is Patrick Kane the best in the world?

[nfreeman]

Once more, with feeling: there is NFW Kane is leaving Chicago anytime soon. When he's old and decrepit and trying to squeeze out one more year or 2 worth of NHL paychecks? Maybe we'll see him in a Sabres uniform. But not while he's still great and Chicago's still great.

[LGR4GM]

Once more, with feeling: there is NFW Kane is leaving Chicago anytime soon. When he's old and decrepit and trying to squeeze out one more year or 2 worth of NHL paychecks? Maybe we'll see him in a Sabres uniform. But not while he's still great and Chicago's still great.

+88

[Hoss]

Once more, with feeling: there is NFW Kane is leaving Chicago anytime soon. When he's old and decrepit and trying to squeeze out one more year or 2 worth of NHL paychecks? Maybe we'll see him in a Sabres uniform. But not while he's still great and Chicago's still great.

 

Ok. But we're over hear having fun. So let us have fun. We'll wake up when he signs that fat extension this offseason.

[tom webster]

Once more, with feeling: there is NFW Kane is leaving Chicago anytime soon. When he's old and decrepit and trying to squeeze out one more year or 2 worth of NHL paychecks? Maybe we'll see him in a Sabres uniform. But not while he's still great and Chicago's still great.

 

I would be extremely surprised to see him in a Buffalo uniform during his prime years but would not be very surprised to see him leave Chicago after next year and not because of salary cap restraints. There will be plenty of money to go around. Whether there is enough a** kissing to go around is another matter and that's all I am go to say about that subject.

[Hoss]

I wonder how interested Kane is in getting a letter. I doubt Chicago would be opposed to giving him an A if that's a deal breaker. But if they are and he wants to be considered one of the leaders of a team then maybe he'd move on. His off-ice stuff is obviously the only negative about him, but he seems to be a leader-by-example on it.

[Eleven]

I would be extremely surprised to see him in a Buffalo uniform during his prime years but would not be very surprised to see him leave Chicago after next year and not because of salary cap restraints. There will be plenty of money to go around. Whether there is enough a** kissing to go around is another matter and that's all I am go to say about that subject.

 

Well, if you're willing to break your "all I'm going to say," where do you think he will land? IT's fun enough to speculate.

 

I wonder how interested Kane is in getting a letter. I doubt Chicago would be opposed to giving him an A if that's a deal breaker. But if they are and he wants to be considered one of the leaders of a team then maybe he'd move on. His off-ice stuff is obviously the only negative about him, but he seems to be a leader-by-example on it.

 

I don't ever want anyone who needs a letter to have a letter.

[Hoss]

I don't ever want anyone who needs a letter to have a letter.

 

Predictable response. If it's the difference between having and not having Kane then I would be completely fine with it. I don't care what a player wants. If he gets us a giant step closer to a cup then he can have it.

[Eleven]

Predictable response. If it's the difference between having and not having Kane then I would be completely fine with it. I don't care what a player wants. If he gets us a giant step closer to a cup then he can have it.

 

If you ever want to know why people sometimes think you're a little on the douchey side...

 

Anyway. I want leaders who are leaders. Not players who want letters.

 

I remember a writing professor back in the day. He said "There's a difference between someone who wants to be a writer, and someone who wants to write."

 

Dig?

[Hoss]

 

 

If you ever want to know why people sometimes think you're a little on the douchey side...

 

Anyway. I want leaders who are leaders. Not players who want letters.

 

I remember a writing professor back in the day. He said "There's a difference between someone who wants to be a writer, and someone who wants to write."

 

Dig?

 

There was nothing douchey about that. I was noting that what I said set up well for that response. Was going more for "understandable." But hey, thanks for the name calling.

 

As for leaders who are actually leaders, I think Kane can be a part of a larger, strong leadership group. Which is why Chicago has been perfect for him.

[Eleven]

There was nothing douchey about that. I was noting that what I said set up well for that response. Was going more for "understandable." But hey, thanks for the name calling.

 

As for leaders who are actually leaders, I think Kane can be a part of a larger, strong leadership group. Which is why Chicago has been perfect for him.

 

You earned your badge, and nothing about Kane screams, or even whispers, "leader." He's talented. Incredibly so. That doesn't make him a leader.

 

Look what happened when the Sabres gave Gare and Perreault captaincies.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Eleven

[Hoss]

 

 

You earned your badge, and nothing about Kane screams, or even whispers, "leader." He's talented. Incredibly so. That doesn't make him a leader.

 

Look what happened when the Sabres gave Gare and Perreault captaincies.

 

I think an A would be fine if the Captain and other A are locker room guys who can perform on and off the ice. Agree to disagree.

[LTS]

I think an A would be fine if the Captain and other A are locker room guys who can perform on and off the ice. Agree to disagree.

 

In a vacuum you might be right. However, there are other guys on the team and they aren't going to be interested in playing with a guy who is all out for himself. They might have regular season success but in the playoffs they will fall apart. You wonder why players don't come to the defense of another player when it's time to put up or shut up and there's your answer. It's because they don't feel he is there for the team.

 

So you get a player who waltz's in and says I need an "A" to play and I'd turn him around and say "Good Day, Eh?"

 

I won't even begin to buy into the argument that locker room chemistry doesn't matter let alone the chemistry on the ice.

[Hoss]

Nobody is saying Kane is all out for himself. Wanting to be a leader isn't all out for himself. It was ONE thing I brought up in order to give another possible situation that may lead Kane out of Chicago. Damn people.

 

Also, nobody argued chemistry doesn't matter. You're just throwing ###### at the wrong wall.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Tankalicious

[26CornerBlitz]

Focus in Chicago turns to Kane, Toews’ contracts

The Chicago Blackhawks weren’t able to advance to the Stanley Cup Final for a third time in five years, but they have to feel very good about the team they’ve assembled. They’re still relatively young, deep, and most of their key players under control for at least a couple more seasons — with two notable exceptions.

 

Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews will both become unrestricted free agents in the summer of 2015.

 

It would be shocking if Kane and Toews didn’t re-sign with Chicago. In fact, it would be eyebrow raising if their extensions weren’t announced by the end of the summer. The bigger question is what kind of raise they’ll demand from their respective annual cap hits of $6.3 million.

[LTS]

Nobody is saying Kane is all out for himself. Wanting to be a leader isn't all out for himself. It was ONE thing I brought up in order to give another possible situation that may lead Kane out of Chicago. Damn people.

 

Also, nobody argued chemistry doesn't matter. You're just throwing ###### at the wrong wall.

 

Saying a player would want an "A" as part of his negotiation would pretty much mean he is out for himself. You can want to be a leader all you want, but that won't make you a leader.

 

Saying that a having a strong "C" and a strong "A" on the ice would alleviate the problem does a good job of insinuating that the chemistry issue brought up by granting an "A" to someone based solely because he demanded it is no longer relevant. Thus my comments about chemistry.

 

There are actually reasons as to why I say what I say. Your comment about throwing stuff at walls was interesting. I'm not sure how you want me to respond to that. Should I just ignore it as some completely ridiculous and superfluous comment or did you want me to be offended by your claims and respond with some additionally ridiculous and superfluous comment?