Patrick Kane And His Partying Ways Thread

[DewsSox79]

discuss anymore things said from the front office, more rumors etc

 

[DewsSox79]

Patrick Sharp: Chicago Blackhawks forward Patrick Sharp talks about team's offseason activity, including Patrick Kane party photos - chicagotribune.com

encouraging.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

Sharp's the real deal.

 

[DewsSox79]

Sharp's the real deal.

as far as what? thats a pretty generic post.

 

[DMelt36]

Sharp's the real deal.

In every way possible.

 

[DewsSox79]

In every way possible.

I think EIB meant his looks. :dunno:

 

[DMelt36]

Here's what Dews asked:

Originally Posted by DewsSox79
what? what do you think he is worth? realistically

My initial answer is: a ton. And I'll tell you why.

Let me preface by saying that I'm going to focus on what Kane CAN do. There's been plenty of talk about what he can't do, but I've always been more focused on what a player can bring to the table as opposed to what he's incapable of doing. That's my inner coach coming out.

Simply put, he's an elite offensive talent, and I don't think there's much question to that. His hands, his vision, his speed, and his offensive IQ make him a potential to score (or, more likely, to set one up) whenever he crosses the blue line.

I haven't seen a player with more offensive skill in a Hawks sweater in the last 15 years. Period. The name that makes me pause at 15 is Roenick, but you may even be able to go as far back as Savard. I didn't see much of Roenick's or Savard's career in Chicago, so I cannot say for sure. I'll let others do that.

But some of the plays Kane's made in his career are just unreal. That backhanded snipe over Luongo in '09, completing a playoff hat trick. The spin-o-rama backhand pass to Hossa. The absolute undressing of Wild goalie Nicklas Backstrom. The sick shootout move he did in Detroit immediately after Datsyuk failed on a similar deke. The simple fact that Kane has the ability to pull off these outstanding moves on the fly should indicate just how talented he is.

He's 23 years old, coming off of a bad season. But one season does not diminish other career accolades. In the Cup year, he played 104 games and had 116 points. Read that again. That's incredible. Also scored 5 points in the 6 games from the Olympics.

He's got some obvious deficiencies, sure. Lack of size, sometimes passes too much, doesn't contribute to defense, etc. ... although I'll say some of his negatives are overstated. And I have a hard time believing his 11-12 numbers weren't somewhat affected by that wrist injury he suffered just before camp. I feel like he's going through what Adam Dunn went through with the Sox last year.

Now, to answer the original question ... if we're talking draft picks, I think he's worth at least a pair of first-rounders, and probably more if you consider that Paul Gaustad fetched a first-round pick at the deadline last year.

In terms of other players around the league ... I think it's easier to list the players that are in a higher value than he is. Keep in mind that, at the age of 23, his best years could still be ahead of him.
A short list would say that prime-aged stars such as Stamkos, Malkin, Giroux, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kessel, Kovalchuk, Parise, etc. are above Kane in trade value.
I'd say he's above, in terms of value, some NHL stars that are on the wrong side of 30: the Sedins, Datsyuk, Iginla, Elias, Thornton,
I think some younger guys that haven't proven quite as much as Kane has (Nugent-Hopkins, Hall, Seguin, Couturier) are slightly below him in value.

I'd say he's somewhere in the mid-20s in terms of overall trade value, league-wide.

Okay, that's enough of that. Working on Friday nights is boring. Now I'm sure you'll all tell me how wrong I am.

 

[DewsSox79]

Here's what Dews asked:


My initial answer is: a ton. And I'll tell you why.

Let me preface by saying that I'm going to focus on what Kane CAN do. There's been plenty of talk about what he can't do, but I've always been more focused on what a player can bring to the table as opposed to what he's incapable of doing. That's my inner coach coming out.

Simply put, he's an elite offensive talent, and I don't think there's much question to that. His hands, his vision, his speed, and his offensive IQ make him a potential to score (or, more likely, to set one up) whenever he crosses the blue line.

I haven't seen a player with more offensive skill in a Hawks sweater in the last 15 years. Period. The name that makes me pause at 15 is Roenick, but you may even be able to go as far back as Savard. I didn't see much of Roenick's or Savard's career in Chicago, so I cannot say for sure. I'll let others do that.

But some of the plays Kane's made in his career are just unreal. That backhanded snipe over Luongo in '09, completing a playoff hat trick. The spin-o-rama backhand pass to Hossa. The absolute undressing of Wild goalie Nicklas Backstrom. The sick shootout move he did in Detroit immediately after Datsyuk failed on a similar deke. The simple fact that Kane has the ability to pull off these outstanding moves on the fly should indicate just how talented he is.

He's 23 years old, coming off of a bad season. But one season does not diminish other career accolades. In the Cup year, he played 104 games and had 116 points. Read that again. That's incredible. Also scored 5 points in the 6 games from the Olympics.

He's got some obvious deficiencies, sure. Lack of size, sometimes passes too much, doesn't contribute to defense, etc. ... although I'll say some of his negatives are overstated. And I have a hard time believing his 11-12 numbers weren't somewhat affected by that wrist injury he suffered just before camp. I feel like he's going through what Adam Dunn went through with the Sox last year.

Now, to answer the original question ... if we're talking draft picks, I think he's worth at least a pair of first-rounders, and probably more if you consider that Paul Gaustad fetched a first-round pick at the deadline last year.

In terms of other players around the league ... I think it's easier to list the players that are in a higher value than he is. Keep in mind that, at the age of 23, his best years could still be ahead of him.
A short list would say that prime-aged stars such as Stamkos, Malkin, Giroux, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kessel, Kovalchuk, Parise, etc. are above Kane in trade value.
I'd say he's above, in terms of value, some NHL stars that are on the wrong side of 30: the Sedins, Datsyuk, Iginla, Elias, Thornton,
I think some younger guys that haven't proven quite as much as Kane has (Nugent-Hopkins, Hall, Seguin, Couturier) are slightly below him in value.

I'd say he's somewhere in the mid-20s in terms of overall trade value, league-wide.

Okay, that's enough of that. Working on Friday nights is boring. Now I'm sure you'll all tell me how wrong I am.

Not going to say you are 100% wrong or right here.

I think we are looking at a player too much on potential and projections. Sure he has made some crafty plays in his career, but there are also bad players that make plays like that in their career. just sayin.

Not sure where you were going with Roenick and savard but with what the hawks are missing right now is what Roenick was, the type of player he was. Roenick was a skilled/physical forward. I dont know if you were comparing or just saying that the last time you saw a player like kane that was good was roenick :dunno: As of right now kane cant be mentioned in the same sentence with players like roenick and savard...not yet anyway. Scoring the game winner of a stanley cup game doesnt automatically put him ahead or even with those guys, thats like saying if a player like fraser scored that goal he wouldnt be up there because he sucks...see where im going with this.

His value isnt good right now so im not sure it is smart to trade him.

 

[inactiveuser1]

as far as what? thats a pretty generic post.

Thanked for your sig :lmao:

 

[DMelt36]

Not going to say you are 100% wrong or right here.

I think we are looking at a player too much on potential and projections. Sure he has made some crafty plays in his career, but there are also bad players that make plays like that in their career. just sayin.

Not sure where you were going with Roenick and savard but with what the hawks are missing right now is what Roenick was, the type of player he was. Roenick was a skilled/physical forward. I dont know if you were comparing or just saying that the last time you saw a player like kane that was good was roenick :dunno: As of right now kane cant be mentioned in the same sentence with players like roenick and savard...not yet anyway. Scoring the game winner of a stanley cup game doesnt automatically put him ahead or even with those guys, thats like saying if a player like fraser scored that goal he wouldnt be up there because he sucks...see where im going with this.

His value isnt good right now so im not sure it is smart to trade him.

Well, I think you have to talk a lot about a player's future projections when said player only 23 years old.

The reason Roenick's name came up was because I haven't seen a Hawk with more offensive skill than Kane since I've been watching the Hawks. That goes back to about 1997, or right when Roenick left town. I recognize that they are different styles of play, but offense is where they made their marks.

I hesitated to put Kane over Roenick (or Savard, for that matter) because I didn't watch much of their careers, so I'm not able to say who's better. Right now, no, you can't put him above those two. But some of the ridiculous plays Kane's made leads me to believe that, in ten years, he will be there. And I haven't been able to say that about any other young Hawk since '97. Hope that clears it up.

[Edit] Regarding this quote:

Sure he has made some crafty plays in his career, but there are also bad players that make plays like that in their career. just sayin

Have any of them done it for five straight seasons, and were still doing it in a "down" year?

I'd also add that Kane's "down" year was still a pretty good season for 95% of NHL players at 23 goals, 43 asissts, and 66 total points.

 

[Capt. Serious]

I'd also add that Kane's "down" year was still a pretty good season for 95% of NHL players at 23 goals, 43 asissts, and 66 total points.

Yeah, but Kane is suppose to be "elite". He's a one trick pony with no two way game.

 

[tbo41fan]

Yeah, but Kane is suppose to be "elite". He's a one trick pony with no two way game.

Stamkos is also "elite" and plays as much defense as kane

Sent via Tapatalk on Droid RAZR MAXX

 

[DewsSox79]

Stamkos is also "elite" and plays as much defense as kane

Sent via Tapatalk on Droid RAZR MAXX

stamkos is 100x better and makes up for his lack of 2 way play by scoring boat loads of goals. comparing the 2 players is just stupid


Sent from my Asshole using Tapatalk

 

[Capt. Serious]

LOL, Stammer >>> Kane & it's not even close.

 

[Jntg4]

Not going to say you are 100% wrong or right here.

I think we are looking at a player too much on potential and projections. Sure he has made some crafty plays in his career, but there are also bad players that make plays like that in their career. just sayin.

Not sure where you were going with Roenick and savard but with what the hawks are missing right now is what Roenick was, the type of player he was. Roenick was a skilled/physical forward. I dont know if you were comparing or just saying that the last time you saw a player like kane that was good was roenick :dunno: As of right now kane cant be mentioned in the same sentence with players like roenick and savard...not yet anyway. Scoring the game winner of a stanley cup game doesnt automatically put him ahead or even with those guys, thats like saying if a player like fraser scored that goal he wouldnt be up there because he sucks...see where im going with this.

His value isnt good right now so im not sure it is smart to trade him.

Wait, so you are telling me that if Koyie Hill hits a walk-off someday in a 3rd stint with the Cubs that happened to be in the World Series, that it wouldn't make him a legend?

Spoiler

You would be right, because he already is one

 

[Jntg4]

LOL, Stammer >>> Kane & it's not even close.

Re-read TBO's post, he didn't claim they were close or that Kane was better.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Stammer has 53 more career goals than Kane.

 

[Jntg4]

Stammer has 53 more career goals than Kane.

Yes, and TBO nor I were claiming they were similar players... re-read his post.

 

[DMelt36]

Yeah, but Kane is suppose to be "elite". He's a one trick pony with no two way game.

So you're saying you have to be a two-way player to be elite? Because I'd strongly disagree with that.

He had ONE bad season out of his five-year career. It's far from a trend of him no longer being elite. If we're still talking about this next summer, then you'll have a good argument. It's a bit premature, now.

And Stamkos is more of a goal scorer while Kane is more of a playmaker. Two different kinds of skill sets but both are only useful in the offensive zone. I believe that's what Tbo and Jtng are saying.

LOL, Stammer >>> Kane & it's not even close.

Stamkos is better than damn near everyone right now. He's unreal.

 

[Jntg4]

So you're saying you have to be a two-way player to be elite? Because I'd strongly disagree with that.

He had ONE bad season out of his five-year career. It's far from a trend of him no longer being elite. If we're still talking about this next summer, then you'll have a good argument. It's a bit premature, now.

And Stamkos is more of a goal scorer while Kane is more of a playmaker. Two different kinds of skill sets but both are only useful in the offensive zone. I believe that's what Tbo and Jtng are saying.



Stamkos is better than damn near everyone right now. He's unreal.

:yep: That was the reference TBO was making. :clap: