Shady Machine
Registered User
- Aug 6, 2010
- 36,704
- 8,141
That's a pretty shortsighted way to look at it, considering Kane has missed games quite often over his career. Kane's career pace is 51 points per 82 games, it's just that he has missed 8 or more games in 7 seasons in his career. In his last 4 years, he has 74 goals and 136 points in 216 games, good for a pace of 28 goals and 52 points per 82 games. Even not including this year and doing 2013-2017, he still has a pace of 27 goals and 49 points per 82 games.
Hornqvist produces marginally more on a much better offensive team, but Kane is the more well rounder player. I'd definitely take Kane over Hornqvist looking purely at ability. They put up comparable numbers, while Hornqvist is in a much better situation than Kane, and Kane offers more than Hornqvist outside of production.
Your response is just as "short sighted". I didn't realize durability wasn't a factor here. Many posters are concerned about Horny's body breaking down, but when it's pointed out that Horny has been more productive over his career, you point out it's not fair since Kane misses a bunch of games with injuries.
Both are 51 point per 82 players over their career, but one stays healthier and has been more consistent year in, year out. One is a great leader and plays by example, the other has a questionable history as a team player and has off ice drama, fair or not. One has won 2 Cups on THIS team and been a major contributor to both, the other has had his character called into question on 2 separate teams.
If JR thinks that Kane is a good fit here and can swing a deal to bring him in, I'll stay positive and be excited about it, but you asked who I would rather sign and I told you. Hornqvist is a better overall hockey player and has proven that in his career.