Kane is a Red Wing

kmwtrucks

Registered User
Mar 11, 2014
1,859
652
Over Kane's 16 year career with the Hawks he's a +20. With 446 goals... You don't just cherry pick when he's playing on dynasty-level teams that had third lines that rivaled most teams' second lines.

This has always been him. Period. He's not the reason the Wings are losing while he's scoring at a ppg clip and only a -2. Their bad D and shitty goalies are. Their top two goalies... both have 3.40+ GAAs and sub-.900 SV%s.
I was saying kane in his prime was at positive +/- player, and he carried the 2nd line that was generally fairly patch work. his centers tended to be more third line quality.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,769
22,704
Chicago 'Burbs
I was saying kane in his prime was at positive +/- player, and he carried the 2nd line that was generally fairly patch work. his centers tended to be more third line quality.

No. This is what you said. And it was a bad take.

the issue is Redwings are 2-8-1 in his 11 games and with him scoring a pt per game he is still a -2. I love kane but he does not effect the game 5 vs 5. Redwings were solidly in the playoffs before. not there are solidly out.

Saying a player that is playing at a PPG level after a hip resurfacing, does not have an effect on the game 5vs5, and then following that with the implication that Kane is responsible for the Wings not being in the playoff picture right now... is a bad take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68 and Giovi

kmwtrucks

Registered User
Mar 11, 2014
1,859
652
No. This is what you said. And it was a bad take.



Saying a player that is playing at a PPG level after a hip resurfacing, does not have an effect on the game 5vs5, and then following that with the implication that Kane is responsible for the Wings not being in the playoff picture right now... is a bad take.
kane for all the great hawks year 8 years was postive in +/-,

that is what I said. somebody claimed that kane was always a negative +/- when from ages 21-28 (8 years) he was always positive.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,769
22,704
Chicago 'Burbs
kane for all the great hawks year 8 years was postive in +/-,

that is what I said. somebody claimed that kane was always a negative +/- when from ages 21-28 (8 years) he was always positive.

:facepalm:

No one claimed he was always negative... and you said what I quoted you as saying... it's a quote... of exactly what you said...
 

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,582
10,274
Blaming Kane for a team not defending is a coaching issue. He's bad defensively. Pretty much always has been. You take the game breaking offensive talent every day of the week.

True. There is merit to the argument that Kane doesnt drive or control 5v5 play, and therefore needs particular deployment to come out better-than-even in his ice-time. But that’s been true his entire career. He’ll always beat out his own xGF, but the team with him on the ice doesn't necessarily.

Anybody signing Kane should have known going in that they were adding a glass cannon to their arsenal.

That said it’s ironic if coaching turns out to be an issue as far as leveraging Kane effectively within the system, cause it was widely reported that the coach was a huge reason Kane chose Detroit.
 

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,582
10,274
Kane trade talk heating up according to Chris Johnston on overdrive.

Probably to Vegas or Colorado if I had to guess. Maybe Dallas. Unless Kane still has no interest in western conference teams. Not sure what contender in the East is in need of top 6 scoring with massive defensive liability? Most teams don't shelter their top 2 lines.

Maybe Boston does it just for shits and giggles.
 

BLKHKhockey

Registered User
Aug 28, 2009
701
493
Have to imagine if Kane has so much as a scratch they aren't going to take any chances. Hopefully it's mostly precautionary, he was looking great.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad