Why did the Blackhawks deal Patrick Kane? Let's answer some questions about the deal

Why?

That seems to be the overwhelming question for some Blackhawks fans in the wake of the Patrick Kane-to-the-Rangers deal, which was completed Tuesday evening.

Why didn't Kane want to continue playing for the Hawks? Why didn't the Hawks offer an extension so that could happen? Why did the Hawks receive so little in return?

Before answering those queries, remember that I warned readers how difficult it would be when this day arrived, likening it to how I felt when Michael Jordan retired for the first time in 1993.

And, indeed, when highlights of Kane's career popped up it was difficult not to feel a tinge of nostalgia - even for sports writers who don't root for the teams they cover.

After all, Kane - for the most part - made a writer's job so easy. He was almost always available to talk, which goes a long way for us scribes. He was a human highlight film. And as his career moved on, he was seemingly always on the verge of some sort of history.

As one fellow writer said, ask Kane a question after a game and you had a 450-word sidebar. Case in point: My last interview with Kane was all of 2½ minutes and revolved around his ability to bank shots off goalies for goals. Turned into a terrific story.

Now, let's get to the questions posed above.

• I do believe Kane truly struggled with the decision to leave Chicago. This was his home for 16 years and he is raising his son here. He also absolutely loved playing at the United Center.

Numerous franchise records were in sight as well.

In the end, the lure of playing with Artemi Panarin again was too much to pass up. He's wanted this reunion since Panarin was unceremoniously traded to Columbus in 2017.

Plus, Kane wants to win. This gives him a chance to chase a fourth Stanley Cup - and he can do it for an Original Six franchise while playing on a huge stage at Madison Square Garden.

Just wait until April. It's going to be a sight to see.

• The contract extension question is a complex one. But here's what it boils down to based on what I've heard: The Hawks - while they will never admit it publicly - wanted to move on from Kane. As much as that hurts to hear for fans, it's true.

If the trade wasn't made, the summer would arrive and then what? Would GM Kyle Davidson have made an offer? And if so, what would it have looked like?

While trading Kane hurt, it would have looked worse if he spurned the Hawks by taking a better deal elsewhere.

Whichever team inks Kane to a new deal - and it's not totally impossible that it won't be the Hawks - they will do so knowing he's still dealing with a hip injury. One source believes he'll undergo surgery and miss a good portion of next season.

• Kyle Davidson's return for Kane was pretty pathetic - a conditional second-round pick, a fourth-rounder and a pair of throwaway defensemen. That second-round pick becomes a first-rounder if the Rangers reach the conference finals.

So that's it for a future Hall of Famer who is still capable of taking over games?

Kane's no-movement clause put Davidson in a really tight spot. And while Kane said he wanted to do right by the franchise by allowing Davidson to maximize the return, that's not what happened.

It was apparently the Rangers or bust.

So Davidson caved.

In the big picture, maybe that's not so bad. Future free agents will see the young GM did right by a franchise icon and may be more willing to sign in Chicago.

And that's a pretty big deal.

So there you have it.

The Showtime era has ended - and the recasting of the new-look Blackhawks chugs on.