good. The players he ends up being the most comparable to are players whose game stagnated at a very early point in their career.
Do I think this is Kane's fate? Not really. But just because a certain bit of trivia (only Y players under the age of X have scored Z goals) sounds good, it isn't necessarily a good thing.
In this case, IMO, it puts him in some pretty questionable company.
I don't advocate building around Kane as the franchise player either, nor do I advocate building primarily around Nail or any other star winger they are the least important piece of a championship team. If Kane is traded it should be for a legit number one center or number 1 defenseman. Trading for a smaller more skilled winger won't do much for the team as the offense between the two will be quite negligible for the next number of years if Nail lives up to his billing.
Agreed on that you don't build around wingers. I just feel somebody like Yakupov who will make all the players around him better as well as producing alot offensively is much more important than a selfish, creates his own offense while helping no one else's type in Kane. Again, at worst Yakupov is P.Kane, IMO, who I would easily trade E.Kane straight up for. And I am a guy who is all about size and physicality, but a top end offensive talent like a Yakupov is way too much to pass up on for E.Kane straight up. Perosnally, I think Yakupov NEXT YEAR will be a more valuable player to his team than Kane. He creates offense for the line, makes plays. E.Kane makes offense for himself, never gets open, can't find the soft areas, does not pay the price out front or the corner(this is why I can never classify him as a power forward), does not set anything up. He is a one-trick pony. A helluva trick, and a great tools, but still skating and wrist shot is all he's got.
Thanks for stats almostawake. It really shows you how early goalscoring tends to peak with players. Players don't follow a straight line progression, I see people (not here, but around) claiming E.Kane will be a 50 goal scorer, I do not ever see it. Unless he magically learns hockey sense, I would be surprised if he ever cracks 40g or 60pts.
I had no idea so many goal scorers peaked that early
Neither did I that is a heck of a chart almostawake. defiantly provides a cautionary tale for not only Kane but any other goal scorer as far as assuming the sale on progression as far as goal output after their 3rd or 4th season in the NHL
Kessel, Little, Skinner, Patrick Kane, Horton, Zherdev, Hall and Seguin.
To me, that does not look too promising.
And if Evander Kane ends up being like Kessel, Horton or Zherdev, we're in pretty bad shape IMO.
Out of curiosity why is ending up like a 35 goal scorer a bad thing? I don't think you can build any team around a winger but having a guy who can pot 30+ is very important. All good teams are built down the middle but saying were in bad shape because we have a guy who is capable of scoring 30+ goals is a bit of an over reaction I think.
Quote:
No way would I add a 1st to the hypothetical trade. Really iffy on adding a 2nd as well.
I would not add anything ether straight up Kane for Nail is all I would do, and there is no way CBJ even considers that, they can get a better deal elsewhere if they really want to move the pick.
My point is when you look carefully at young players that have scored a lot of goals and break down the comparisons it doesn't make Evander Kane look all that good. The players he ends up being the most comparable to are players whose game stagnated at a very early point in their career.
In this case, IMO, it puts him in some pretty questionable company.
Really? Why would you discredit 30 goals as a 20 year old at all? It's a heck of an accomplishment and you're treating it like he did something wrong. I can not fathom how people underrate Kane at all...
Wow I think people are working very hard to discredit Kanes accomplishments so far.
He is absolutely a diamond that is still in the rough. He is a completely different player than Nail Yakupov, obviously.
Kane is going to be a more gritty physical guy. Big wingers who score 40, lead your forwards in hits, and play north south are an exceptionally desired commodity in the NHL.
I am not saying that the payoff of trading Kane for the first overall couldn't end up being a great thing for the Jets, but it is a hell of a gamble, and when you throw in our first? That is too steep.
If someone offered you 500K right now, or a certificate that had a 90% chance of being worth 1M, I am sure it would not be a cut and dried answer for you.
Kane has done what he has done, DESPITE his warts. I truly believe he has way more to give, especially as he matures and gets a better centre to play with. It's easy to discount his physical play but when you have a scorer who does that it adds a whole new dimension to a line that Yakupov won't bring...
Again, the Jets could do this deal and it could turn out great. Yakupov could become the player everyone expects him too, he could avoid concussions and stay healthy and put up 100pts every season. He could also become a lazy moody Russian. We have seen many Russians do this, including the latest, the great 8.
Out of curiosity why is ending up like a 35 goal scorer a bad thing? I don't think you can build any team around a winger but having a guy who can pot 30+ is very important. All good teams are built down the middle but saying were in bad shape because we have a guy who is capable of scoring 30+ goals is a bit of an over reaction I think.
Because it's easy for people to put faith in and hype up a blank slate (be it Yakupov or whoever) so that they can project onto that player whatever they wanna see in an ideal player rather than recognize the good thing that they have already. People seem to have this vision of a messiah player who is going to show up and solve all problems and any promising player who does not automatically fit this messiah mold is automatically written off
Because it's easy for people to put faith in and hype up a blank slate (be it Yakupov or whoever) so that they can project onto that player whatever they wanna see in an ideal player rather than recognize the good thing that they have already. People seem to have this vision of a messiah player who is going to show up and solve all problems and any promising player who does not automatically fit this messiah mold is automatically written off
Bang on. People always seem to like the shiny new thing, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I could just imagine this place if we do this deal and Yakupov puts up 55 points here and Kane goes to Columbus and puts up 40 goals and 70 points next year.
Out of curiosity why is ending up like a 35 goal scorer a bad thing? I don't think you can build any team around a winger but having a guy who can pot 30+ is very important. All good teams are built down the middle but saying were in bad shape because we have a guy who is capable of scoring 30+ goals is a bit of an over reaction I think.
Look at the post I initially responded to. The point I'm making isn't that Kane is bad, my point is that:
"Kane scored 30 as a 20 year old, and only 11 other players have that since 2000"
is not nearly as positive a statement as people thing it is. Specifically in the discussion happening here (trading Kane for #1 overall) that statistic alone (ie. ignoring all other factors) makes a pretty good case for making the trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke49
Really? Why would you discredit 30 goals as a 20 year old at all? It's a heck of an accomplishment and you're treating it like he did something wrong. I can not fathom how people underrate Kane at all...
Look, I didn't set out to discredit Kane. I set out to discredit this stupid "Only 11 players have done that since 2000" tidbit. Please make the distinction.
Wow I think people are working very hard to discredit Kanes accomplishments so far.
He is absolutely a diamond that is still in the rough. He is a completely different player than Nail Yakupov, obviously.
Kane is going to be a more gritty physical guy. Big wingers who score 40, lead your forwards in hits, and play north south are an exceptionally desired commodity in the NHL.
I am not saying that the payoff of trading Kane for the first overall couldn't end up being a great thing for the Jets, but it is a hell of a gamble, and when you throw in our first? That is too steep.
If someone offered you 500K right now, or a certificate that had a 90% chance of being worth 1M, I am sure it would not be a cut and dried answer for you.
Kane has done what he has done, DESPITE his warts. I truly believe he has way more to give, especially as he matures and gets a better centre to play with. It's easy to discount his physical play but when you have a scorer who does that it adds a whole new dimension to a line that Yakupov won't bring...
Again, the Jets could do this deal and it could turn out great. Yakupov could become the player everyone expects him too, he could avoid concussions and stay healthy and put up 100pts every season. He could also become a lazy moody Russian. We have seen many Russians do this, including the latest, the great 8.
Honestly, Kane's "grit" is overrated by a long shot on here, IMO. He finishes his checks yes, but he does not consistantly win board battles OR pay the price out front of the net to score goals. He needs to work on those aspects of his game alot if he wants to be a "gritty" winger. Right now Antropov has more grit and toughness than him, IMO. Honestly, Kane finishes checks behind the play, very rarely does he seperate the puck from the man with a hit, so although valuable to wear teams down his hit rarely accomplish all that much. His grittiness and toughness are vastly overrated.
Point me to where Kane has scored 40 goals?
How exactly will a center help Kane's game? Seriously. He does not find the soft areas to be open for passes. He kills the cycle game. He cannot set up that center either. His offense comes off the rush. It's the same reason that it does matter who you put Nash will, he will score the same. Same with Kane.
Yakupov won't bring the hitting. Yakupov might be a "moody" russian. But Kane can't be having a career season (careers are not linear people, it's happened this young before). Kane can't have drive/desire/attitude problems that will stop him from going to the next level? Kane will for sure get better with a better center? Kane will suddenly magically learn how to play team hockey?
And oh, BTW, in your theoretical 500K/1M dollar question, by the odds you take the 90% chance at 1M EVERY time.
Seriously, nobody is trying to "discredit" Kane. He is a solid young player. He has plenty of great aspects, which people here have pointed out. Goalscoring wingers are valuable. But we are talking about the FIRST OVERALL SELECTION here. That is a huge return. Straight up I don't see how you can say no. (Note, I have never once said we should trade Kane+WPG 1st Round, I agree that is too much. I am talking straight up, maybe +2nd Rounder).
If someone offered you 500K right now, or a certificate that had a 90% chance of being worth 1M, I am sure it would not be a cut and dried answer for you.
Any GM in the league should, and would, take the second option. If they don't they should be fired on the spot. The ratio of expected values is 1:1.8
EVANDER KANE IS 20 ****ING YEARS OLD PEOPLE. I think some people need to use that patience that this board so emphatically preached earlier in the year.
Friendly ManiBROba
