Let's Go Blues

On further evidence, I request to withdraw the Armstrong/genius comment. He must have seen that and wanted to correct me.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:How can you guys question Kane??

+7 on one of the best teams in the league. Doesn't play physical, not a presence in his own end. Same goals last season as David Backes while playing far less of a role. Good playoff pedigree, sure. What does Justin Williams make, again?

Oaklandblue wrote:These signing ironically make sense for the immediate future of the Blackhawks.

The Hawks have some serious depth in the minors to the point that for them to stay competative is going to simply require that the Blackhawks go constantly deep in the playoffs and remain the "It" place to want to play. I envision a future where players will take serious discounts just to play on a serious contender. Players did it for the Miami Heat, why wouldn't a team like the Blackhawks not follow suit? Take less money for a real shot to get your name on a hundred-plus year old trophy? Why not, right?

I think this move is going to do the most damage to small market, budget teams because they won't be able to compete with this kind of contract. I'm surprised the CBA didn't set an individual player cap when they set the team cap. That to me would have instantly nipped this problem in the bud....oh, Bettman is still the Comissioner...nevermind. >.>

The problem with the Heat argument is that in that case, it was the top three players taking paycuts to play together. In this case, the top two players are doing the exact opposite, leaving basically no room for reasonably filling out the rest of the team, which you still need.

ecbm wrote:On further evidence, I request to withdraw the Armstrong/genius comment. He must have seen that and wanted to correct me.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:How can you guys question Kane??

+7 on one of the best teams in the league. Doesn't play physical, not a presence in his own end. Same goals last season as David Backes while playing far less of a role. Good playoff pedigree, sure. What does Justin Williams make, again?

Kane scored a Cup winning goal and was hugely important in another Cup winning run. He is money in the playoffs where it COUNTS and even Hitch said no one is better on the rush. Backes?? Backes couldn't carry Kane's jock! How many playoff GWGs has Backes had? A big fat ZERO!

As far as the physical presence goes a lot of skilled players aren't physical. It's like what they said about Gretzky. "You can't hit what you can't catch!".

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

ecbm wrote:On further evidence, I request to withdraw the Armstrong/genius comment. He must have seen that and wanted to correct me.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:How can you guys question Kane??

+7 on one of the best teams in the league. Doesn't play physical, not a presence in his own end. Same goals last season as David Backes while playing far less of a role. Good playoff pedigree, sure. What does Justin Williams make, again?

Kane scored a Cup winning goal and was hugely important in another Cup winning run. He is money in the playoffs where it COUNTS and even Hitch said no one is better on the rush. Backes?? Backes couldn't carry Kane's jock! How many playoff GWGs has Backes had? A big fat ZERO!

As far as the physical presence goes a lot of skilled players aren't physical. It's like what they said about Gretzky. "You can't hit what you can't catch!".

Backes and Kane are completely different players.

Backes is the more complete all around player no doubt. But Kane is much more dynamic in the offensive zone.

Quite honestly, based on how skilled Kane is, he should be scoring more. He should be a 40 goal, 90pt guy, especially on a team as stacked offensively as the Hawks ...and he just isn't. Probably because he shies away from contact and doesn't get his nose dirty in front of the net. He puts up very good numbers, don't get me wrong...but the Hawks just paid him like he is a 40 goal guy, which he isn't. If you are a one dimensional player like Kane and you make over 10 million...you should be scoring 40.
With that said, he is a point per game guy in the playoffs...and that is what the Hawks are paying for and is all that really matters.

We all know how Backes plays. He hits hard, he plays stellar defense, he kills penalties, he plays the PP and he puts up reg. season offensive numbers not too for off from Kane. Backes has yet to put up good offensive numbers in the playoffs though. Backes is about a half a point guy in the playoffs...but again, he isn't out there to light up the scoreboard.

I think Backes' playoff numbers are hindered by the cast around him. He might score more if we had more scoring depth all around.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Kane scored a Cup winning goal and was hugely important in another Cup winning run. He is money in the playoffs where it COUNTS

Uwe Krupp once scored a Stanley Cup winning goal. True story, that. So did Ulf Samuelson. It's irrelevant.

As for playoff performance, again I ask: what does Justin Williams make? Was Claude Lemieux ever considered worthy of being a top-five paid player in the league? Why not?

I have already ceded Kane is a very good player. No need to revisit that.

I know Backes plays a different game, I watch both plenty.

If one could pick between the two, without knowing which is which, I dare say anyone of sound mind would take the guy at $4.75M per over the one at $10.5M per as the difference in salary would allow a team to sign another top-6 forward. It really isn't debatable among anyone who isn't a Chicago fan (and even not all of them, see above) or smoking crack.

cprice12 wrote:Quite honestly, based on how skilled Kane is, he should be scoring more.

Agreed. He runs in streaks. With his skill set he should consistently, handily outscore Backes but he doesn't. That's part of why I compared them. As for Backes in the playoffs-it only takes on season to change that...