Skip to content

Roenick says Chicago “can afford to get rid of Patrick Kane”

Feb 15, 2012, 3:25 PM EDT

Image (1) 1-roenick-thumb-250x375-11983.jpg for post 1710

Appearing on ESPN 1000 Chicago’s “The Waddle & Silvy Show” Wednesday, NHL on NBC analyst Jeremy Roenick suggested the struggling Blackhawks should consider trading All-Star forward Patrick Kane.

“Everybody knows I am a huge Patrick Kane fan, but when you’re talking something of this nature, is Patrick Kane dealable? As much as I don’t want to say it, they can afford to get rid of Patrick Kane,” said Roenick, one of only three Blackhawks to ever score 50 goals in a single season. “They can afford to — with the season he’s having — maybe with his off-ice reputation, maybe with the skill they have on their team — it’s doable.”

This is the second time this week Kane’s been floated as a potential trade chip. On Monday, Sportsnet’s Hockey Central analyst Nick Kypreos discussed a potential Kane-for-Ryan Miller swap in an effort to cure Chicago’s goaltending woes. The ‘Hawks have lost nine straight with goaltenders Corey Crawford and Ray Emery struggling throughout.

On Wednesday Roenick added to Kypreos’ train of thought, saying that if the ‘Hawks want to get a quality netminder, they’ll have to give.

“Do I like it? No, because I love Patrick Kane,” Roenick said. “He is one of the most talented and one of the best players in the NHL. But if you really want a top-end goaltender you’re going to have to give up somebody.”

That said, Roenick made it clear there’s one person the organization shouldn’t give up on — head coach Joel Quenneville.

“If you let Coach Q go it would be the biggest mistake that that franchise has made since they traded me in 1996,” he said (Roenick was shipped to Phoenix after eight seasons in Chicago). “I truly believe that Coach Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the NHL.”

  1. spezzabangsmilfs - Feb 15, 2012 at 3:36 PM

    Been saying it for weeks, massively over-rated and near useless without the puck. He needs to score 40 or have 80 point seasons to justify his one-trick poniness.

    Each of the Sedins twins finish and deliver more checks than Kane.

  2. spezzabangsmilfs - Feb 15, 2012 at 3:37 PM

    And he is 100% correct on Coach Q

  3. buffalomafia - Feb 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    Kane needs to hit the weight room & then he will be fine!

    Miller to Chicago makes them a sure contender.

  4. realnostalgia - Feb 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

    I can’t believe I have to say this again in a three days.

    people forget so fast what Kane has accomplished in the past 4 years.

    2010-11 – 73 points tied 15th
    2009-10 – 88 points tied 9th
    2008-09 – 70 points tied 39th
    2008-07 – 72 points tied 28th *rookie season* (Calder Trophy)

    303 points in his first 4 seasons. That ranks up there in the top 60 of all time.

    Yes obviously he is dealable but as a chicago fan I hope this does not happen.

    • gretzkyoneyzermantwo - Feb 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM

      Too bad hockey is more than just points and playing with great players.
      Once every 4-5 games Kane finishes or makes an attempt to tie up an opponent with a check.
      His +/- has been substantially lower than Hossa, Sharp and Toews.
      When he is on the ice without the puck he is a liability and that fact gets covered up by the talent of others in most cases.
      He is Alexander Semin without the great shot and an English speaking name

      • realnostalgia - Feb 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM

        Yes hockey is way, way more than just points. Kane is not in any means a good two way player but +8 is not bad. You can say that its the players around him and you have an argument but some credit still has to go to Kane. I also could name forwards that most would consider great two way players that have a worse +/- than his but the list is way to long.

        I’m not trying to be a homer here either I understand that Kane has his defensive flaws and his inability to hit players but I wouldn’t call him a huge liability.

      • realnostalgia - Feb 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM

        Too add hockey is more than stats obviously and a lot goes into +/- (teammates and line match ups and whatever you want to add) I just personally don’t think Kane is as much of a one trick pony everyone assumes he is. I personally just don’t think moving a player like Kane would help the franchise.

  5. buffalomafia - Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    @nostaglia guy teams are desperate to win now! I agree with you on Kane’s stats.

  6. gbiscottagecheesefatties - Feb 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM

    it doesn’t make sense to me the Miller / Kane deal. I think Buffalo wins this deal easily due to the players ages. Buffalo would have to ship more than just Miller. (in my eyes) not too much tho, but something

  7. buffalomafia - Feb 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

    Kane would be pissed to go to an underachieving team regardless its his home town.

  8. danphipps01 - Feb 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

    I don’t know why people keep going on about the Kane-for-Miller thing like it’s that or nothing. A lot of teams could benefit from a fast offensive winger who’s great at both passing and scoring. And a lot of teams have backup goalies who are substantially more competent than Corey “Thank God Bryzgalov sucks worse than me” Crawford. Minny, for instance – could add a couple parts in and swing for Harding and Coyle, maybe. New York needs offensive cogs to make it go, though it seems they’re looking for a bigger guy and one who finishes the play more than he sets it up. LA’s got Bernier and Voynov, and their actual roster D has a couple good depth guys. And hey, they need offense. Like, desperately. Let’s see… St. Louis could probably stand to upgrade their forward stock, but I can’t see them giving up either of their goalies for Kane even in a straight one-for-one deal. I’d sooner peg them as one of the bidders for Parise in the offseason than anything. Still, far from out of the question. Florida? They’ve got a decent offense now, but it’s not Cup-run calibre yet. A top-end forward would go a long way, and hey, they’ve got Markstrom.

    Point is, a one-for-one Kane-for-Miller deal is probably less than they COULD get if they shopped around a little – but they don’t seem intent on doing that, so it’s kind of a moot point. Whether or not it’s the RIGHT decision, they seem to be more content risking their playoff spot and Q’s job than trading Patrick Kane for desperately-needed back-end stability.

    • gbiscottagecheesefatties - Feb 15, 2012 at 9:56 PM

      for MN, Harding will be tough to move before the deadline, he will be a free agent this summer…. and why would Fletcher trade his prospects when they are looking like a bottom 5 team and possible draft lottery. Makes no sense

  9. blkeskimo1785 - Feb 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    I haven’t been following Chicago closely, but didn’t they switch Kane between the wing and center often this season? Could that have something to do with his poor numbers?

  10. kibbee2545 - Feb 15, 2012 at 11:10 PM

    Detroit will take him

Featured video

Bettman hears the boos in Philly
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (1844)
  2. D. Roy (1594)
  3. M. Ribeiro (1451)
  4. D. Cleary (1445)
  5. R. Nash (1430)
  1. V. Sobotka (1318)
  2. B. Dubinsky (1313)
  3. B. Morrow (1306)
  4. L. Stempniak (1191)
  5. P. Subban (1120)