Here we go again. Free agency's almost here and the Kane situation is STILL unanswered. He's a UFA for the fourth straight offseason after another one-year deal, and the reports say there's mutual interest in a return. Mutual interest. I've heard that song before. I will not relax until there's ink on paper. Talk me off the ledge or join me on it.
mutual interest is the good version of this! both sides have basically run it back every summer on a one-year. i think he comes back again. 57 points in 67 games says he can still play, and the showtime stuff is still there in flashes. breathe.
The fourth straight one-year is basically the model now: he bets on himself, they keep term off the books, everyone wins. The only thing that blows it up is if Yzerman's "can't sign everyone" math leaves no room. But Kane on a one-year is the easiest of those UFA calls to make. I'd put the odds of a return north of a coin flip.
year four of "will he or won't he." the dread IS the tradition at this point. join you on the ledge, theres room.
every july 1 with you people is the same wine, same anxiety, same group chat. honestly the kane will-he-won't-he is part of my summer routine now. he'll sign on like july 14th and we'll all act surprised.
selfishly i want Kane back so Cat keeps a real playmaker around him. mutual interest plus a one-year structure that's worked three times? i'm calling it: he's back. told ya in advance this time.
in my day a guy signed a contract and you didnt have a feelings thread about it every june. but fine. bring the old man back, he can still pass.
I'm with dcat93 on this one - Kane's been a great playmaker and I think his return is likely given the mutual interest and previous year-by-year structure. If he does come back, we should take a closer look at how his presence impacts the team's possession numbers, particularly in the face-off zone where he excels. That said, SaturdayNightSuze isn't wrong that Kane tends to sign on July 1 with some regularity.
I'm surprised fenwickfan didn't mention cap math. Kane's been taking up $11M AAV on his one-year deals, and that won't come back down if he signs again. If we're committed to bringing him back, maybe we revisit the Drouin trade - get a salary dump in return to help absorb whatever new contract we'd need to offer.
I'm more concerned about the AAV Kane would accept on a long-term deal than whether he comes back or not - his past one-year deals have been worth $11M, and that's not going to magically decrease if we try to bring him in for four years at a reduced rate. fenwickfan is right to think about how his presence impacts possession numbers, but cap math can't be ignored.
Kid, I'm glad to see some calm thinking on this one - fenwickfan's point about possession numbers is important, and I agree with mike_d22 that we need to consider how Kane's cap hit fits into the bigger picture. kwilson has a good handle on the AAV situation too, kid - it's hard to see Kane signing for less than his current rate.
I'm with kwilson on this one - we need to start thinking about Kane's next contract, and what kind of AAV he'll command. It's unlikely he takes a pay cut, so our line-matching and cap considerations will have to adjust accordingly, which is why I've been saying for months that Larkin needs to take a reduced role or be on a bridge deal - we can't afford the luxury of paying our captain top-six dollars without some sort of roster rebalancing.
I think we're all on the same page here - Kane's next contract is likely going to be expensive, and we need to consider how his cap hit impacts our overall roster construction. GordieHoweElbows makes a great point about possession numbers, but I agree with sam_t87 that Larkin needs to take a reduced role or be on a bridge deal if we're serious about keeping Kane - it's just good cap management.
I've been saying for weeks that Larkin needs to take on a more defined role if we're going to keep Kane, but I'm still skeptical about Kane committing long-term - until I see him sign or his camp puts out a statement with some concrete numbers, I'm keeping my "no way" hat on. sam_t87 and kwilson are right that we need to start thinking cap-wise and re-jiggering the roster to accommodate Kane's likely next deal.
I think we've got a good sense of where everyone stands on this. It's clear that no one expects Kane to take a pay cut, and the assumption is that he'll command top dollar - which would indeed require some roster rearranging to fit Larkin into his desired role (or make him more affordable). The uncertainty still lies with whether Kane actually wants to come back, though.
I'm right there with you OP, I've been in denial for three years now and I just can't seem to shake the feeling that Kane's going to leave us hanging again. sam_t87 makes a great point about Larkin's role and cap implications, but honestly as long as we're considering him part of the core and investing in him like he should be, we need to make this work for our #19 too
Reminds me of the '97 club, when every year seemed like a wait for Nicklas Lidstrom's contract to get sorted out. I, too, have had my doubts about Kane committing long-term. A good player will always command top dollar, and we should be prepared for that reality.
ngl the '97 club is a great comparison, Lidstroms contract drama was way worse than Kanes imo, at least we know what well be shelling out for Kane next year... or so idk until he signs