Follow me @jaeckel.

And so, I reopen the old pesky can of worms . . .

Is it time, or will it soon be time, for the Blackhawks to consider (sacrilege of sacrileges) trading Patrick Kane?

To those of you who dismiss the thought as craziness, you'd be surprised at the emails I'm getting.

Nothing saying that the Hawks are remotely entertaining the idea— after all, Kane is one of the cornerstones of Hawk marketing— but calm, rational points of view from longtime fans and people around the hockey world who are simply wondering—as I've been— if Kane and the Hawks would not benefit at some point from #88 putting on a different sweater.

Everyone please set aside their irrational emotions about Kane— good or bad.

His role in Hawk marketing should not matter one iota. Marketing does not win championships.
And I'm not arguing that they should deal Kane. I'll present both sides of the argument. I am asking all of you, could it make some sense at some point, most likely in the offseason?

Again, don't put words in my mouth: I am not saying they should deal him. I'm not saying they should— or will—deal him now. I am raising the question and discussing the pros and cons.

Let's look at the facts.

First, I'm going to puncture the notion some are still holding on to, that this year's Hawks' team is drastically better than last year's. It's not. It was, for a while, much healthier and fresher than last year's. But that's changed, and now the team is starting to sink fast in the standings.

Sure, you can point to injuries, but the Hawks basically had no injuries while racing out to a thin Western Conference lead. As soon as they started getting them in December, they started playing .500 hockey.

Kane is presently the highest paid healthy forward on the Blackhawks. He is not playing like it.

That honor goes to Marian Hossa and a 2011 5th round draft pick named Andrew Shaw. Last night, Marcus Kruger and Dave Bolland were more effective up and down the ice than Kane was. When we last saw Kane against the Predators, he was circling center ice— looking to cherry pick— leaving his teammates to kill off a penalty, essentially 3 on 5. Don't believe me, ask Pat Foley, who pointed it out.

I am also hearing—rumor mind you, take it as such— that Kane's attitude is not great; that he is not happy with shuttling from wing to center, and also that some players in the dressing room might not be terribly happy with him.

Again, and honestly, vague rumor.

But the fact remains, after being moved back to wing with one of the best centers in the game, Kane hasn't exactly ripped it up this year.

Sure, there were other goats last night.

But let's also be clear on this: the shopping list that needs to be checked off to make this team a Cup contender (not just this year—which is starting to look more and more like a longshot) grows longer by the day.

The Hawks desperately need someone (a couple of someones) who can finish checks, maybe a second line center, a second pairing defenseman, maybe a #1 goalie. And unless they change the basic paradigm of their roster, they can't do it— they have nothing outside their "core" that has significant value in trade.

They have a lot of cap commitment tied up in Kane, Hossa, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook. Over half their cap. That commitment means the remaining $30 million needs to be spent incredibly judiciously on 16-17 players— and you must get maximum value from your superstars.

Kane and Toews are the team's two highest paid players. For the second straight season, Kane is probably not playing up to his cap hit. Not when you compare him to a number of similarly compensated players on teams the Hawks are in contention with: Pavel Datsyuk and the Sedins, not to mention Toews and Hossa and Sharp.

Bear in mind, with the exception of Toews, all these players have had a lot more time to develop than Kane has.

But warts and all, he has significant value in a trade. He's a marquee player and an offensive force (in the right circumstances). And go figure, no one out there is lining up to take Bryan Bickell or Michal Frolik off the Hawks' hands.

Kane would bring a lot back in trade, which so many seem to forget when this topic comes up.

He brings back more than Sharp or Keith, who some, I'm sure will suggest dealing instead of "PK." And he certainly brings back more than Bolland or Nik Hjalmarsson, the other bodies some always want to throw under the bus.

This is the problem that so many Hawk fans, especially those with less experience following hockey and this organization have— many Hawk fans will find it hard to believe the Hawks could improve themselves by dealing Kane. And thus the organization might also hesitate on dealing Kane, even when it could improve the team, because a lot of fans (especially the newer, "One Goal" true believing fans) will revolt.

But they easily could improve the team.

I heard a rumor earlier this season that the Hawks talked to Columbus about Rick Nash. The Jackets asked for Kane. The conversation ended.

But hold on a minute. Nash is an elite power winger who few NHL defensemen can handle one on one. Swap him out for Corey Perry.

Swap him out for Kane and the Hawks are immediately more physical at the very least, without losing a lot of creativity and scoring (if at all). A lot of of newer Hawk fans will simply associate Nash with a bad Columbus team. "He's not as good as Kaner!" But he is and has been a force on a terrible team.

Now, I am not saying the Hawks should deal Kane for Nash. But they conceivably could. And depending on all the parameters of the deal, it could be a net improvement for the Hawks.

What about New Jersey for Zach Parise (not necessarily straight up, but the basis of a deal)? Or to Kane's native Buffalo?

Then some will say that Kane has a no-trade clause.

All a no trade clause does it make it harder to deal a player— not impossible. All the player has to do is waive. If the player isn't happy, if his agent feels the other team offers a better situation, the player gets moved.

Now, maybe it's not fair or practical to single Kane out. He is scoring more than Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg and San Jose's Patrick Marleau (by comparison), although the argument can be made Zetterberg is a much more effective three-zone player.

But the reason to even have this discussion is as plain as the nose on your face, or as a buddy emailed me this AM, the 1000 pound gorilla in the room: the Hawks have nothing else to trade to fix their roster. And they do have an abundance of "premier" forwards— significantly more than most teams— of which Kane is the east effective, this season at least.

Again, more of the other side of the coin, if the Hawks deal Kane, they subtract from their organization a premier offensive talent, who has room to mature and grow into a really great player. There is always a risk/reward trade-off with younger players.

As great as Hossa is today, he will not be this good forever. Nor will Sharp.

At some point, a 30 year old Kane could be a huge factor in continuing the Hawks' return to greatness. But that, also, can not be considered guaranteed.

So, there it is. A question to be considered.

Have fun with this one.



JJ

Join the Discussion: » 441 Comments » Post New Comment

» Thanks and Farewell

» Where do we go from here?

» Preds at Hawks Breakdown

» "All Teams Have Flaws"

» The Games You Should Win