Speculation: Toews and Kane extensions

[HjalmarFan]

you guys shouldn't worry. Bowman knows what he is doing and they will both stay. If not, it is their decision and we can't do anything against that. They will get the money here and as much as anywhere else. It's up to them

Yeah, well, sure, but with that attitude, there's really not much to talk about! If we don't pretend that Stan Bowman is pitiably confused, why would we write anything at all? I for one would like to operate as if Stan Bowman was scrolling through this thread, searching for clues on what to do! Heh heh.

 

[Bubba88]

Bowman already said that he wants to keep hthem both and fans shouldn't worry about that.

If we lose them or one of them it's because the player wants to leave, nothing else.

All we can talk about is the contract and numbers they will get.

 

[HjalmarFan]

Bowman already said that he wants to keep hthem both and fans shouldn't worry about that.

If we lose them or one of them it's because the player wants to leave, nothing else.

All we can talk about is the contract and numbers they will get.

If Kane and Toews get 10M/yr contracts, I don't know if the Hawks will have the money to keep both Leddy and Saad (even assuming Bowman exchanges Oduya and Rozsival for cheaper alternatives). If the Toews/Kane extensions come in under 8.5M/yr, I agree that keeping Leddy and Saad should be easy. If those extensions go over 9 M/yr things get dicey. You'll probably have to move one of the big contracts (i.e. Hossa, Sharp, Bickell, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford).

I'm working with the assumption that in a year and a half, the cap will be in the mid to high 70s.

 

[CertainAffinity*]

Except for all the years.

Toews has never scored more points than Kane, and Kane has never been as important to the team's success than Toews.

 

[Minowaman]

If Kane and Toews get 10M/yr contracts, I don't know if the Hawks will have the money to keep both Leddy and Saad (even assuming Bowman exchanges Oduya and Rozsival for cheaper alternatives). If the Toews/Kane extensions come in under 8.5M/yr, I agree that keeping Leddy and Saad should be easy. If those extensions go over 9 M/yr things get dicey. You'll probably have to move one of the big contracts (i.e. Hossa, Sharp, Bickell, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford).

I'm working with the assumption that in a year and a half, the cap will be in the mid to high 70s.

I think Crawford is the odd man out if you need to dump a contract. I think Raanta is perfectly fine at being the #1 Goalie on this team especially since his cap hit is going to be a lot less. Corey's contract is just terrible, imho.

 

[Marina]

Toews has never scored more points than Kane, and Kane has never been as important to the team's success than Toews.

Blatantly untrue.

 

[member 151739]

Toews has never scored more points than Kane, and Kane has never been as important to the team's success than Toews.

How's life in fantasy land?

 

[CertainAffinity*]

How's life in fantasy land?

Blatantly untrue.

It's completely true.

The success of the Hawks is primarily the result of defensive systems, not offensive ones. Obviously they have very skilled forwards that can put the puck in the net, but the bulk of the offense comes via transition, whereby aggressively backchecking, defensively responsible players pressure the opposition, allowing the D to stand up the blue-line, break up the plays, and return the puck in stride to the forwards going the other way.

Likewise, the D is able to jump into the offensive, preserve possession, only because they know they have the defensively-responsible forwards covering their ***** if the team comes back the other way.

While Kane has improved as a defensive player, he is far from a complete player and VERY far from the elite 2-way forward that Toews is. Toews contributes to every facet of the Hawks system, while Kane is just a finisher. A fantastic finisher, but simply a finisher.

One need only look to last year's playoffs for an comparative example.

Both players were relatively cold production wise. When Toews was cold, he was still contributing to the team's success through possession, defense, FOs, even on the PK. Kane, by contrast, contributed nothing when he wasn't putting points on the board. When the two were reunited and heated up, Kane continued to contribute only through production, while Toews battled in front of the net with Chara, continued to be the key shut-down presence on that line against the likes of Krecji and Lucic, etc.

Kane plays his role very, very well. It is a less critical role than Toews. He will always score more points than Toews. Unless he has a revelation as far as his two-way play is concerned, he will not be as important to the Hawks as Toews is.

I am sure he is very important to your Fantasy Pool though. And really, when it comes to a successful hockey team, THAT's what's important.

ETA: You know what, whatever. Don't even bother responding. Chances are most of the people who think Kane is as integral to the success of this team as Toews are the same people who swear up and down that our team defense is perfectly fine this year. It's the same kind of superficial understanding of hockey underlying both ideas. At some point when you come across people so clearly divorced from reality, the best you can do is pat them on the head and say 'yes, dear. that's nice'.

 

[HjalmarFan]

Blatantly untrue.

How's life in fantasy land?

Over precisely the same period of time with precisely the same team, Toews (as first line center) has a +129 compared to Kane's +44. How do you two people - who are so smart that you have to laugh and mock others - explain this very revealing fact. Forget the fact that Toews consistently has one of the best faceoff percentages in hockey. Forget that he's an elite penalty killer. Forget his well-deserved Selke Award. Let's just focus on the plus minus. Even this year, when Toews has been a little off and Kane has been the best he's ever been, Toews is +16, compared to Kane at +11.

There is absolutely no question that Toews was and is the better player. A whole lot less flash and a whole lot more substance.

 

[HjalmarFan]

It's completely true.

The success of the Hawks is primarily the result of defensive systems, not offensive ones. Obviously they have very skilled forwards that can put the puck in the net, but the bulk of the offense comes via transition, whereby aggressively backchecking, defensively responsible players pressure the opposition, allowing the D to stand up the blue-line, break up the plays, and return the puck in stride to the forwards going the other way.

Likewise, the D is able to jump into the offensive, preserve possession, only because they know they have the defensively-responsible forwards covering their ***** if the team comes back the other way.

While Kane has improved as a defensive player, he is far from a complete player and VERY far from the elite 2-way forward that Toews is. Toews contributes to every facet of the Hawks system, while Kane is just a finisher. A fantastic finisher, but simply a finisher.

One need only look to last year's playoffs for an comparative example.

Both players were relatively cold production wise. When Toews was cold, he was still contributing to the team's success through possession, defense, FOs, even on the PK. Kane, by contrast, contributed nothing when he wasn't putting points on the board. When the two were reunited and heated up, Kane continued to contribute only through production, while Toews battled in front of the net with Chara, continued to be the key shut-down presence on that line against the likes of Krecji and Lucic, etc.

Kane plays his role very, very well. It is a less critical role than Toews. He will always score more points than Toews. Unless he has a revelation as far as his two-way play is concerned, he will not be as important to the Hawks as Toews is.

I am sure he is very important to your Fantasy Pool though. And really, when it comes to a successful hockey team, THAT's what's important.

ETA: You know what, whatever. Don't even bother responding. Chances are most of the people who think Kane is as integral to the success of this team as Toews are the same people who swear up and down that our team defense is perfectly fine. It's the same kind of superficial understanding of hockey underlying both ideas. At some point when you come across people so clearly divorced from reality, the best you can do is pat them on the head and say 'yes, dear. that's nice'.

I think to these people, Goals + Assists = how good a hockey player is. It's the only possible way to defend the idea that Kane is better than Toews.

 

[Marina]

Over precisely the same period of time with precisely the same team, Toews (as first line center) has a +129 compared to Kane's +44. How do you two people - who are so smart that you have to laugh and mock others - explain this very revealing fact. Forget the fact that Toews consistently has one of the best faceoff percentages in hockey. Forget that he's an elite penalty killer. Forget his well-deserved Selke Award. Let's just focus on the plus minus. Even this year, when Toews has been a little off and Kane has been the best he's ever been, Toews is +16, compared to Kane at +11.

There is absolutely no question that Toews was and is the better player. A whole lot less flash and a whole lot more substance.

I think to these people, Goals + Assists = how good a hockey player is. It's the only possible way to defend the idea that Kane is better than Toews.

As much as I love condescending posts from people on the internet, I'm sorry to let you know I do in fact realize defense is important. Intangibles are important. Faceoffs are important. No duh. You know what else is important? Scoring goals. Setting up plays. Generating offense. Because that's how hockey works, you know? Offense and defense. You need both. Are you still with me? Is this making sense? Awesome, let's move on to the next point.

You're putting wayyyy too much stock into +/-'s there buddy. Seabrook is currently a +19. Keith is a +15. Does that mean Seabrook is a better player than Keith? Because I'd love to hear that argument. +/- is an interesting tidbit but it's far from being conclusive regarding a players value. Now I'm not saying Kane is comparable to Toews defensively but he's far from a liability so let's not pretend he's turning the puck over every shift. He has more takeaways than Toews and less giveaways. But where Toews wins faceoffs and plays on the PK, Kane is the backbone of the Hawks powerplay and one of the best in the NHL at entering the zone. They both play a very different game with different strengths and weaknesses, what a shock.

Kane's offense is clearly superior to Toews and always has been. You can call it "flash" but that puck he shoots into the back of the net is pretty tangible. Do I think Toews is a better player? No. Do I think Kane is a better player? No. They're both equally valuable to the team based on their differing strengths, although sometimes one plays better than the other, like Kane this year and (arguably) last year.

So yes, I watch the game, and yes I understand defense, but Kane is second in the NHL in points right now, led the West in scoring last year, and being talked about by the media for serious Hart contention. Sorry if that's not substantial enough for you but to me it's pretty damn impressive.

 

[HjalmarFan]

As much as I love condescending posts from people on the internet, I'm sorry to let you know I do in fact realize defense is important. Intangibles are important. Faceoffs are important. No duh. You know what else is important? Scoring goals. Setting up plays. Generating offense. Because that's how hockey works, you know? Offense and defense. You need both. Are you still with me? Is this making sense? Awesome, let's move on to the next point.

You're putting wayyyy too much stock into +/-'s there buddy. Seabrook is currently a +19. Keith is a +15. Does that mean Seabrook is a better player than Keith? Because I'd love to hear that argument. +/- is an interesting tidbit but it's far from being conclusive regarding a players value. Now I'm not saying Kane is comparable to Toews defensively but he's far from a liability so let's not pretend he's turning the puck over every shift. He has more takeaways than Toews and less giveaways. But where Toews wins faceoffs and plays on the PK, Kane is the backbone of the Hawks powerplay and one of the best in the NHL at entering the zone. They both play a very different game with different strengths and weaknesses, what a shock.

Kane's offense is clearly superior to Toews and always has been. You can call it "flash" but that puck he shoots into the back of the net is pretty tangible. Do I think Toews is a better player? No. Do I think Kane is a better player? No. They're both equally valuable to the team based on their differing strengths, although sometimes one plays better than the other, like Kane this year and (arguably) last year.

So yes, I watch the game, and yes I understand defense, but Kane is second in the NHL in points right now, led the West in scoring last year, and being talked about by the media for serious Hart contention. Sorry if that's not substantial enough for you but to me it's pretty damn impressive.

But you didn't explain why there's such a massive discrepancy between their +/-. You just arrogantly dismiss it. Misspelling "way" is not an argument. Here, let me show you by responding to what you said about Keith and Seabrook.

1) Small sample size. Over the course of their careers, Keith's +/- is better. 2) Minutes. Keith hauls more of them and they are less protected. 3) There isn't that massive a difference between how good they are. If you look at their minutes and +/- for their careers, you actually get a pretty good idea of how good they are. Keith's not that much better than Seabrook.

So why is Kane's +/-, so vastly inferior to Toews? Why is Kane so consistently mediocre in that category? For all his defensive improvement, Kane's defensive inferiority to Toews in that area is much more pronounced than his offensive superiority. Add in that Toews is a faceoff machine, and Toews is clearly the better player.

But I love how you complain about my condescension, profess your understanding that defense is important and then make an argument that points make the player.

"You know what else is important? Scoring goals. Setting up plays. Generating offense." That's special.

Over the course of their careers, there's a 0.06 difference between Toews and Kane in PPG. Toews doesn't make as many highlight real plays, but he gets the puck in the back of the net. Not as well as Kane, but enough for the other aspects of his game to outweigh the difference in offensive production.

 

[Marina]

But you didn't explain why there's such a massive discrepancy between their +/-. You just arrogantly dismiss it. Misspelling "way" is not an argument. Here, let me show you by responding to what you said about Keith and Seabrook.

1) Small sample size. Over the course of their careers, Keith's +/- is better. 2) Minutes. Keith hauls more of them and they are less protected. 3) There isn't that massive a difference between how good they are. If you look at their minutes and +/- for their careers, you actually get a pretty good idea of how good they are. Keith's not that much better than Seabrook.

So why is Kane's +/-, so vastly inferior to Toews? Why is Kane so consistently mediocre in that category? For all his defensive improvement, Kane's defensive inferiority to Toews in that area is much more pronounced than his offensive superiority. Add in that Toews is a faceoff machine, and Toews is clearly the better player.

But I love how you complain about my condescension, profess your understanding that defense is important and then make an argument that points make the player.

"You know what else is important? Scoring goals. Setting up plays. Generating offense." That's special.

Over the course of their careers, there's a 0.06 difference between Toews and Kane in PPG. Toews doesn't make as many highlight real plays, but he gets the puck in the back of the net. Not as well as Kane, but enough for the other aspects of his game to outweigh the difference in offensive production.

Well I did agree that Kane isn't as good as Toews defensively, so that would explain why his +/- is lower. The reason there's such a huge gap between them in that area over their career is because a) Toews is clearly better defensively and b) When Kane first entered the league he didn't really play defense at all. It's gotten a lot better over the years, as his defense has improved, and it's reflected in his improved +/-, although really I don't even find that particular stat very useful. Also I never argued that points "make the player", you completely missed the point. I said both are important.

And when I'm talking about Kane being better at offense I'm not just talking about stats, although that of course backs up my arguments. Whenever Kane steps on the ice he's generating offense, setting up plays, etc. He's always had more potential in that aspect than Toews and he's more consistent offensively. Anyway I don't even know why I'm bothering arguing with you because you said in a previous post that you would take Toews over Crosby, which means you apparently think he's the best player in the world, and that kind of delusion can't be argued with.

 

[HjalmarFan]

Well I did agree that Kane isn't as good as Toews defensively, so that would explain why his +/- is lower. The reason there's such a huge gap between them in that area over their career is because a) Toews is clearly better defensively and b) When Kane first entered the league he didn't really play defense at all. It's gotten a lot better over the years, as his defense has improved, and it's reflected in his improved +/-, although really I don't even find that particular stat very useful. Also I never argued that points "make the player", you completely missed the point. I said both are important.

And when I'm talking about Kane being better at offense I'm not just talking about stats, although that of course backs up my arguments. Whenever Kane steps on the ice he's generating offense, setting up plays, etc. He's always had more potential in that aspect than Toews and he's more consistent offensively. Anyway I don't even know why I'm bothering arguing with you because you said in a previous post that you would take Toews over Crosby, which means you apparently think he's the best player in the world, and that kind of delusion can't be argued with.

Why can't delusions be argued with? What else is there to argue with, except what you perceive as the delusions of others? Without delusions, arguments wouldn't be possible. Humans would have very little worth talking about. Anyway...

As with most things in life, Kane's weaknesses are very closely related to his strengths. The thorn on the rose of his creativity is that he plays a high risk game that often leads to odd man rushes in the opposite direction. What makes Toews truly unique is that he really doesn't have any weaknesses in his game. He is a fast, great open-ice skater, he grinds, he cycles, he wins faceoffs, he kills penalties, he backchecks, forechecks, forces all kinds of turnovers. He just does everything well and very rarely makes a mistake of any kind. It's particularly silly right now, but it's no mistake that he's ALWAYS, ALWAYS on the ice when the announcers start making comparisons to the Harlem Globetrotters. I feel very strongly that Datsuk, Toews and Hossa are the three best puck possessing forwards I've ever seen. Hossa isn't in the same class, because he's not a face-off winning center and he doesn't go to the dirty areas as much (provide screens, etc). Andrew Ladd has become pretty awesome in that respect too. Very underrated player.