you could probably make SJS pay. send a couple expensive depth players their way and get cheaper ones in return + picks

Doesn't really matter if the coach won't take any BS from Kane. Fact is do you want him on the team, and his cap hit for four more years.

Your only hope of moving him is retaining half, and sending a 1st to Arizona who buys him out after the season

No, absolutely not!

Nope none of these work.
the Scenario I see here, Dec 1st we activate him and send him down to the AHL for a 1 month rehab assignment. Most likely he refuses and we then suspend him for the remainder of the season,
In the offseason we mutually terminate his deal, we would end up paying him a settlement of his entire base salary minus bonuses over 8 year (1.875), and he is allowed to go look for another place to play elsewhere. (we use the threat of no buy out and forcing him to play in the minors essentially destroying his career and this is a possibility because no one is claiming his deal off waivers)
then you guys can give him a 1 year 2 mil deal to rehab his image and gives you guys another top notch player to help you compete for a cup.
this works because over the next 3 years if Kane can play and keep the off ice issues at bay he will end up making roughly 3-7 million more than if he stays with the sharks and plays out his existing deal, with the posibiliy of much more if he can reform enough to keep getting 1-2 year deals from teams after these 3 years. this is why he agrees to terminate his deal, its ends up a win win for both sides.
this would be similar to the Richards saga in LA.

While im not opposed to it as others here, I wouldn’t pay anything of consequence.

Kane @ 50% for Gardiner and Lorentz. Conditional pick associated with games played. If he doesn’t play 30 games the first two seasons then the Canes get a pick (year 1, top 10 protected 1st, year 2: 2nd rounder).

This one here is a perfect analogy of what should happen with Kane.

why thank you! i though long and hard looked at the numbers, Researched the Richards deal, the NHLPA objections and what they agreed to. and in the end I looked at what would benefit the sharks and what would benefit Kane. a buy out would work for kane, but be brutal for the sharks, burying him in the minors would benefit the sharks but not kane. voiding the deal should cause lots of issues and lawsuits with Kane the NHL and the players association. a mutual Termination benefits kane as he gets paid his full contract and still gets to go play for another team, and it benefits the sharks as we spread his salary and his cap hit over 8 years.

Either way the Sharks just buy him out as a last resort. No assets are going out in a Kane deal.

Starting with 22-23 season Kane has 3 yrs left
3 x 3.5 = 10.5M in retention
The Buyout 3.6, 2.7, 4.7, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 = 16M over 6 yrs

In the short term is 10.5 Retain vs 11M buyout in yrs 1-3. This is why SJS is willing to retain for 50% and it shave the 3 extra years of cap hit. its about the same in years 1-3.

Now I dont think they will find a taker that kane will waive for. Kane gets 21M if he gets traded only 16M if he takes the buy out. Kane has to decide if he can make 5M somewhere over the next 3 seasons.