Seabs isn't a point scoring defenseman.. that's the problem. He's a very very solid defenseman who is very much worth what he's getting paid.

Winnipeg is a .500 team in a much much crappier division. He's still on pace to have a -19 +/-. Again.. he's a pretty bad defensive player and can't find a spot to call "home" on the offensive side.
- CaptainBlackhawk

He's 38th in the league at +/- and was an even last year....at 7 mil? I don't see it but whatever.

I said it before he was signed and will say again.

The only defender better than Seabrook his age is Weber...In a few years it shouldn't shock anyone if we refer to #2 and #7 as Seabrook and Keith instead.

Seabrook, if he doesn't suffer a bad injury could have a Pronger like career....
- Al

I completely agree - it's others on this board that can't grasp it.

For P. Kane, I'd want Nash and something small. I'd want Brown and something fairly large. And I'd want E. Kane and something significant.

Look, I don't think they will trade Kane. Anyone assuming though that it would automatically hurt the team is being naive, just as you can't assume it would improve them either.
- John Jaeckel

I am in agreeance with you JJ, no arguements from me.

If.. IF Kane could get a guy like Nash or Perry. I'd probably do it..

I just don't think Anaheim or Columbus make that trade.

The only way I would entertain a trade would be for a legit scoring, signed, 1st line right wing.

You don't trade him for a 2nd line center, a 3rd line winger and a prospect.. You get equal value back.
- pri$ey

Pretty sure Perry would be the perfect fit for Chicago. If it meant losing Kane and adding Perry I could go back to my days of loving the Blackhawks.

From 1991-2007 they were my 2nd team until they added Kane and Byfuglien. Haven't had a 2nd team since.

Please dump Kane.

The only condescending JJ thing that didn't get thrown your way was him calling you "pal" at the end.





- pri$ey

You just made the list, pal!!

Did he really say patrick kane would get a bigger return then Keith or did I miss read that? Would that really be the case kane is a young offensive talent that play next to no defense. I would think a top d man would pull more.

He's 38th in the league at +/- and was an even last year....at 7 mil? I don't see it but whatever.
- dstarz20

HIS CAP HIT ISN'T 7 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!

HIS CAP HIT ISN'T 7 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!
- CaptainBlackhawk

I think the miscommunication here is he is saying Seabrook is getting paid $7 million this year, while his cap hit is in the 5. something range. His salary this year is more than his cap hit.

HIS CAP HIT ISN'T 7 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!
- CaptainBlackhawk

But his salary is. The 2 million Seabrook played much better than the 7 million, cap or no cap.

I said it before he was signed and will say again.

The only defender better than Seabrook his age is Weber...In a few years it shouldn't shock anyone if we refer to #2 and #7 as Seabrook and Keith instead.

Seabrook, if he doesn't suffer a bad injury could have a Pronger like career....
- Al

What's interesting is, Babcock basically made him the 7th or 8th defenseman on Team Canada in 2010.

And he's the best coach in the game.

But in my opinion, Seabrook has stepped up since about this time last year, and I also do agree Al, he was great in the playoffs in 2009 and 2010.

He does it all: physical, smart, great passer, plus skater, good enough shot, and has become a great leader on and off the ice.

Great post.

At one time, I thought Kane could possibly become a Datsyuk-like player (and he of course, said it himself). When I say Datsyuk like I mean a guy who is small but pound for pound a beat and very physical AND creative AND defensively sound.

But maybe I was being delusional. Players like Datsyuk don't come along very often.

The bolded, italicized part is what I am saying. And that's all fans should care about too.
- John Jaeckel

JJ, I don't for a minute want to draw a comparison between Patrick Kane and a 10 game player like Andrew Shaw. But in watching games throughout January I keep thinking/asking myself what it is that Kane is doing for this team that Andrew Shaw isn't. My conclusion is always the same, not much except he costs about $5.8M a season more.

Your Kane - Datsyuk vision - nothing wrong with you hoping #88 could turn into #13. But that's a tall order and I'm not sure a kid like Kane has the determination or motivation long term to accomplish that. Pavel is one helluva player and a performer that gives guys like Toews and Hossa all they can handle. Patrick is not even in his league right now.

Did he really say patrick kane would get a bigger return then Keith or did I miss read that? Would that really be the case kane is a young offensive talent that play next to no defense. I would think a top d man would pull more.
- PhillyFran

He did say that. He also watches both players every night.

He also takes into account that part of Kane's trade value is his marquee quality, even if it is not a reason for Hawk fans to want to keep him.

Yeah, Kane probably brings you more in trade than Keith does.

But his salary is. The 2 million Seabrook played much better than the 7 million, cap or no cap.
- dstarz20

And again.. the only thing a team is concerned about is this: What his cap hit is.

End of story. No matter how some wish to spin it.

Does anyone think that MAYBE the Hawks would consider trading Kane, but since he and Toews are very close friends, they would never actually do it because they'd be afraid of ticking Toews off which might eventually lead to him going elsewhere when his contract is up. Nobody has brought up the point about how Toews would feel if Kane were to be traded. I think we'd be naive to say it wouldn't bother him. I'm not saying Toews would pout and not give his usual 100 percent. He's not that type, but maybe the Hawks have some concerns in that area, so it's not as cut and dried in regards to training him. This is just a theory and whether it's true or not, I don't see the Hawks trading him under any circumstances. I think other players such as Bolland, Hjalmarsson, Sharp to name a few would be moved before him should the team take another first round exit or miss the playoffs entirely.

And again.. the only thing a team is concerned about is this: What his cap hit is.

End of story. No matter how some wish to spin it.
- CaptainBlackhawk

Nah, It matters to me when I have to pay more to walk into the stadium. The story continues.

JJ, I don't for a minute want to draw a comparison between Patrick Kane and a 10 game player like Andrew Shaw. But in watching games throughout January I keep thinking/asking myself what it is that Kane is doing for this team that Andrew Shaw isn't. My conclusion is always the same, not much except he costs about $5.8M a season more.

Your Kane - Datsyuk vision - nothing wrong with you hoping #88 could turn into #13. But that's a tall order and I'm not sure a kid like Kane has the determination or motivation long term to accomplish that. Pavel is one helluva player and a performer that gives guys like Toews and Hossa all they can handle. Patrick is not even in his league right now.
- RickJ

Rick, you are the man.

Listen, I don't know what Kane's issue is right now. Someone told me this morning he's gotten a little pouty over the shuttling between wing and center. Dunno.

But last night, Shaw (who is a frickin' gem of a find), Bolland (terrific last night) and Kruger were all better players than Kane. As was Hossa, but I expect that.

Getting back to Shaw, he is just a smart player up and down the ice who wins. He looks like a guy who's been in the league for 5-10 years. As does Kruger a lot of the time. Kruger just needs a summer of serious strength work.

Whoever the scout was who pushed Shaw, that guy deserves a raise.

Whoever the scout was who pushed Shaw, that guy deserves a raise.
- John Jaeckel

Amen to that.

He did say that. He also watches both players every night.

He also takes into account that part of Kane's trade value is his marquee quality, even if it is not a reason for Hawk fans to want to keep him.

Yeah, Kane probably brings you more in trade than Keith does.
- John Jaeckel

I am not saying you are wrong. I just see the prices of top pair D men I wouldn't pay that price for Kane. That is just me though. Especially after you said he hasn't stepped up and his attitude may not be great.

Rick, you are the man.

Listen, I don't know what Kane's issue is right now. Someone told me this morning he's gotten a little pouty over the shuttling between wing and center. Dunno.

But last night, Shaw (who is a frickin' gem of a find), Bolland (terrific last night) and Kruger were all better players than Kane. As was Hossa, but I expect that.

Getting back to Shaw, he is just a smart player up and down the ice who wins. He looks like a guy who's been in the league for 5-10 years. As does Kruger a lot of the time. Kruger just needs a summer of serious strength work.

Whoever the scout was who pushed Shaw, that guy deserves a raise.
- John Jaeckel

Except when Hossa and Kane got some mo mo going late in the game the best line was with Shaw and Hayes.

They were able to play north and south, becasue that's all they know and try to do...But they got through the Nash. defense and put some pressure on Rinne...

Sometimes, actually often, simple is best.

Does anyone think that MAYBE the Hawks would consider trading Kane, but since he and Toews are very close friends, they would never actually do it because they'd be afraid of ticking Toews off which might eventually lead to him going elsewhere when his contract is up. Nobody has brought up the point about how Toews would feel if Kane were to be traded. I think we'd be naive to say it wouldn't bother him. I'm not saying Toews would pout and not give his usual 100 percent. He's not that type, but maybe the Hawks have some concerns in that area, so it's not as cut and dried in regards to training him. This is just a theory and whether it's true or not, I don't see the Hawks trading him under any circumstances. I think other players such as Bolland, Hjalmarsson, Sharp to name a few would be moved before him should the team take another first round exit or miss the playoffs entirely.
- RetiredGoalie

I am not sure how much the friendship is really that tight, and how much is a product of marketing. Away from hockey, they have different friends and they are different kids. And they have different roles and responsibilities with the team. To assume because they are 'friends" Kane has not gotten on the red side of Toews' a-- as captain is naive and probably incorrect. There's definitely some affection and camaraderie there, but I don't believe the Butch and Sundance thing at all. Marketing b.s.

I am not saying you are wrong. I just see the prices of top pair D men I wouldn't pay that price for Kane. That is just me though. Especially after you said he hasn't stepped up and his attitude may not be great.
- PhillyFran

It's cool, listen I don't think there's a huge difference in what the return would be, FWIW

Except when Hossa and Kane got some mo mo going late in the game the best line was with Shaw and Hayes.

They were able to play north and south, becasue that's all they know and try to do...But they got through the Nash. defense and put some pressure on Rinne...

Sometimes, actually often, simple is best.
- Al

Shaw/Hossa/Kruger was the best, IMO

Rick, you are the man.

Listen, I don't know what Kane's issue is right now. Someone told me this morning he's gotten a little pouty over the shuttling between wing and center. Dunno.

But last night, Shaw (who is a frickin' gem of a find), Bolland (terrific last night) and Kruger were all better players than Kane. As was Hossa, but I expect that.

Getting back to Shaw, he is just a smart player up and down the ice who wins. He looks like a guy who's been in the league for 5-10 years. As does Kruger a lot of the time. Kruger just needs a summer of serious strength work.

Whoever the scout was who pushed Shaw, that guy deserves a raise.
- John Jaeckel

JJ: YOU DID THIS BLOG JUST GET RESPONSE, OK, YOU GOT WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, NOW ADMIT THAT IT'S NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. NO WAY IN THIS WORLD ARE THE HAWKS GOING TO TRADE KANER AND I TOTALLY AGREE.

I am not sure how much the friendship is really that tight, and how much is a product of marketing. Away from hockey, they have different friends and they are different kids. And they have different roles and responsibilities with the team. To assume because they are 'friends" Kane has not gotten on the red side of Toews' a-- as captain is naive and probably incorrect. There's definitely some affection and camaraderie there, but I don't believe the Butch and Sundance thing at all. Marketing b.s.
- John Jaeckel

Take this for whatever it is worth..

I have a good friend that knows some of these players very very well and hangs out with them on a pretty consistent basis.

Toews & Kane are far from buddy/buddy and rarely hang out off the ice.

A couple of holes here.

1. The yo-yo of opinion continues. When the Hawks win a couple in a row, they're better than last year and start to look like real contenders that are a defenseman and depth forward away. The second they lose a few, they're not any better than last year's edition. Pick one and stick with it.

2. So much for presenting both sides of the "trade Kane" argument. 85% of that blog was "why the Hawks should trade Kane". If that's your opinion that's fine, but don't mask it as being objective.

For what it's worth, I would definitely agree that the notion trading Kane should not be dismissed. BUT, only if they get a premier player in return. Rick Nash, Zach Parise+ or Corey Perry/Bobby Ryan would all be adequate returns. What I WOULD NOT condone is trading Kane for a 2nd line center, 2nd pairing dman and draft picks and/or prospects. As the old adage goes, the team that gets the best player in a multi-player deal usually wins, and in any package deal where the Hawks would lose Kane, they would lose the deal in my opinion and would be no closer to a Cup.

As for this year's team, I think they are light years better. Their improved depth at forward is enough to put them ahead of the 2011 edition. That said, yes they ideally need to add a 2nd line center and a 2nd pairing dman. But I disagree that they need more depth forwards. MAYBE a penalty-killing 4th line center (like Jeff Halpern for example), but that's it.

Otherwise I think Andrew Shaw, Ben Smith and Jimmy Hayes are good enough to fill those bottom six physical forward roles they lacked last season and earlier this season. I also still believe in Corey Craword. He made the saves that gave the Hawks a chance to beat Nashville last night (especially in the 3rd), in spite of not having 19 and 10 in the lineup.

Here's a scenario of an example of the ideal additions to the lineup:

Add Derek Roy, Jeff Halpern and Tim Gleason, all of which can be added for relatively low cost. All of a sudden a healthy Hawks lineup would be one of the last teams you'd want to face in the playoffs.

Stalberg-Toews-Kane
Sharp-Roy-Hossa
Shaw-Bolland-Frolik
Hayes-Halpern-Mayers
Smith

Keith-Seabrook
Hjalmarsson-Gleason
Leddy-Montador
O'Donnell

That looks pretty deep and good in all areas to me.

To be clear btw JJ, in no way was this meant offensively, but I am allowed to disagree with you, as are you with me. That's all it should be taken as.