Free Agent Target: Patrick Kane; Update: Re-Signs with Red Wings

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

Well that post wasn't specifically directed at you but the next one was.

 

However, it sounds like what you're saying is the best American-born player ever was a product of the team construction and he's not a point per game player because he's a generational talent who was drafted first overall?

 

Not sure that checks out, sounds like the narrative of "you have to be bigger" is getting in the way of reality. 

 

I don't know why you're trying to read between the lines when I'm explicitly telling you what I think and why. That you don't agree with the premise is not the same thing as trying to find reasons between the reasons.

 

Your sounds like is also not mutually exclusive. He's both the best American-born player ever and benefited from a near perfect roster construction.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Sorry but if you're suggesting the best American-born player to ever lace them up was a product of team construction, then you certainly are Galaxy braining it. 

 

Anyone looking at stats like "forecheck involvement" when discussing Patrick Kane is Galaxy braining it. 

 

 

Not a product of. A beneficiary of. He was part of why those Hawks teams were as successful as they are. A big reason why, in fact. But that doesn't change the reality that those teams had near perfect roster balance and got all the things the Rangers aren't getting. Key depth scoring, unique dynamics on numerous lines, size up the middle, size and mobility on defense, plus great goal tending.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

I don't know why you're trying to read between the lines when I'm explicitly telling you what I think and why. That you don't agree with the premise is not the same thing as trying to find reasons between the reasons.

 

Your sounds like is also not mutually exclusive. He's both the best American-born player ever and benefited from a near perfect roster construction.

There are plenty of players on that roster who weren't point per game players so I guess they didn't benefit from the construction. 

 

I'm not reading between any lines, you are specifically saying that you think he was able to be a point per game player because of the team that was built around him and I'm telling you that I don't agree with that. You also said he was a wallflower and the data doesn't support that. So I think that you're looking in reasons that aren't really there. 

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

There are plenty of players on that roster who weren't point per game players so I guess they didn't benefit from the construction. 

 

I'm not reading between any lines, you are specifically saying that you think he was able to be a point per game player because of the team that was built around him and I'm telling you that I don't agree with that. You also said he was a wallflower and the data doesn't support that. So I think that you're looking in reasons that aren't really there. 

 

No, I'm specifically saying that he was able to win and win as often as he did because the Hawks had a near perfect roster build. The 2013 roster had Bickell (second in points on the roster in the playoffs), Bolland, Shaw, Saad, and Carcillo up front, plus a big and mobile defense.

 

Regarding the wallflower comment, I'd love to see the heat maps on his game the last five years or so, because the player I've been watching – especially in his run as a Ranger — plays around the outside quite a lot. I could have it wrong. I'm basing it on what my eyes have told me, not what the data says, so again, I could be wrong.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

Not a product of. A beneficiary of. He was part of why those Hawks teams were as successful as they are. A big reason why, in fact. But that doesn't change the reality that those teams had near perfect roster balance and got all the things the Rangers aren't getting. Key depth scoring, unique dynamics on numerous lines, size up the middle, size and mobility on defense, plus great goal tending.

Dude, what are you even talking about? Perfect roster balance? Depth contributions? What does that have to do with Kane being point per game? Those are reasons why they were able to win the cup, but that's not why Kane was a point per game player. 

 

Kane plays on one line he doesn't play on all of them. He only needs chemistry with his line. 

 

He wasn't a point per game player because the Blackhawks got depth scoring. Kane wasn't a point per game player because they had size and mobility on defense. They had Duncan Keith on defense and that sure is shit helps, but he ain't big. 

 

None of this is making any sense in an argument against Kane.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

No, I'm specifically saying that he was able to win and win as often as he did because the Hawks had a near perfect roster build. The 2013 roster had Bickell (second in points on the roster in the playoffs), Bolland, Shaw, Saad, and Carcillo up front, plus a big and mobile defense.

But that's not the debate.

 

The debate is can he score in the playoffs, and the answer is yes he can. Depth scoring and mobile defense have nothing to do with this.

 

Quote

Regarding the wallflower comment, I'd love to see the heat maps on his game the last five years or so, because the player I've been watching – especially in his run as a Ranger — plays around the outside quite a lot. I could have it wrong. I'm basing it on what my eyes have told me, not what the data says, so again, I could be wrong.

The EDGE Data is right here. He takes more shots and scores more from the middle than any other zone. Remember, that's aggregate and he only played 50 games. It only matters what he did post-op, not when he was on one leg.

[BrooksBurner]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right. On paper, the idea is you add Kane and then "convert" Zibanejad and Kreider in to streaking offensive options who shoot the puck. It can work, but it's risky, and doesn't change the principle point of failure for why Zibanejad failed to do the same. It's one player expected to carry the load and act as the primary puck distributor. Kane can absolutely do this, but why should we believe the outcome in the playoffs will be any different?

The chances of those guys suddenly playing a completely different way is probably less  than Panarin getting traded lol They’ve been through the wringer numerous times and haven’t bothered to change. If two ECF eliminations and an embarrassing round 1 exit to a rival isn’t enough to get them to change…why would a 36 year old Kane

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

The chances of those guys suddenly playing a completely different way is probably less  than Panarin getting traded lol They’ve been through the wringer numerous times and haven’t bothered to change. If two ECF eliminations and an embarrassing round 1 exit to a rival isn’t enough to get them to change…why would a 36 year old Kane

Maybe the 3 Cups and Conn Smythe worth of experience.

[Pete]

What would be really interesting is if they used the Kane signing to switch up some combos. I think Lafreniere could blossom into something more without Panarin, he'll have the puck much more with a lineup like:

 

Panarin Zib Kane

Kreider Tro Lafreniere

 

They probably won't, I'm not suggesting they do, just an interesting conversation.

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

What would be really interesting is if they used the Kane signing to switch up some combos. I think Lafreniere could blossom into something more without Panarin, he'll have the puck much more with a lineup like:

 

Panarin Zib Kane

Kreider Tro Lafreniere

 

They probably won't, I'm not suggesting they do, just an interesting conversation.

That’s a quality idea as it switched things up and it breaks up the bromance.

[BrooksBurner]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

Maybe the 3 Cups and Conn Smythe worth of experience.

That’s where the roster composition argument comes into play. He’s a PPG player because he’s Patrick Kane. He’s a 3x Cup winner because Chicago had an amazing blend of players. It matters.

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

That’s where the roster composition argument comes into play. He’s a PPG player because he’s Patrick Kane. He’s a 3x Cup winner because Chicago had an amazing blend of players. It matters.

Roster composition has nothing to do with "will Kane help". It's obvious he will.

 

Why will CK and Zib be open to listening to what Kane has to say? Because he's been there and he's won and he has a Conn Smythe. He knows what needs to be done. Players listen to other players who have credibility.

 

Lets not conflate the debates. They are completely unrelated.

Edited June 24 by Pete

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

36 minutes ago, Pete said:

What would be really interesting is if they used the Kane signing to switch up some combos. I think Lafreniere could blossom into something more without Panarin, he'll have the puck much more with a lineup like:

 

Panarin Zib Kane

Kreider Tro Lafreniere

 

They probably won't, I'm not suggesting they do, just an interesting conversation.

Something I like about Laf being on a line with Panarin is he’s not asked to be the f1 so to speak on that line and gets to join rushes behind the play a little bit. He does so much better when he has that full field of vision as the late man. Early in his career I feel like Gallant was asking him to be first man in the zone a lot more which is not his game. 
 

I do think that line combo to pitched would give him that same sort of role. 

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Roster composition has nothing to do with "will Kane help". It's obvious he will.

 

Why will CK and Zib be open to listening to what Kane has to say? Because he's been there. He knows what needs to be done. Players listen to other players who have credibility.

 

Lets not conflate the debates. They are completely unrelated.

 

 

It has everything to do with it. It’s a unique team sport that requires a blend of different roles to be filled out to win a championship.

 

If you have a nice tomato sauce cooking in the pot and you add more tomatoes, you’re just making more sauce. It might smell, look, and taste good, but it’s just extra sauce. If you add pasta instead, you’ve got a meal. And no, I’m not talking about Pastrnak.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

It has everything to do with it. It’s a unique team sport that requires a blend of different roles to be filled out to win a championship.

 

If you have a nice tomato sauce cooking in the pot and you add more tomatoes, you’re just making more sauce. It might smell, look, and taste good, but it’s just extra sauce. If you add pasta instead, you’ve got a meal. And no, I’m not talking about Pastrnak.

Not really feeling that analogy (but Pasta was funny)

 

I don't even think we need an analogy. In the early '90s the Rangers had a really good team but they didn't know how to win. They brought in Messier and a bunch of other people who did. 

 

He showed them all the way.

 

Now we can talk about what a big bad leader Messier was, and that's fine and that's true, but the athletes on this team might respond to another leader who's a little less aggressive but just as demanding. 

Edited June 24 by Pete

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

But that's not the debate.

 

The debate is can he score in the playoffs, and the answer is yes he can. Depth scoring and mobile defense have nothing to do with this.

I get what you're saying, but this brings us full circle again. can he score in the playoffs? Yes. That's not the question I am asking. The one I'm asking is can his style of play change the dynamic? Or will it? I have reservations.

 

Quote

The EDGE Data is right here. He takes more shots and scores more from the middle than any other zone. Remember, that's aggregate and he only played 50 games. It only matters what he did post-op, not when he was on one leg.

 

Interesting. I'd still want to see more heat map data if I can (I'm not asking you for it, just saying I'd like to see). I might be too skewed by his most recent run.

 

The more I look at it, the more I can see it working, but it's not doing enough on its own to quell my overall problems with this team, specifically because players like Kane need the puck, and I'm not sure who's getting it to him given the line we're asking him to play on. I can see what you're after here, and there's some indication it would work, but I think a lot of that is based on regular season style of play.

[Phil]

30 minutes ago, Pete said:

Roster composition has nothing to do with "will Kane help". It's obvious he will.

 

Why will CK and Zib be open to listening to what Kane has to say? Because he's been there and he's won and he has a Conn Smythe. He knows what needs to be done. Players listen to other players who have credibility.

 

Lets not conflate the debates. They are completely unrelated.

 

That doesn't mean it'll translate.

 

"Will Kane help" and "can Kane help" are also two different questions. The first is highly presumptuous. On paper, he can. Will he? I guess that depends on how well you think his ability to take charge will force 20 and 93 to change their approach, because what we've seen from them the last two years (albeit without a healthy third man) leaves a lot to be desired.

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

That doesn't mean it'll translate.

 

"Will Kane help" and "can Kane help" are also two different questions. The first is highly presumptuous. On paper, he can. Will he? I guess that depends on how well you think his ability to take charge will force 20 and 93 to change their approach, because what we've seen from them the last two years (albeit without a healthy third man) leaves a lot to be desired.

I gotta be honest Phil… I’m so over the “we gotta get 93/20 a RW” sentiment.

 

Not from you. I mean in general.

 

They need to split those 2 and figure out new W’s for Zib.

 

You wanna see those 2 change their approach? Me too. And it’s justified.

Here’s how.

 

STOP FUCKING PLAYING THEM TOGETHER ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

 

He drags Kreider all over the ice.

 

Kreider is wonderful on the PP. Wonderful on the PK. Wonderful at playing in front of the net.

And that’s it.

I want to see our top C play with someone else.

 

 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

I get what you're saying, but this brings us full circle again. can he score in the playoffs? Yes. That's not the question I am asking. The one I'm asking is can his style of play change the dynamic? Or will it? I have reservations.

 

 

Interesting. I'd still want to see more heat map data if I can (I'm not asking you for it, just saying I'd like to see). I might be too skewed by his most recent run.

 

The more I look at it, the more I can see it working, but it's not doing enough on its own to quell my overall problems with this team, specifically because players like Kane need the puck, and I'm not sure who's getting it to him given the line we're asking him to play on. I can see what you're after here, and there's some indication it would work, but I think a lot of that is based on regular season style of play.

IcyData is gone so I don't know where else to find heat maps. I think the edge data is fine, and we only have the data we have. 

 

Look, I think we can meet at the middle and say that Kane only solves one problem. There are still two or three that need to be addressed, but they're not all going to be addressed by one player. As we have said from the beginning, you don't add one player and change your entire team. It's a step in the right direction. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said:

I gotta be honest Phil… I’m so over the “we gotta get 93/20 a RW” sentiment.

 

Not from you. I mean in general.

 

They need to split those 2 and figure out new W’s for Zib.

 

You wanna see those 2 change their approach? Me too. And it’s justified.

Here’s how.

 

STOP FUCKING PLAYING THEM TOGETHER ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

 

He drags Kreider all over the ice.

 

Kreider is wonderful on the PP. Wonderful on the PK. Wonderful at playing in front of the net.

And that’s it.

I want to see our top C play with someone else.

 

 

You fucking nailed it. Come make out with me. 

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

IcyData is gone so I don't know where else to find heat maps. I think the edge data is fine, and we only have the data we have. 

 

Look, I think we can meet at the middle and say that Kane only solves one problem. There are still two or three that need to be addressed, but they're not all going to be addressed by one player. As we have said from the beginning, you don't add one player and change your entire team. It's a step in the right direction. 

 

Agreed. He'd have been lower on my list, but on paper, this can work. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'd want to mix shit up elsewhere, or even finally split the bromance up at ES.

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I gotta be honest Phil… I’m so over the “we gotta get 93/20 a RW” sentiment.

 

Not from you. I mean in general.

 

They need to split those 2 and figure out new W’s for Zib.

 

You wanna see those 2 change their approach? Me too. And it’s justified.

Here’s how.

 

STOP FUCKING PLAYING THEM TOGETHER ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

 

He drags Kreider all over the ice.

 

Kreider is wonderful on the PP. Wonderful on the PK. Wonderful at playing in front of the net.

And that’s it.

I want to see our top C play with someone else.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm more than good with this. I wasn't prior because they didn't have another option without robbing Peter to pay Paul (stealing from the Bread line). That can change this summer, and should.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

Agreed. He'd have been lower on my list, but on paper, this can work. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'd want to mix shit up elsewhere, or even finally split the bromance up at ES.

I'm defending getting Kane, but I'm not defending getting him as their first order of business on July 1st. That's a separate conversation.

[RangersIn7]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

You fucking nailed it. Come make out with me. 

I appreciate the compliment, but I’m only into Trans these days.

 

But I digest…

 

I like both players a lot. They have their value and their virtues.

Im not taking anything away from either of them.

And they’re both accomplished players with skill sets that are very good and important.

 

But yo… what’s the fucking stop on just putting your best C with your best W?

Its worked countless times with countless players on countless teams at every level for FUCKING DECADES!

 

 

There’s enough elsewhere amongst the F group especially with Trochek and the emergence of Laf to where you’re not putting all your eggs in 1 basket.

Im sorry… but you have to.

They don’t do enough consistently at ES.

They aren’t plus enough vs other top lines that have high-end C’s and W’s on them.

Mika has to do too much. Lugging the puck. Creating space. Making plays. And he’s caught up looking for CK too often.
 

CK doesn’t engage physically often enough. Is not a consistent factor on the forecheck. Does not drive to the net. Does not use his speed often enough. Does not shoot the puck. Doesn’t carry the puck much, if at all.

 

This pairing has its place. But at this point , for me, right now, that place should be at the back of a seldom opened closet. 

 

Edited June 24 by RangersIn7

[RangersIn7]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Oh, I'm more than good with this. I wasn't prior because they didn't have another option without robbing Peter to pay Paul (stealing from the Bread line). That can change this summer, and should.

It needs to happen.

 

If they can add another F up there that only makes it easier.