Mastodon
@New York Rangers

Patrick Kane says he was compromised by hip injury



[LINK](https://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/rangers/rangers-patrick-kane-a4qzbrta)

​

Thoughts?

by TheSeekerOfSanity

32 Comments

  1. Figured as much. Shouldn’t have traded for him.

  2. TheIncredibleHork

    It’s a catch-22. It’s Patrick frickin’ Kane, how do you not trade for him when you’re giving up close to nothing? And yet it’s an injured Kane who can’t perform like Patrick Kane should, why would you waste moves and salary on that and shake the team up? And I fully believe the team was shaken up by him coming in.

    I wish we hadn’t gone for him. I don’t think he was a net positive for the team, but at the same time if we didn’t, the *sole* reason people would say we didn’t go farther would be because we didn’t get Kane when we had the chance.

  3. Pazylothead

    Maybe he owes us a team friendly deal for at least a year. We could of kept Harpur on the ice

  4. RaidersJH34

    Kane didn’t win us the series, but he also wasn’t the reason we lost

  5. Kane was a supporting player. He wasn’t supposed to be our carry, we have plenty of player for that.

  6. Then drury shouldnt have traded for him without a full physical and Gallant shouldnt have been giving him top mins and PP time

  7. MAGICPOWDERcomic

    Sadly, everyone already knew this, and he still had more points in the playoffs than most other Rangers. They acted like he and Panarin would be good together, but they both fill the same role of guy who wants to pass first and avoid forechecking/backchecking all together.

  8. Mediocre_Ad7432

    And still had more points than nearly our entire forward core in the first round lmao. Really says something

  9. jaypeedee1025

    He is 100 percent going to get surgery join a rival in our division and torture us in a playoff series book it .

  10. Stonewall30nyr

    Kane was far from being our main issue. In fact, at times I’d even say he was the only one able to control the puck and get the puck out of our zone. He shouldn’t have been expected at his age and condition to have been one of our top guys. He was a high end middle fwd for us, not to mention he cost basically nothing.

  11. HockeyVG

    Still don’t know why people act like we gave up the entire future and current for Kane.

    It was a 2nd round pick for Patrick fucking Kane – any GM would make that deal. He performed just fine, and is not the reason for losing.

  12. New_Capital3267

    People in here ripping Kane meanwhile Panarin was an abomination and we will be paying him 11.5m through our entire window. If it still exists.

  13. Wesley__Willis

    I’m not saying I want this to happen but doesn’t a looming hip surgery and long recovery actually make some kind of Kane/NYR LTIR cap shenanigans possible? If so that might be part of the reason both sides wanted this to happen so badly

  14. GoRangers5

    Kane and Tarasenko were brought in to be the sprinkles, Mika, Fox (outside of the first two games) and Panarin weren’t the ice cream.

  15. iwasnotplanningthis

    Kane contributed. The problem was that the rangers all deferred to Kane. They all thought he was the answer. And on a team without shooters, giving them all one more reason to think about passing turned out to not be a great move. Hard to not make the trade when Kane was available, but it totally blew up whatever chemistry they had.

  16. iamdanabnormal

    This was obvious the whole time. He needs surgery.

  17. rydaley77

    Didnt he have more points than all our other forwards in that series too?

  18. A 34 year old Kane wirh a bad hip was still better than most Rangers players.

  19. MickeyPvX

    Ok fine but did the rest of the team also have hip injuries?

  20. legend1124

    Crazy, a player who everyone KNEW was hurt but still traded FOR him and are surprised he didn’t look good ever lol

  21. Livid-Screen2880

    I have to think that Gallant was not crazy about this move at the deadline. He kinda alludes to this in his post-game press conference where he says talent is great but there also needs to be a work ethic, forecheck, backcheck etc. I know Patrick Kane is a star, but Drury knowingly traded for an INJURED player. Is an injured player gonna forecheck and backcheck? Hell no–they cannot because they cannot play at 100%, they have to choose when to turn it on and when to coast because they’re physically hindered by their injury.

    I’m not saying Kane had anything to do with the Rangers losing. But I think Kane’s inability to really fit in with this team is indicative of bigger issues between Gallant and management. This whole season the Rangers’ biggest weakness was sloppy turnovers. Then Drury trades for an offensive-minded forward with no defensive upside (oh and he’s injured). I don’t know how to put it into words but at the trade deadline, I imagine Gallant wasn’t looking for more talent/skill (we already have that in Panarin) but rather hard workers who can win battles.

  22. BernieManhanders23

    Imagine dunking an injured individual forward when nobody except Igor showed up

  23. KingJames_684

    Kane imo played well and was one the few forwards to show up gm7 . I would take him and tarasenko over panarin any day

  24. Kane wasn’t by any means the worst player out there. Which says something considering he played through the known hip issues .

    If he really wants to stay here on a team freindly deal I wouldn’t be mad, especially if he gets the surgery he needs. But if that means losing someone like Miller and Laf than I’d be a little upset.

  25. trashpanda22lax

    Multiple rangers didnt show up, at least he had somewhat of a pulse during the playoffs.

    Absolutely disgusting performance by this team.

Write A Comment