Huh? In the Tampa series Kane was completely invisible until the last game. True Stamkos wasn't scoring but he was involved on both sides of the puck and played hard every shift.
- paulr

You didn't answer the question who wins if we trade straight up?

You didn't answer the question who wins if we trade straight up?
- molly2522

Kane for Stamkos? I'd would have taken that trade before all the nonsense. Similar but different skill sets but Stamkos was, is and will always be the better character. There is no way in Hades Tampa makes that trade.

John McDonough must be thrilled this guy doesn't play for the Blackhawks:

http://espn.go.com/espn/o...x-according-police-report

You are 100% correct in your assessments.

It's amazing to me how many jacka__es on this site have decided that he must have been so overly intoxicated that he committed this horrible crime.

Like so many of the posters on this site live such squeaky clean lives that Patrick Kane is an abomination to them and their lifestyles.

It really is pathetic.
- dahawks8819

Likely not...for me definitely not.

How many posters on this site are being paid 7 figures on an O6 NHL club, are one of two faces of said franchise and are pulling down a lot more money through endorsement deals?

I get that you don't want to trade Kane and that's fine but drawing comparisons between his lifestyle choices and people who post here just makes you sound silly. For future reference think of an apples to apples approach as a rule of thumb; it may help your argument...just sayin'.

Yes. But the Hawks did have him...and they have won three Cups. So unless you and Sherman can go back in the Way Back Machine your hypothetical is just as ludicrous.

Yes he helped them win. Ultimately the FO may decide to trade him. Not our call but why get mad at a bunch of posters who are speculating what may or may not happen?
- HawkintheD

Another day closer to raising another banner at the UC and another day closer to the Kane mess being hopefully resolved.

Mex,

I get everything that you have said on this subject, but I respectfully disagree with your assessments on replacing Patrick Kane.

This team does not win one cup without him, let alone three. It just would not have happened.

The best thing for the Hawks would be to keep him for the next three years. I honestly believe in that time, they will win two more cups.

After this three year period, I think that Hossa will be at his end as a top two way player, Duncan Keith will start to show the wear and tear of what will be 10 hard seasons with long playoff runs, and a few others may as well.

To me, the next three years will be final years of their championship window, and it should be taken full advantage of, "flea infested" Kane included.

By then, he will only be 29, and still a very productive player that teams will line up to deal for.

Any knee jerk reaction now will only close this window sooner, and regardless of his off ice conduct, they just can't take that chance.

McDonough thinks he is selling a squeaky clean image of this team to the city of Chicago. What he doesn't get is this product is selling ONLY because they are winning Stanley Cups. When this window closes, the Chicago sports fans will go back to watching the Bulls and Bears, and the Hawks will go back to being a second rate sell in the fans eyes.

Hockey has never fully captured this town before, only winning cups changed that narrative. And when it is over, nothing McDonough's marketing team does will change this fact. And it will be a hard lesson for him to learn.

The Hawks in the present, and in the future, will never be what the Cubs were in McDonough's time there. That was an unusual situation. And when Rocky Wirtz ends up firing him, hopefully they will understand what I have been saying.
- dahawks8819

That's pure speculation. If Kane is taken right out of the lineup, with no similar replacement, perhaps they only win one cup or two or three. But substitute Kane for another player like Stamkos, Tavares, Seguin, Bergeron, Perry, Datsyuk etc. etc. etc. and maybe they win 3 or more. Yes Kane has been a valuable player for the Hawks but the sad thing is it doesn't appear that is as important to him as doing stupid things in his spare time, seemingly in an attempt to lose everything he worked for.

Another day closer to raising another banner at the UC and another day closer to the Kane mess being hopefully resolved.
- DK002

Hopefully. G'morning DK!

Hopefully. G'morning DK!
- HawkintheD

Mornin' D...hope your week is going well...

So now D Rose is being accused. Kane accused. So we just need like Anthony Rizzo and Matt Forte and we can all officially go into hiding and cry?

Do you know for a fact I or anyone here has applauded loudly during a game at the mention of the Golden Jet's name?

While not quite the same as speculating, attributing actions to people when you have no way of knowing it happened...seems you're engaging in activity you just suggested other posters shouldn't.

There's a word for that, hmmm....
- HawkintheD

Hey Hawk in the D - not necessarily folks on the board who know a thing or two about Hawks history, but a lot of folks at the games who don't know that history do cheer loudly for Hull when he flashes up on the screen at the UC. And the national broadcast does feature him from time to time without any hesitation. The folks that cheer loudly for Hull at the UC and blithely watch him on the broadcasts are the same people who would be shocked and angry if (when?) Kane were to be traded. This is not a comment on the discussion ongoing here, but just some perspective on the casual Blackhawks fan which I think needs to be considered as a part of the General discussion.

Hey Hawk in the D - not necessarily folks on the board who know a thing or two about Hawks history, but a lot of folks at the games who don't know that history do cheer loudly for Hull when he flashes up on the screen at the UC. And the national broadcast does feature him from time to time without any hesitation. The folks that cheer loudly for Hull at the UC and blithely watch him on the broadcasts are the same people who would be shocked and angry if (when?) Kane were to be traded. This is not a comment on the discussion ongoing here, but just some perspective on the casual Blackhawks fan which I think needs to be considered as a part of the General discussion.
- Marlowe

GM Marlowe,

No problem at all and appreciate the insight. I saw you comment on something similar yesterday. All good stuff and context always helps here.

My comment was addressing something another poster mentioned about how people shouldn't speculate how much Kane had to drink, and then took it a step further to attribute actions to people here.

That was all. No big deal.

aye yi yi ... In the playoffs, Kane led the team in scoring, led the team in goals, led the team in PP points, tied for the team lead in even strength points and GWGs. I guess that isn't enough for some people.
- EbonyRaptor

It was good enough to help win me a playoff pool

Huh? In the Tampa series Kane was completely invisible until the last game. True Stamkos wasn't scoring but he was involved on both sides of the puck and played hard every shift.
- paulr

It wasn't so much that he was invisible, it was more so that Hedman was stapled to his ass that entire series.

Pretty sure that first goal in game 6 happened because Kane was on the ice on one of the few times Hedman wasn't.

It wasn't so much that he was invisible, it was more so that Hedman was stapled to his ass that entire series.

Pretty sure that first goal in game 6 happened because Kane was on the ice on one of the few times Hedman wasn't.
- teh_HAWKZ

No doubt. Nice setup to Keith and will always be one of the goals from these playoffs etched in memory for me.

You knew at that moment too if the Hawks went on to win there was no doubt Keith was getting the CS Trophy.

This is a very astute comment, because this is the reality of the new NHL. The salary cap is the "great evener" and teams simply cannot afford players taking up 15% of the pie that are massive distractions and get suspended for their off ice behaviour! Understand this, there is no way that Kane starts the season playing NHL hockey, traded or not. ANY TEAM (including the Hawks) that dresses Patrick Kane will not do so until he has begun steps to change his lifestyle around. If the Hawks were to keep Kane, I think the most likely scenario would be Kane not returning to play until after the Christmas break...and that "loss of the pie" is all on Kane and his behaviour. The Hawks made it very clear to Patrick what they expected of him, and before he signed the deal, he assured the Hawks they didn't have anything to worry about.
- MexicoHawk

So, if this is the eventuality, does this help the Hawks cap situation or not? I think not. But I dont know the facts, am seeking help to better understand. I believe if suspended or put on some sort of lease/IR, they could replace him with other players, like they did w Vermette and others last year. This year, that might be Bickell, Krug and a #5Dman. But on that December day when he gets activated, they would have to cut or trade players to get his salary back within the cap...his whole salary.

In other words, by my understanding, if he plays, say, 50% of the year, his cap hit is NOT $5.25m (half his $10.5m cap hit), but it is effectively $0 while he's gone, and $10.5m when he's back.

Is this correct? Everyone, please dont reply with uninformed opinions. I state here I dont know the facts and am seeking the factual answers. Thanks

It wasn't so much that he was invisible, it was more so that Hedman was stapled to his ass that entire series.

Pretty sure that first goal in game 6 happened because Kane was on the ice on one of the few times Hedman wasn't.
- teh_HAWKZ

Hedman made him invisible, how's that?

So, if this is the eventuality, does this help the Hawks cap situation or not? I think not. But I dont know the facts, am seeking help to better understand. I believe if suspended or put on some sort of lease/IR, they could replace him with other players, like they did w Vermette and others last year. This year, that might be Bickell, Krug and a #5Dman. But on that December day when he gets activated, they would have to cut or trade players to get his salary back within the cap...his whole salary.

In other words, by my understanding, if he plays, say, 50% of the year, his cap hit is NOT $5.25m (half his $10.5m cap hit), but it is effectively $0 while he's gone, and $10.5m when he's back.

Is this correct? Everyone, please dont reply with uninformed opinions. I state here I dont know the facts and am seeking the factual answers. Thanks
- Cmonalready

I thought the whole point of a message board was the posting of uninformed opinions?

Hedman made him invisible, how's that?
- paulr

The Amazing Hedman! Magic man

The Amazing Hedman! Magic man
- BlazinMike

The fact he made it through puberty with that surname suggests some magical intervention, no?

The fact he made it through puberty with that surname suggests some magical intervention, no?
- paulr

Haha, I had a giggle when I typed it. He was very effective against Kane in the finals though

Mex,

I get everything that you have said on this subject, but I respectfully disagree with your assessments on replacing Patrick Kane.

This team does not win one cup without him, let alone three. It just would not have happened.

The best thing for the Hawks would be to keep him for the next three years. I honestly believe in that time, they will win two more cups.

After this three year period, I think that Hossa will be at his end as a top two way player, Duncan Keith will start to show the wear and tear of what will be 10 hard seasons with long playoff runs, and a few others may as well.

To me, the next three years will be final years of their championship window, and it should be taken full advantage of, "flea infested" Kane included.

By then, he will only be 29, and still a very productive player that teams will line up to deal for.

Any knee jerk reaction now will only close this window sooner, and regardless of his off ice conduct, they just can't take that chance.

McDonough thinks he is selling a squeaky clean image of this team to the city of Chicago. What he doesn't get is this product is selling ONLY because they are winning Stanley Cups. When this window closes, the Chicago sports fans will go back to watching the Bulls and Bears, and the Hawks will go back to being a second rate sell in the fans eyes.

Hockey has never fully captured this town before, only winning cups changed that narrative. And when it is over, nothing McDonough's marketing team does will change this fact. And it will be a hard lesson for him to learn.

The Hawks in the present, and in the future, will never be what the Cubs were in McDonough's time there. That was an unusual situation. And when Rocky Wirtz ends up firing him, hopefully they will understand what I have been saying.
- dahawks8819

I have to weigh in here.

First, in my opinion, had the Hawks taken Turris or JVR first overall in 2007, no, there would have been no Cup in 2010. Or very unlikely. However, who's to say who the Hawks might have taken with higher draft positions in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and what their impact might gave been on the club. You just can't say.

I believe with Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabroiok, Byfuglien, Hjalmarsson, Ladd this team likely would have wopn at least one Cup in the last six years—because also bear in mind, KEEPING Kane has COST the Hawks players.

Second, keeping Kane might not be the best thing for the Hawks, as I keep saying here—you don't know what they would get back for him.

Third, blaming McDonough and marketing/branding is missing the larger point. Kane is now toxic. IFTHEY AT THIS POINT IGNORE YET ANOTHER SIGN OF A RECURRENT PROBLEM WITH KANE, AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS, THE WHOLE TEAM WILL SUFFER.

The Hawks sold the building out for a pretty ling time BEFORE they won the 2010 Cup.

I think the team has to protect itself legally and financially. As does the league. As do sponsors (especially).

And a lot of fans don't want to cheer for a guy who is a complete jerk behind closed doors and a fraud publicly. Is he that? I can't prove it one way or the other except the amount of stories out there, and the alleged REAL story behind some of them, suggest it is at least an open question.

I think ALL Hawk fans want to win Cups. There is no law that says Patrick Kane must be on your team to win one.

GM Marlowe,

No problem at all and appreciate the insight. I saw you comment on something similar yesterday. All good stuff and context always helps here.

My comment was addressing something another poster mentioned about how people shouldn't speculate how much Kane had to drink, and then took it a step further to attribute actions to people here.

That was all. No big deal.
- HawkintheD

Appreciate what you have to say in general. While I don't disagree with the folks on this board (JJ, Mex, 66, Al etc - it's a long list) who know more (and have forgotten more than I will ever know) about hockey and have access to sources of information I don't have, I understand that trading Kane and otherwise planning for his absence (rehab, suspension or conviction) is ongoing and should be, I believe that the planning includes the pulse of the casual fan. So I don't think that Kane absolutely will be traded if the legal mess is resolved in his favor. I also don't think that he absolutely stays either, but I think that there is a thumb on the scale that says keep him (assuming the legal issues go away quietly). I get that he will need to take real steps to regain the trust of the FO at its highest levels too.

I have to weigh in here.

First, in my opinion, had the Hawks taken Turris or JVR first overall in 2007, no, there would have been no Cup in 2010. Or very unlikely. However, who's to say who the Hawks might have taken with higher draft positions in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and what their impact might gave been on the club. You just can't say.

I believe with Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabroiok, Byfuglien, Hjalmarsson, Ladd this team likely would have wopn at least one Cup in the last six years—because also bear in mind, KEEPING Kane has COST the Hawks players.

Second, keeping Kane might not be the best thing for the Hawks, as I keep saying here—you don't know what they would get back for him.

Third, blaming McDonough and marketing/branding is missing the larger point. Kane is now toxic. IFTHEY AT THIS POINT IGNORE YET ANOTHER SIGN OF A RECURRENT PROBLEM WITH KANE, AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS, THE WHOLE TEAM WILL SUFFER.

The Hawks sold the building out for a pretty ling time BEFORE they won the 2010 Cup.

I think the team has to protect itself legally and financially. As does the league. As do sponsors (especially).

And a lot of fans don't want to cheer for a guy who is a complete jerk behind closed doors and a fraud publicly. Is he that? I can't prove it one way or the other except the amount of stories out there, and the alleged REAL story behind some of them, suggest it is at least an open question.

I think ALL Hawk fans want to win Cups. There is no law that says Patrick Kane must be on your team to win one.
- John Jaeckel

Sure does help though. Is he still a point per game player in the playoffs?

I still do not understand how IF he is innocent, Kane did anything at all wrong. IF Kane is innocent, all he did was have a few drinks, bring a chick back to his house, with an off-duty cop as his escort. Do not understand all the vitriol, IF he is innocent. (Which it pretty much sounds like he is.)

All of his past "embarrassments" are all just part and parcel of someone who enjoys the nightlife. NONE of that is out of line among the beer-drinking bar-hopping lifestyle. Seen it all a hundred times and done much of it myself. (sometimes ashamedly so)
- mcmasterkev

Cuz there are MANY here in this country walking around waiting to get pissed off at something or someone, so they can point their fingers and say, "there goes the bad guy".

AND because of this climate we are facing in recent years, thin lines must be walked. Kaner unfortunately wavers from those thin lines and things like this WILL continue to occur. Guilt or innocence, he PUTS himself in sticky situations.

I don't think Duncs or Seabs ... or Tazer, or Hammer, or Hoss put themselves in this situation, ever. Cuz they pay attention to their surroundings and make BETTER decisions.

well this is interesting, Richards was charged:


http://prohockeytalk.nbcs...-of-controlled-substance/