|
Is This Kane’s Last Year As A Hawk? |
|
|
|
|
|
Follow JJ on Twitter @jaeckel!
The subject perked up again on my message board thread this morning. And on the eve of the new season, maybe this is a good time to explore the possibility the title of this blog suggests—one last time—then bookmark it for the next several months.
The purpose of this blog is not to dredge up the now well-worn topic of Kane’s “guilt” or “innocence” of alleged malfeasance this past summer at his home in Buffalo.
Some feel the lack of DNA evidence as far as sexual assault completely exonerates Kane (at least) of any wrongdoing that night. For the most part, these fans also believe we are back to business as usual, and there is no way—because there is no reason to do it—that Kane will be traded.
But the question that other fans—and possibly the management of the Blackhawks— are asking is: why do these things always seem to happen to Kane, and not the many other star players on the Blackhawks. Why are some of the circumstances always the same? And, therefore, what is there to confirm something like this, or worse, won’t happen again?
Some will point to the “rehabilitation” of NFL linebacker Ray Lewis’ image, or that of Kobe Bryant—but Bryant and Lewis have, as far as the public knows, stayed out of trouble since their “incidents.”
Trouble, like it or not, seems to follow Kane.
So there is at least a plausible business reason the Hawks might move Kane for reasonable value in return. Because there is evidence to suggest that he is too risky for the cap commitment the team has in him—that he is potentially (if not already) toxic to sponsors.
Maybe not. Perhaps Kane really is (and has been) on the straight and narrow and just an innocent victim of circumstance.
But if, IF, the Blackhawks were growing tired of public dramas involving Kane every 3rd summer, and they weren’t convinced it was going to change, could there also be a hockey argument that the team might look at trading Kane?
There could be.
First, there is a significant part of the most recent generation of Hawk fans who are convinced Kane is one of the absolute best, if not the best, player in the game today.
That’s debatable.
Kane is an electrifying, offensively gifted player who can elevate his game at critical times. There can be a two-way element to his game as well—when he wants to put forth the effort. On the downside, Kane can be pushed to the perimeter and limited, if not stopped cold, by very good, big defensemen (see: Hedman, V, 2015 Stanley Cup Finals).
He has played some center, but he is really a wing.
There are at least a handful (or more) of better all-around players in the league, maybe a couple of them on Kane’s own team.
And to say that there is no way you can “replace” Kane simply ignores the many possible permutations of return in a trade for Kane—and also what the Hawks may already have in their system.
Am I serious about that last part? I am.
First off, and this is an entirely separate can of worms, I am not convinced yet that Teuvo Teravainen’s best position in the NHL isn’t right wing. Time will tell if Teravainen will ever have the physical tools to be a successful center in the NHL. But he can be really effective on the right side.
Another high upside player whose best position might be right wing is Marko Dano. Sure, Dano was just sent to Rockford, but bear in mind, he’s 20 years old and the Hawks are stacked at forward. Many who have recently come to the conclusion that Dano now “sucks,” were elevating him to God-like status after a couple of preseason scrimmages.
Dano was allegedly sent down because the coaching staff felt he was spending too much time and bandwidth “watching Toews and Hossa.” The same could have been (and frankly was) said about Brandon Saad in his first 20-25 games, at the same age, in the fall of 2012. And we know the irony of how that story turned out.
This isn’t to say that Teravainen, much less Dano, will ever “equal” Kane. But I am willing to bet either or both will be very good to excellent NHL players, and very likely at right wing.
Which leads to the bigger point: return on Kane in a deal. It is unlikely, and in light of what I laid out above, maybe completely unnecessary to try to get a right wing of “equal value” back in a trade for Kane.
But.
Take a look at some other positions.
Could the Hawks get a stud, blue chip defensive prospect, and/or the top 3 pick necessary to draft one, in return for Kane? Absolutely.
Because if you’re buying Viktor Svedberg or Erik Gustafsson or Ville Pokka or some prospect TBD drafted 25-30 overall as potential replacements for Duncan Keith or Brent Seabrook, stick around, we can talk later about a bridge I want to sell you.
And there is a money argument for trading Kane. The Hawks just re-upped with Seabrook on a big, long-term contract. And now have roughly $44 million of their cap wrapped up in 6 players next season.
Another argument of the summer I do not wish to re-litigate the potential for a static or even reduced salary cap. But to the extent that Canadian and American currencies, and team owners, are affected by world oil prices alone, there is definitely the potential for—at best—only very limited cap growth.
Teravainen, Dano (RFAs) and Scott Darling (UFA) all hit free agency in the summer of 2017.
Could the Hawks deal Kane after this season? The overall weight of evidence suggests it’s at least a possibility.
Why after this season? That’s an assumption. The fact is, today, no one has a gun to the Hawks’ collective heads saying they must trade Kane. And any big decision in life, let along hockey, is best made over time, not out of desperation. Further, assuming Kane stays out of trouble between now and say June, it’s easier to see teams feeling his talent is worth the risk—a change of scenery might be the best thing—and a fairly robust trade market for Kane.
There are a lot of ways this could play out—including Kane staying in Chicago long-term.
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»