I find it actually pretty hilarious that there are posters who (rightly so) think that certain players should have a second chance without Bylsma, because there were clear reasons that those players didn't fit Bylsma's system, who at the same time think that Kane isn't one of them.
During Kane's time in Winnipeg (2011-2015) his 5v5 GF% was 49,8, meaning he really wasn't losing (or winning) his matchups. And if you actually want to cherry pick wowy-stats (like one poster above), you take a player like Byfuglien (who with he played more than with anyone else) and see that his GF% with him during that time was 51,4 and without 44,9 (his impact on Mark Stuart was pretty much the same).
To take a more precise look comparing Kane's and his team's GF% during each of those seasons:
2011-2012
Kane 55,2
WPG 49,3
2012-2013
Kane 49,3
WPG 47,4
2013-2014
Kane 45,1
WPG 48,7
2014-2015 (traded to Buffalo)
Kane 48,8
WPG 53,8
It's clear that there was a clear change after the 2012-2013 season (and the stats from 14-15 are contaminated a bit because of his trade), but given his age and that there really isn't any known injury etc. to affect him, there is no reason he couldn't become again a positive impact player on a right system.
Housley's up-tempo system should be a lot better fit for him than Bylsma's ultra passive system - both offensively and defensively.
I'm not saying that you should offer him a high money/term contract right now, but he should deserve another look, and if he seems like a fit and the contract would be reasonable (like the 6x6), extending him shouldn't be ruled out.
Interesting 2016-17 5 on 5 numbers for Kane and Eichel:
Eichel with Kane
GF: 3.36
GA: 3.36
Eichel w/o Kane
GF: 1.92
GA: 2.52