Don't get me wrong. He is a great player but he really is playing well this season.
- Elbows15

New thread up.

Question for you: When Kane would have left after this season for a 10+ mil contract, would you have been happy with that turn of events? Losing a 80+ point scorer? (mind you there were a grand total of 7 of them last year)?
- CaptainBlackhawk

His scoring could of been replaced for much less than 10.5....just saying. He's clutch but at times in the past has dissapeared in the playoffs. To me franchise is a player you build your team around like a Toews, Crosby, Price etc. Like I said Kane is elite but not franchise. Don't forget he has the luxury of playing on the second line which means he does not always face the top defencemen pairing which helps his stats. Would he be the leader and raly his team if he was on a team like Buffalo....not so sure....but I know Toews would be!
We have other players that score high as well such as Sharp, Hossa or defencemen that are also very key to the team and IMO as important as Kane...I'm thinking Keith, Seabrook so do we pay them 10 mil as well? There has to be a distinction...don't get me wrong I think we have an amazing team that will be competitive for years to come and I'm sure happy Kane wears the Indian head.

His scoring could of been replaced for much less than 10.5....just saying. He's clutch but at times in the past has dissapeared in the playoffs. To me franchise is a player you build your team around like a Toews, Crosby, Price etc. Like I said Kane is elite but not franchise. Don't forget he has the luxury of playing on the second line which means he does not always face the top defencemen pairing which helps his stats. Would he be the leader and raly his team if he was on a team like Buffalo....not so sure....but I know Toews would be!
We have other players that score high as well such as Sharp, Hossa or defencemen that are also very key to the team and IMO as important as Kane...I'm thinking Keith, Seabrook so do we pay them 10 mil as well? There has to be a distinction...don't get me wrong I think we have an amazing team that will be competitive for years to come and I'm sure happy Kane wears the Indian head.
- Hawkster

Really? By who?

His scoring could of been replaced for much less than 10.5....just saying. He's clutch but at times in the past has dissapeared in the playoffs. To me franchise is a player you build your team around like a Toews, Crosby, Price etc. Like I said Kane is elite but not franchise. .
- Hawkster

Sorry, no offense but NO WAY! Kane has shown he is right up there with Toews in value to this team.... and he has hardly "disappeared" in the playoffs.

Really? By who?
- Elbows15

I guy like Simmonds at 6m and Landeskog 5.5 for the price of one Kane or what about Simmonds and E. kane for the same price?
Heck, Getzlaf and Perry make 2mill less and these are not old contracts. You telling me Kane is worth 2 mil more than those 2 guys....I don't think so.....and by the way Kane has scored 80 plus points in a season only once in his carreer so he's not exactly tearing up the leaderboard.
He's a great player, I just don't see the 10.5 mil justification.

I guy like Simmonds at 6m and Landeskog 5.5 for the price of one Kane or what about Simmonds and E. kane for the same price?
Heck, Getzlaf and Perry make 2mill less and these are not old contracts. You telling me Kane is worth 2 mil more than those 2 guys....I don't think so.....and by the way Kane has scored 80 plus points in a season only once in his carreer so he's not exactly tearing up the leaderboard.
He's a great player, I just don't see the 10.5 mil justification.
- Hawkster

Simmonds is a guy who barely scores at ES. Can't handle the puck. Doesn't make his linemates better and you want him at 6?

Landeskog at 5.5? Yeah. He will make more.

So you offered up a bunch of players who aren't available.

Simmonds is a guy who barely scores at ES. Can't handle the puck. Doesn't make his linemates better and you want him at 6?

Landeskog at 5.5? Yeah. He will make more.

So you offered up a bunch of players who aren't available.
- Elbows15

Never said the arguement was full proof.

Never said the arguement was full proof.
- Hawkster

Fair enough.