Hairyducked Idiot

2-0 Ducks?

The more I watch it, the more I love his second goal as well. Yes, he was floating, but this is why he can be a quality NHL player at his size: The puck bounces straight to him behind the net, and he *immediately* shoves home the wraparound. Luongo saw him back there, and Kane still got to the side of the net first. It takes incredibly uncommonly quick hands to beat a goalie like Luongo on that play, and it takes great instincts because you can't have any hesitation.

I'm trying to think of a better backhanded goal that I've seen, and I can't. He picked the corner perfectly, with velocity, going back across the goalie away from the direction he was skating, with a defender on him.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/nhlfreeagents/a/nhl_free_agents_2.htm If it's under $4 million, Hawks would match.

From that list, the guy I'd be most worried about losing would be Barker. I wouldn't be shocked if someone overpays him. But then if they did, the Hawks would get a huge RFA-compensation haul.

Okay, in summary and absolutely my last post on the subject: Kane is an awesome offensive player but he is limited in what roles he can play and at this point in his career he is a defensive liability. That still produces great net value, but there's no point in ignoring his flaws. Some of you believe that he has a chance to significantly grow in terms of defensive responsibility and defensively skill. I don't think that's likely, despite his young age. I fear that the combination of his flash, the fact that he is American-born and his ties to the northeast may cause a team to pay him far more than his on-ice contributions warrant and the Hawks will be forced to let him go. Some of you do not think that is likely. I hope you are right and PatrickJonathanRM will be able to see the player he is named after in an Indian Head sweater for years. There, that should sum it up, and now let's all be thankful for how cool it is for the Blackhawks to be in the conference finals and for a player with the skill of Kane to have a hat trick in the decisive semifinal game!

So you think it is a coincidence that Kane is so often on the ice when the other team scores goals? Personally even if that is the case I wouldn't be too worried about it right now in his career. But plus minus is a terribly flawed stat that does nothing for me really. That's reasonable. But all that's left is what we both subjectively see on the ice. And let me tell you: Kane's defensive responsibility scores almost as often as Kane does at even strength.

Oh grow up. Practically everybody on here has expressed shock and surprise at how well this team has played. And people are suggesting it's possible for a 20 year old hockey player to develop. That's hardly a homer/myopic sentiment. Develop? Sure. Completely change the nature of his game? Not likely.

Well, then I hope you are right. I'd love to keep Kane at a reasonable price.

Two posts after you called my post ignorant, this is hilarious. This isn't the the neutral-zone trap, clutch-and-grab NHL, and it isn't Gretzky's era. It's something in between. Size, speed and skill all matter. Or do you not think Byfuglien and Eager were important for the Hawks in these two series?

So you think it is a coincidence that Kane is so often on the ice when the other team scores goals?

The two guys you mentioned are both an inch taller and 20 pounds heavier than Kane as listed (30-35 pounds heavier than Kane in reality). Kane's body is not physically capable of putting on that much muscle and maintaining his skating speed. Those two guys *never* had a minus season in the NHL. Kane has already had two. AARRGGGGHH! to homer, myopic fans who want to argue such an obvious point and force me to point out Kane's flaws on a day like this

IF you can keep Toews and Kane to reasonable contracts, then we're great. But I see a young, flashy, American-born star with strong ties to another part of the country, I think it's reasonable to worry another team might overpay him.

1) Kane is not Gretzky. 2) Gretzky played in a different era. He was the perfect match of skill set to prevailing style of play and rules.

That will help a lot. Ideally, we can keep Toews and Kane with that money freed up, and limit the tough decisions to the next tier of quality young players such as Versteeg and Cam Barker.

Pittsburgh doesn't have Seabrook, let alone Keith or Campbell, to worry about as well. And Toews could probably compare reasonably with Malkin, but he doesn't belong in the conversation with Crosby and Kane belongs in the conversation with neither.

expletiveexpletiveexpletiveexpletiveexpletiveexpletiveexpletiveexpletive It's *not* hate. It's NOT hate. I love Patrick Kane. My first child is being born in August, and I'm naming him after Patrick Kane. But even on the best night of Kane's career, Toews was right there: Toews had 2 goals and an assist, won faceoffs, soaked up more ice time, and was on the ice for fewer Vancouver goals, hence his +2 vs. Kane's +1. And Toews didn't take a stupid penalty in the offensive zone because he can't control his stick, which Kane did and still does way too often. It's not a perjorative to describe Kane as a cherrypicker. He's incredibly talented at it. But it's what he is. That's how he got his second goal, the wraparound. A bunch of guys go into the corner, he floated nearby hoping for a lucky bounce and got it, and had the quick hands to put it away like few players can. That's great! But sometimes he's not going to get the lucky bounce, and the fact that the Hawks are outnumbered in the corner will lead to a 3-on-2 the other way where Kane's guy puts home a rebound because Kane can't get back and lift his stick. He is who he is, and if some team comes along wanting to pay for the flash and the excitement, then the Hawks just won't be able to match the deal and stay under the cap while keeping Seabrook, Keith, Toews, etc.

I'm saying he's an exciting player with good PR and local ties to Buffalo. They aren't stupid, but they wouldn't be doing it for hockey-reasons only.

I'm trying to figure out why your biggest fear is that Buffalo will throw a ton of money at him and the Blackhawks won't be able to match. Seems to me with the argument you are making you should be more than happy to see him taken off the team in a couple years, or that your biggest fear is that they will actually match whatever offer he gets. Of course not. I've stated repeatedly that he's a very valuable hockey player. In case that's still being ignored: I'm completely saying that Kane is a very valuable hockey player. He's an almost breakeven player at even strength, provides you with no PK, and has 63 power-play points in two seasons. That's a guy you love to have. But compare that with Toews: wins faceoffs, almost as many points as Kane, +23 in two seasons, will eventually be a PKer and still manages 44 power-play points. I'd absolutely love to keep both. But with our cap situation, we may have to choose. If Buffalo is a franchise in need of a boost in popularity, maybe they offer Kaner 5/$45, and you just can't match that for what he brings to the table.

5-10, 185 is still pretty tiny for a hockey player. He's just never going to be a complete player. I hate to use +/-, because it's such a flawed stat, but there's a reason why Kane has been a minus player at even-strength in both his seasons.

He's 20 years old, 5-10, and generously listed at 175 but is probably closer to 160. Unless he grows four inches and adds 45 pounds of muscle, minimum, he's never going to be able to do those things. Kane is who he is, a cherry-picking offensive threat. He's a wonderful guy to have, but he's not a core of a hockey team.

Kane's a one-way player. He's the Ben Gordon of the Chicago Blackhawks. Toews is Derrick Rose. It's not at all that I want to dog Kane, especially after the night he just had, but even look at last night. Three goals, but only a +1 and 13:30 in ice time. You can't penalty kill with him, you can't put him against the other team's top line, and he can't win battles along the boards. He's a skilled cherrypicker, but you are still giving something up on the ice when you have him floating along the edge of skirmishes. He's like a .340/.380/.420 hitter. Not as valuable as the batting average would suggest, but still very valuable. Kane isn't as valuable as his points would suggest, but is still very valuable because he gets so darn many points.

It's not about wanting to let Kane go. Kane's got strong ties to the Buffalo area. And when you come down to it, as much as I absolutely love him, he's not the guy you give franchise money to. Toews is.

I think they are going to try to find a way to keep Havlat this offseason, though I could be wrong. I really just want to find a way to keep the top four defenseme together. Barker is really coming into his own, and that gives us four legit top-pairing guys.

They have a chance, but it's going to be more complicated than just sitting back and waiting for the youngsters to develop. They have some awful cap decisions to make in the next few years, starting with this offseason when they will almost certainly have to let Khabibulin go. My biggest fear is that Buffalo will throw a ton of money at Kane when he is eligible and we won't have the cap room to match.