Player Discussion Duncan Keith

[ManofSteel55]

Does this mean you think our Dcore has underachieved?

A core anchored by Larsson/Nurse + a bunch of plugs/rookies like KRussell/Jones/Lagesson/Bear... that's just a problem of not being good enough, and not a problem with "mentorship"

If it's a problem with not being good enough, it's probably a good thing that we are adding defensemen then.

 

[bucks_oil]

I simply do not understand this obsession with the xGA... Keith xGA next season will have 0% influence on standings, the only thing which matters is the GA.

Side note: last time I compared the teams GF/GA with the xGF/xGA, the difference was soo big that it made xGF/xGA statistically crap stats.

Oh I'm with you.

When I think about a guy with high xGF but low on ice GF... I think that guy must be Marty Reasoner, Shawn Horcoff, or their linemate. I have zero use for ex-girlfriends... sorry, xGF.

But when I think about a guy with high xGA and low GA... I think about a poor defenseman with a great goalie. So while I agree with you... I do think it matters (as a defenseman) how many high quality chances you give up, even if you get lucky. (that's the goalie mentality in me... I get pissy when I have to bail out the same guy for the same stupid mistakes all the time)

But generally, generally I 100% agree with you... the only thing that matters is the result, so I prefer actuals rather than predicted stats.

 

[Little Fury]

The fact is take the mentorship out and Keith is our third best d-man, second that is actually under contract.

So while a bad trade this is good for the d on paper.

That's actually a pretty big indictment of the state of our blueline.

I dont think there's much question that on a contending team Keith would be a third pairing D man. This is shaping up to be another example of the Oilers slotting a guy too high in the lineup with no back up plan.

 

[bucks_oil]

Seeing that people are still citing my posts days after I had stepped out of the thread I'll respond.

Some different things have been stated since I exited thread. Theres notions of what it takes to win, DK instilling calm, team chemisty etc.

Again I'll be clear here with my assessment;

1)38yr old Duncan Keith does not cause a team to Win. Not on the ice, not on the bench. He's not that much of a player now, not an impact player (certainly less than Barrie now)
2) DK only won cups, (any) because he played a part in a packed lineup. I don't think there could be many arguments that Kane and Toews were unstoppable forces for the Hawks. I think they played a bigger role. Keith was probably the best part of a solid D core. I realize people could retrospectively say Keith was a bigger factor.

3) Winning, culture, isn't some bottled ingredient. What Duncan Keith knows about winning is encapsulated in some mega Chicago Black Hawk lineup that had enormous forward and D depth. If one guy wasn't making a difference another was. On that allstar Hawks lineup you just had to look down the bench, somebody was going to get it done.
DK wouldn't know anymore about winning than K Lowe would. If such a thing was so easy to transfer it would have happened here already.

4) Further to Keith (even in prime) only being a piece of a puzzle, its incumbent that the team shore up any holes in topsix, in forwards, goaltending, and of course sign Larsson. 38yr old DK is just an addon D here. Less good on the ice currently than Adam Larsson. Not even close to Darnell Nurse. But we're paying him too much to be a 3-4 which has bearing because DK is only going to be helpful if we ice a complete lineup in the fall. Not one full of holes and where almost all the offense is McDrai.

Appreciate the response. Those are fair points... but I do have a rebuttal.

1) Actually... to me Barrie is a good comparable. Barrie's massive bounce-back season had everything to do with situation. Here he was not asked to carry the mail. He was asked to focus on his strengths... and look what happened, he led the league in D-scoring and was... let's say so-so in his own end. But he contributed to wins.

Keith, will be in a very similar situation. He was absolutely over-burdened in Chicago. Like you say 37-year Keith could not get it done in that role. Here, he'll either be playing with one of the better stay at home guys in Larsson, or on the third pairing. That's a huge reduction in responsibility no matter how you slice it. I DO expect him to be a strong on-ice contributor, so we can agree to disagree on that point until we see him play in his new role.

Moreover, I disagree... he WILL be a major contributor on the bench and in the room. I don't know why you think he wouldn't? This is a vet that actually does know how to play the game at the highest possible level... and as a team. Hockey players are tribal and this guy is a known alpha chief. They will listen to his words, because in their circles he has earned that respect. And no, we are not talking about a Ference vs young-core thing here... Ference did not have legit power with that group... he was a journeyman D. Keith is a first ballot, 2-time Norris, 3-time cup, 1-time Conn Smyth legend. No doubt there are guys in our room that idolized Keith when they were teenagers. Nobody ('save a few bruins fans I know) idolized Ference.

2) Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is by far your weakest point. If we win a cup will Nurse have been a passenger? If he wins the Norris? Twice? If he wins the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP during our first cup? Still a passenger? You yourself say he was the best of their d-squad... so maybe I just don't understand your point, but you seem to imply winning was inevitable and Keith was just a cog in the machine... sorry that's crazy.

3) Winning cannot be bottled... but lessons matter. Every player that has won would agree with that... this is not lore that they make up for Legends of Hockey VHS tapes... these players lived it and learned how to grow up (as fully actualized men) before they won. You hear it over and over... from the players. Those "deep" Blackhawks, just like every team before them didn't win without challenges and strife along the way. There were lessons learned. Leadership does matter, and Keith was #2 in that department... that translates.

4) 1000% agree with all of this. Without discussing the trade too much (other thread)... we have to hope that we can still build a deep squad around McDrai and there is no doubt the (let's say) extra $2M in cap beyond what we can reasonably expect from a 38 year old will make that more difficult. but so will our dead cap in Lucic/Neal/Koskinen, etc. However, the positive is that this $2M in "dead-ish" cap, has a living breathing person associated with it. A guy that should provide leadership and if those lessons are learned, those positive lessons will echo forward. In two years time, we could have one of the best, youngest D-core in the entire league, led by grizzled vets Larsson and Nurse, but complemented with Bouchard, Broberg, Samorukov, Bear... all of whom will be learning for two years from one of the best to ever play the game (and since we didn't commit term to a mediocre 2nd pairing, we'll have cap to retain them when their ELCs are up). Is it still dead cap if it echoes forward? I'm guessing that was the factor that convinced Holland it was ok to "lose" the deal on paper.

 

[bone]

Seeing that people are still citing my posts days after I had stepped out of the thread I'll respond.

Some different things have been stated since I exited thread. Theres notions of what it takes to win, DK instilling calm, team chemisty etc.

Again I'll be clear here with my assessment;

1)38yr old Duncan Keith does not cause a team to Win. Not on the ice, not on the bench. He's not that much of a player now, not an impact player (certainly less than Barrie now)
2) DK only won cups, (any) because he played a part in a packed lineup. I don't think there could be many arguments that Kane and Toews were unstoppable forces for the Hawks. I think they played a bigger role. Keith was probably the best part of a solid D core. I realize people could retrospectively say Keith was a bigger factor.

3) Winning, culture, isn't some bottled ingredient. What Duncan Keith knows about winning is encapsulated in some mega Chicago Black Hawk lineup that had enormous forward and D depth. If one guy wasn't making a difference another was. On that allstar Hawks lineup you just had to look down the bench, somebody was going to get it done.
DK wouldn't know anymore about winning than K Lowe would. If such a thing was so easy to transfer it would have happened here already.

4) Further to Keith (even in prime) only being a piece of a puzzle, its incumbent that the team shore up any holes in topsix, in forwards, goaltending, and of course sign Larsson. 38yr old DK is just an addon D here. Less good on the ice currently than Adam Larsson. Not even close to Darnell Nurse. But we're paying him too much to be a 3-4 which has bearing because DK is only going to be helpful if we ice a complete lineup in the fall. Not one full of holes and where almost all the offense is McDrai.

I have no issue with most of your post but Point 2.

Any #1 defenseman on a three time cup winning team is likely to be a key ingredient. Yes, their forward depth was their strength, but this was the guy playing almost half a game on the back end helping to get the puck out of his end to these players. He wasn't Kevin Lowe, a 3/4 d-man on a dynasty, he was their number 1.

Do I think any of that translates to success in Edmonton? I'm very doubtful, but I don't think it's fair to discount his contribution (including a Conn Smythe win) to three cup winning teams in the past to argue against his potential effectiveness next year.

 

[bone]

With respect the Toronto Maple Leafs tried to bring in several vet players to try to instill something to the team and the core. to try to change something within it. The leafs result this post season was arguably worse.
Veteran presense is helpful when those vets are still at or close to the top of their game. In the case of Toronto that wasnt the case, and its arguably not the case with Keith here.

In short to this point Keith is tasked with doing something that all the following players didn't get done in Toronto;
Tavares, Muzzin, Spezza, Thornton, Simmonds, Foligno. Marleau etc.

I mean the Leafs loaded up on vets and it just made them a slower club. Muzzin alone is a better D than 38yr old Keith and not even close.

While I agree experience doesn't necessarily lead to playoff success, almost all of Toronto's vets had little or no playoff success either.

Tavares - 1 playoff round win
Muzzin - 2 deep runs including a cup win in his first two years in the NHL as a 4th d-man or lower. No playoff series wins in the last 7 years.
Spezza - 2 playoff round wins in an 18 year career
Thornton - is a well documented playoff underacheiver, one of the most recongnized at such in history. Though being on very deep teams for much of his career had a couple conference final runs and one cup final run. However, over 23 years 14 playoff round wins while being on many deep teams, isn't all that impressive.
Simmonds - 1 playoff round win in a 13 year career.
Foligno - 2 playoff round wins in a 14 year career.
Marleau - read Thornton.

All of those players. 1 cup from a player in their sophomore season as a depth contributor and a lot of short playoff runs.

At least the Oilers guy actually was a part of playoff success 14 series wins in 16 years and 3 cups, and all of this was done as the teams top defenseman. Granted his only series win in the last 6 years was a playin vs. Edmonton, so it's easy to argue the relevence of that experience at this point.

 

[Drivesaitl]

While I agree experience doesn't necessarily lead to playoff success, almost all of Toronto's vets had little or no playoff success either.

Tavares - 1 playoff round win
Muzzin - 2 deep runs including a cup win in his first two years in the NHL as a 4th d-man or lower. No playoff series wins in the last 7 years.
Spezza - 2 playoff round wins in an 18 year career
Thornton - is a well documented playoff underacheiver, one of the most recongnized at such in history. Though being on very deep teams for much of his career had a couple conference final runs and one cup final run. However, over 23 years 14 playoff round wins while being on many deep teams, isn't all that impressive.
Simmonds - 1 playoff round win in a 13 year career.
Foligno - 2 playoff round wins in a 14 year career.
Marleau - read Thornton.

All of those players. 1 cup from a player in their sophomore season as a depth contributor and a lot of short playoff runs.

At least the Oilers guy actually was a part of playoff success 14 series wins in 16 years and 3 cups, and all of this was done as the teams top defenseman. Granted his only series win in the last 6 years was a playin vs. Edmonton, so it's easy to argue the relevence of that experience at this point.

Playoff success is not player specific. it almost never is. Its the right group of players together, at the right time that bond and coalesce and form a team. That gels. Further the difference between winning and losing a SC or key series is often negligible.

What you say about guys like Thornton is dynamic based, it isn't player based. Thornton in the WC has had to go through a murderers row trying to beat either the Kings or Hawks. unlike either of those clubs the Sharks weren't getting the TDL type help or depth to put them over the top. Sharks were more like Vegas in the sense that at times they just couldn't buy a goal.

Why would you conflate playoff success as an individual attribute within a team sport"

By that nature, and on that logic McD isn't a winner because he hasn't won a cup. Drai isn't a winner because he hasn't won a cup, Nuge, Nurse etc. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Unless the player names are huge. Mario Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Pronger players on thier own don't really instill cup tangibles on a new club.

One could argue a Patrick Maroon but he's just a key ingredient and a guy that excels in playoff hockey. STL and Tampa of course having a lot more than him to win. Maroon is the most cupped recent player in hockey. It certainly doesn't make him better than any of the listed players. He's demonstration that its nice to be in the right place at the right time.

Finally, Joe Thornton is 42nd, all time, in NHL history, in playoff pts. Marleau 48th. To say that Thornton is one of the most recognized underachievers in playoff hockey is just not substantiated. He's got the numbers in playoffs. So does Marleau. This too seemingly being where people kind of buy into bias. Theres been a constant knock on Thornton playoff performance, but that ignores his contributions in the playoffs.
Heres a funny thing. Among contemporaries, Thornton is 4th in playoff points. Behind only Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin. To say thats chronic underachieving is inaccurate. He's been at the top of his class among peers, behind only generational players.

 

[Samus44]

Like.

And agreed. Heard today Bear came in ripped for year 1... but for year 2 not so much. And there was a lot of hype around his fitness in year 1. We knew he took a step back after Covid break, but somewhat encouraging if it was due to lack of proper training/diet. Keith will definitely help in this regard. Keith also a great outlet passer, Bear is as well but maybe Keith can help him pick his spots better. One other thing he can help with is how Keith is a small guy but due to his quickness in attacking forwards, still gets the job done defensively (at least in his prime)... should be able to teach Bear some tricks on how to defend while being small.

Bear was insanely ripped in year 2. Did you not see the picture that was out there? I said it early Bear gained too much muscle and was slower because of it. Longterm it should help but I suspect he loses some weight this year to gain his quickness back.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Appreciate the response. Those are fair points... but I do have a rebuttal.

1) Actually... to me Barrie is a good comparable. Barrie's massive bounce-back season had everything to do with situation. Here he was not asked to carry the mail. He was asked to focus on his strengths... and look what happened, he led the league in D-scoring and was... let's say so-so in his own end. But he contributed to wins.

Keith, will be in a very similar situation. He was absolutely over-burdened in Chicago. Like you say 37-year Keith could not get it done in that role. Here, he'll either be playing with one of the better stay at home guys in Larsson, or on the third pairing. That's a huge reduction in responsibility no matter how you slice it. I DO expect him to be a strong on-ice contributor, so we can agree to disagree on that point until we see him play in his new role.

Moreover, I disagree... he WILL be a major contributor on the bench and in the room. I don't know why you think he wouldn't? This is a vet that actually does know how to play the game at the highest possible level... and as a team. Hockey players are tribal and this guy is a known alpha chief. They will listen to his words, because in their circles he has earned that respect. And no, we are not talking about a Ference vs young-core thing here... Ference did not have legit power with that group... he was a journeyman D. Keith is a first ballot, 2-time Norris, 3-time cup, 1-time Conn Smyth legend. No doubt there are guys in our room that idolized Keith when they were teenagers. Nobody ('save a few bruins fans I know) idolized Ference.

2) Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is by far your weakest point. If we win a cup will Nurse have been a passenger? If he wins the Norris? Twice? If he wins the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP during our first cup? Still a passenger? You yourself say he was the best of their d-squad... so maybe I just don't understand your point, but you seem to imply winning was inevitable and Keith was just a cog in the machine... sorry that's crazy.

3) Winning cannot be bottled... but lessons matter. Every player that has won would agree with that... this is not lore that they make up for Legends of Hockey VHS tapes... these players lived it and learned how to grow up (as fully actualized men) before they won. You hear it over and over... from the players. Those "deep" Blackhawks, just like every team before them didn't win without challenges and strife along the way. There were lessons learned. Leadership does matter, and Keith was #2 in that department... that translates.

4) 1000% agree with all of this. Without discussing the trade too much (other thread)... we have to hope that we can still build a deep squad around McDrai and there is no doubt the (let's say) extra $2M in cap beyond what we can reasonably expect from a 38 year old will make that more difficult. but so will our dead cap in Lucic/Neal/Koskinen, etc. However, the positive is that this $2M in "dead-ish" cap, has a living breathing person associated with it. A guy that should provide leadership and if those lessons are learned, those positive lessons will echo forward. In two years time, we could have one of the best, youngest D-core in the entire league, led by grizzled vets Larsson and Nurse, but complemented with Bouchard, Broberg, Samorukov, Bear... all of whom will be learning for two years from one of the best to ever play the game (and since we didn't commit term to a mediocre 2nd pairing, we'll have cap to retain them when their ELCs are up). Is it still dead cap if it echoes forward? I'm guessing that was the factor that convinced Holland it was ok to "lose" the deal on paper.

Seems like point 2 was misunderstood. I never stated Lowe or Keith were "passengers" K Lowe was the 2 D (behind only Coffey in value) on a star studded legend club. It seems in this convo that it is Lowe being undervaluated. He was in every way the equal of Duncan Keith. The only reason Lowe wasn't considered the best D on the Oilers was that Coffey was on a level of Bourque and Orr. I don't know your age, if you're old enough to have watched the dynasty team but Lowe was the closest (along with Huddy) to being our version of shutdown D. They logged big minutes when needed.

I mean if anybody thinks I'm devaluing Keith in the convo by comparing to K Lowe, it seems they aren't too familiar with K Lowe, the player.
The point anyway was that K Lowe was around 6 on that depth chart of players depending on who people list any given year. Now thats damn good because that was the best team selected ever in hockey. A team miles better than the Chicago Black Hawks were.
Now that said I do view Keith as the 3rd best hockey player during that cup run. Maybe thats unfair, and people put him at first.
In anycase transpose Duncan Keith to 80's Oilers and he's also 2nd best to Paul Coffey, with Coffey just being that good.

Present day Keith is not even a comparable to Barrie in value, performance, anything. One led the NHL in points just this season. The other put up very ordinary numbers in every aspect and with clearly declining assets. I mean cannot you not see that in Barries case the attributes are still there. and that we obtained him in prime, at age 28. I was thrilled to get Barrie in prime. Said he would be transformative here and he was.

So this year we're getting Keith, watching Larsson leave, and not even attempting to resign Barrie which is a cats breakfast piece of work.

Finally Barrie is a highly prized asset seeking a big contract that probably gets it on the basis of leading the league in pts as a D. Keith is viewed generally, as somebody making 5.5M that should have had substantial retention in trade. So clearly its not equitable value. Unless one believes in this kind of mythical lore of players going to new clubs and getting them a cup. It rarely happens.
When it Happened with Mark Messier he added so many former Oilers that at one time the Rangers had 7 Oilers. The latter being the kind of extent a club needs to go to to try to buy a cup. Not possible in Cap era.

 

[Hynh]

Gone are the days when our top defensive prospects (the area where this team has struggled the most for decades) are being taught how to conduct themselves, play, and think the game by our #1 defencemen Andrej Sekera and Sheldon Souray.

Who taught Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and Byfuglien to "conduct themselves, play, and think the game"?

 

[WaitingForUser]

Who taught Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and Byfuglien to "conduct themselves, play, and think the game"?

There are exceptions to every rule. But let’s look at a team like TB. They drafted Stamkos and Hedman a few years apart. Those two learned from some great players like Lecavalier, Boyle Richards and St Louis. We drafted Nuge and Hall a few years apart and they learned from the likes of Horcoff, Penner and Whitney. Tell me again which players reached their potential?

 

[bone]

Playoff success is not player specific. it almost never is. Its the right group of players together, at the right time that bond and coalesce and form a team. That gels. Further the difference between winning and losing a SC or key series is often negligible.

What you say about guys like Thornton is dynamic based, it isn't player based. Thornton in the WC has had to go through a murderers row trying to beat either the Kings or Hawks. unlike either of those clubs the Sharks weren't getting the TDL type help or depth to put them over the top. Sharks were more like Vegas in the sense that at times they just couldn't buy a goal.

Why would you conflate playoff success as an individual attribute within a team sport"

By that nature, and on that logic McD isn't a winner because he hasn't won a cup. Drai isn't a winner because he hasn't won a cup, Nuge, Nurse etc. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Unless the player names are huge. Mario Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Pronger players on thier own don't really instill cup tangibles on a new club.

One could argue a Patrick Maroon but he's just a key ingredient and a guy that excels in playoff hockey. STL and Tampa of course having a lot more than him to win. Maroon is the most cupped recent player in hockey. It certainly doesn't make him better than any of the listed players. He's demonstration that its nice to be in the right place at the right time.

Finally, Joe Thornton is 42nd, all time, in NHL history, in playoff pts. Marleau 48th. To say that Thornton is one of the most recognized underachievers in playoff hockey is just not substantiated. He's got the numbers in playoffs. So does Marleau. This too seemingly being where people kind of buy into bias. Theres been a constant knock on Thornton playoff performance, but that ignores his contributions in the playoffs.
Heres a funny thing. Among contemporaries, Thornton is 4th in playoff points. Behind only Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin. To say thats chronic underachieving is inaccurate. He's been at the top of his class among peers, behind only generational players.

That's all fair and I've argued your side several times in the past as Thornton specifically had good individual numbers but he's also very clearly never translated that into team success in the playoffs many times as the Captain of those teams. Certainly a team is more than an individual, but individuals with Joe's credentials typically find a way to win at least one. Sure he had tough teams to play against but his teams were dominant even before those teams took off, before that he was knocked out teams like Edmonton and Dallas .

In Boston they were a first place team in two of his final three years and quickly disposed in the first round. Twice by an unspectacular Montreal team. They couldn't get anywhere in playoffs which led to his trade. He went San Jose and they became perennial division winners even before the key players on Chicago or LA were drafted. That's not all on him, but he certainly never found the secret to carry a team to a championship.

Specifically you were referencing Toronto picking up veterans with experience and how it hasn't helped. All I was saying was that pretty much all of them hadn't much playoff success except maybe Thornton or Marleau who were themselves unfamiliar with playoff success and it could be argued that Joe and Patrick never quite figured it out either. So is it a case of the experience Toronto got not being the right type to put them over the top.

I'm not convinced Keith is that much different, but without doubt he's experienced success much more than any of the guys Toronto supplemented with.

I still dislike the trade itself, but where I struggle is marginalizing the player's past achievements which relatively few players have ever achieved in the NHL to justify disliking the trade. I feel comparing his experiences to those of the players mentioned in Toronto is doing just that.

 

[nturn06]

Oh I'm with you.

When I think about a guy with high xGF but low on ice GF... I think that guy must be Marty Reasoner, Shawn Horcoff, or their linemate. I have zero use for ex-girlfriends... sorry, xGF.

But when I think about a guy with high xGA and low GA... I think about a poor defenseman with a great goalie. So while I agree with you... I do think it matters (as a defenseman) how many high quality chances you give up, even if you get lucky. (that's the goalie mentality in me... I get pissy when I have to bail out the same guy for the same stupid mistakes all the time)

But generally, generally I 100% agree with you... the only thing that matters is the result, so I prefer actuals rather than predicted stats.

I actually dissagree with the bolded part. And would not reffer to the Hawks goalies as "great".

One of the many issues with stats like xGA% is that for two shots from the same possition, with a D-men between the puck and the net, it is a matter of inches between the D-men screening the goalie or not, yet the xGA assigns them the same probability of going in. A good D-men will know how to possition himself, a bad D-men will screen his goalie many times. And this does apply to many "shots from similar situations", the D-men doing his job properly can make the shot easier to handle for the goalie (it can be as simple as taking the pass option away, not allowing the player to turn, or many simple things like this: the shoter having other good options besides the shot makes it harder for the goalie).

While in some cases it is true that a high xGA and low GA is a sign of great goaltender, I highly suspect that a D-men which regularly outperforms his xGA is good defensively, while a D-man who regularly underperforms his xGA is probably bad defensively.

The main issue with statistics and analytics is that everyone can make many tables with nice figures, they can sort them. But while everyone thinks they are an expert, very few people can actually undertstand what the numbers really mean. It gets a good statistician to see beyond the numbers, and even then they are sometimes wrong. I see this often also in peer review articles, where the statistics is not done properly, and I see this almost always in "hockey analytics".

 

[Drivesaitl]

That's all fair and I've argued your side several times in the past as Thornton specifically had good individual numbers but he's also very clearly never translated that into team success in the playoffs many times as the Captain of those teams. Certainly a team is more than an individual, but individuals with Joe's credentials typically find a way to win at least one. Sure he had tough teams to play against but his teams were dominant even before those teams took off, before that he was knocked out teams like Edmonton and Dallas .

In Boston they were a first place team that couldn't get anywhere in playoffs which led to his trade. He went San Jose and they became perenial division winners even before the key players on Chicago or LA were drafted. That's not all on him, but he certainly never found the secret to carry a team to a championship.

Specifically you were referencing Toronto picking up veterans with experience and how it hasn't helped. All I was saying was that pretty much all of them except maybe Thornton or Marleau who were themselves unfamiliar with playoff success and it could be argued that Joe and Patrick never quite figured it out either so is it a case of the experience Toronto got not being the right type to put them over the top.

I'm not convince Keith is that much different, but without doubt he's experience success much more than any of the guys Toronto supplemented with.

I still dislike the trade itself, but where I struggle is marginalizing the player's past achievements which relatively few players have ever achieved in the NHL to justify disliking the trade. I feel comparing his experiences to those of the players mentioned in Toronto is doing just that.

Thanks for the response and glad you see what I'm saying. But I don't generally evaluate players on win lose the cup. For instance the Oilers in 2006 only lost mainly due to a heartbreak play that injured our starting goalie in game 1, and that also resulted in us losing that game, which we probably otherwise win.

Difference between winning and losing is slim. Lots of great players never won a cup. Its the nature of the NHL. OV would still be in that category too had Washington not signed Trotz and added some ingredients to that club. Trotz the best coach in the business.

There is no secret to winning a SC. Players think so. Its more superstition than anything. It isn't a tangible you can quantify, examine. Its always speculation. I have coursework in Cognitive process. In attempting to understand things humans are subject to mentally filling in details they just don't understand, comprehend. When teams become champions its generally stated that they suddenly learned something on the way to the holy grail. But moreso its just having the right lineup. Tampa knew for instance when they were swept by the Blue Jackets of all clubs that they had been manhandled on ice. It was that result of the org figuring it out, that the Lightning needed to inject muscle, strength, and pugnacious hard to play against players which filled out their lineup and made them more playoff ready. It wasn't the players figuring it out as much as it was the org.

Essentially all of LA, STL, Washington showed Tampa how to win cups. With lineups not lacking in size and that could play anyway, but could impose physical play on opponents. Thus the Lightning in 2021 were a very physical club on ice.

 

[bone]

Thanks for the response and glad you see what I'm saying. But I don't generally evaluate players on win lose the cup. For instance the Oilers in 2006 only lost mainly due to a heartbreak play that injured our starting goalie in game 1, and that also resulted in us losing that game, which we probably otherwise win.

Difference between winning and losing is slim. Lots of great players never won a cup. Its the nature of the NHL. OV would still be in that category too had Washington not signed Trotz and added some ingredients to that club. Trotz the best coach in the business.

There is no secret to winning a SC. Players think so. Its more superstition than anything. It isn't a tangible you can quantify, examine. Its always speculation. I have coursework in Cognitive process. In attempting to understand things humans are subject to mentally filling in details they just don't understand, comprehend. When teams become champions its generally stated that they suddenly learned something on the way to the holy grail. But moreso its just having the right lineup. Tampa knew for instance when they were swept by the Blue Jackets of all clubs that they had been manhandled on ice. It was that result of the org figuring it out, that the Lightning needed to inject muscle, strength, and pugnacious hard to play against players which filled out their lineup and made them more playoff ready. It wasn't the players figuring it out as much as it was the org.

Essentially all of LA, STL, Washington showed Tampa how to win cups. With lineups not lacking in size and that could play anyway, but could impose physical play on opponents. Thus the Lightning in 2021 were a very physical club on ice.

Certainly winning requires a good lineup, a little luck, and I'd also say this "learning" people claim along the way is just a building confidence amongst the entire pack that they will pull it off. This is where I think a guy who has done it could be helpful to keep that confidence. I'm not speaking personal confidence, the best players have that in spades, it's confidence in the group. Hopefully, that's something he can bring to the room with some well placed comments to his teammates when it's most crucial, and with his history, they are more likely to listen provided that he himself is contributing and that to me is the biggest part of the debate. If he ends up just pylon, anything he says may not have as much weight.

 

[yukoner88]

Cap hit aside, If Keith has the same type of impact on the team as Adam Oates did on team back in '04, this could be a big win.

Horcoff, Hemsky, Stoll, Smyth, Smith etc all talked about how much Oates taught them.

Take the impact Oates had on that core 15 years ago and imagine what Draisaitl, McDavid can learn from Keith about being a leader when shit gets tough, and imagine how much better all our young defensemen can possibly be with having direct access to Keith.


Also as a side note, reading between the lines of wanting to play closer to his family, there's a chance this upcoming season could be swansong. If Keith retires a year early, he becomes a negative cap hit for the Oilers, and Chicago gets smacked with penalties.

 

[bone]

Seems like point 2 was misunderstood. I never stated Lowe or Keith were "passengers" K Lowe was the 2 D (behind only Coffey in value) on a star studded legend club. It seems in this convo that it is Lowe being undervaluated. He was in every way the equal of Duncan Keith. The only reason Lowe wasn't considered the best D on the Oilers was that Coffey was on a level of Bourque and Orr. I don't know your age, if you're old enough to have watched the dynasty team but Lowe was the closest (along with Huddy) to being our version of shutdown D. They logged big minutes when needed.

I mean if anybody thinks I'm devaluing Keith in the convo by comparing to K Lowe, it seems they aren't too familiar with K Lowe, the player.
The point anyway was that K Lowe was around 6 on that depth chart of players depending on who people list any given year. Now thats damn good because that was the best team selected ever in hockey. A team miles better than the Chicago Black Hawks were.
Now that said I do view Keith as the 3rd best hockey player during that cup run. Maybe thats unfair, and people put him at first.
In anycase transpose Duncan Keith to 80's Oilers and he's also 2nd best to Paul Coffey, with Coffey just being that good.

Present day Keith is not even a comparable to Barrie in value, performance, anything. One led the NHL in points just this season. The other put up very ordinary numbers in every aspect and with clearly declining assets. I mean cannot you not see that in Barries case the attributes are still there. and that we obtained him in prime, at age 28. I was thrilled to get Barrie in prime. Said he would be transformative here and he was.

So this year we're getting Keith, watching Larsson leave, and not even attempting to resign Barrie which is a cats breakfast piece of work.

Finally Barrie is a highly prized asset seeking a big contract that probably gets it on the basis of leading the league in pts as a D. Keith is viewed generally, as somebody making 5.5M that should have had substantial retention in trade. So clearly its not equitable value. Unless one believes in this kind of mythical lore of players going to new clubs and getting them a cup. It rarely happens.
When it Happened with Mark Messier he added so many former Oilers that at one time the Rangers had 7 Oilers. The latter being the kind of extent a club needs to go to to try to buy a cup. Not possible in Cap era.

How about we settle with Seabrook was Chicago's Lowe and Keith Chicago's Coffey, understanding that both Edmonton versions were significantly better versions of each and part of the reason why that team had 6 cup appearances instead of only 3 (granted Coffey wasn't there for all of them)

 

[Hynh]

There are exceptions to every rule. But let’s look at a team like TB. They drafted Stamkos and Hedman a few years apart. Those two learned from some great players like Lecavalier, Boyle Richards and St Louis. We drafted Nuge and Hall a few years apart and they learned from the likes of Horcoff, Penner and Whitney. Tell me again which players reached their potential?

Maybe Hall and RNH did reach their potential and the TB duo were just better players. After all, Stamkos had a better 17 year old season than either of them and Hedman was a U-20 All Star at 17 while posting just 1 point. Or maybe Stamkos is just extremely overrated. It's not a coincidence that Lecavalier's goal scoring declined exactly when Stamkos exploded. And it's not a coincidence that Stamkos stopped being a Rocket Richard threat when St. Louis was traded.

Meanwhile Hedman never played with Boyle. The best defenceman he played with before his break out was the ghost of Eric Brewer. Brewer was an OK player but he never received any votes at the end of a season. Did 5'6" St. Louis have a lot of defence tricks to teach to 6'6" Hedman?

Personally I think the most important thing for players is to be slotted into the right spot on a depth chart. How many current Oilers are playing in the right spot right now? Maybe 5 depending on where RNH and Bouchard slot in?

 

[snipes]

I have this feeling that Keith is going to have a big year for us. Don’t know why, but I just get that sense.

I bet he’s heard all the noise about how he’s washed up and done. A competitive old warrior like that can use that as motivation for a final push to his career.

 

[Stoneman89]

I have this feeling that Keith is going to have a big year for us. Don’t know why, but I just get that sense.

I bet he’s heard all the noise about how he’s washed up and done. A competitive old warrior like that can use that as motivation for a final push to his career.

I have the same feeling. He's suffered no serious injuries, and the thought of playing with Connor and Leon might really motivate him further, just as it did with Barrie. And like Mike Smith, who took up new training methods probably better suited for this time in his life, and a huge chip on his shoulder with everyone telling him he's done, it could work out well.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I agree with Drivesaitl about context mattering.

Not that I want to get deep into any analytics debate, but I find Goalies give the best context.

We rarely see goalies who are finalists behind defense without Norris contenders.

We see Vezina-Bob go from a Jones-Werenski lead Defense to a deplorable Yandle lead one.

Rinne was great behind several Norris guys. Would he be that good in Edmonton during the decade of Darkness?

Same applies to players on McDavids wing, or defensive players in front of great goalies.

Fleury wins a Vezina when he finally gets Pietrangelo. He wouldn't win in Edmonton.


Player success is rarely in isolation of itself. A huge part of why Keith won his Norris trophies was his team.

 

[Bank Shot]

Seems like point 2 was misunderstood. I never stated Lowe or Keith were "passengers" K Lowe was the 2 D (behind only Coffey in value) on a star studded legend club. It seems in this convo that it is Lowe being undervaluated. He was in every way the equal of Duncan Keith. The only reason Lowe wasn't considered the best D on the Oilers was that Coffey was on a level of Bourque and Orr. I don't know your age, if you're old enough to have watched the dynasty team but Lowe was the closest (along with Huddy) to being our version of shutdown D. They logged big minutes when needed.

You can't say that with a straight face can you?

Keith has two Norris trophies, a Conn Smythe, two times first all star team, one time second all star team.


Lowe was about the equal of Hjarlmarsson. If he had played in Winnipeg in the 80s no one would even remember his name.

Dave Babych agrees.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I agree with Drivesaitl about context mattering.

Not that I want to get deep into any analytics debate, but I find Goalies give the best context.

We rarely see goalies who are finalists behind defense without Norris contenders.

We see Vezina-Bob go from a Jones-Werenski lead Defense to a deplorable Yandle lead one.

Rinne was great behind several Norris guys. Would he be that good in Edmonton during the decade of Darkness?

Same applies to players on McDavids wing, or defensive players in front of great goalies.

Fleury wins a Vezina when he finally gets Pietrangelo. He wouldn't win in Edmonton.


Player success is rarely in isolation of itself. A huge part of why Keith won his Norris trophies was his team.

Bang. To add that Keith won one of his Norris trophies when almost anybody figured Doughty, who went on to win the cup that year was robbed.

Like most awards in anycase trophy wins is not really an objective measure. Its misleading how its being utilized here on the board now. Most times its considered that the trophies are erroneously awarded. But when it comes to Keith its suddenly defacto objective measure now, even if people laughed when he got his 2nd Norris.

I mean Mark Giordano and Roman Josi won the Norris trophy, consecutive years, both Flames. Try to explain that. The PHWA that awards these is garbage. Hardly objective. Its like they spin a wheel or something.

 

[bellagiobob]

Seems like point 2 was misunderstood. I never stated Lowe or Keith were "passengers" K Lowe was the 2 D (behind only Coffey in value) on a star studded legend club. It seems in this convo that it is Lowe being undervaluated. He was in every way the equal of Duncan Keith. The only reason Lowe wasn't considered the best D on the Oilers was that Coffey was on a level of Bourque and Orr. I don't know your age, if you're old enough to have watched the dynasty team but Lowe was the closest (along with Huddy) to being our version of shutdown D. They logged big minutes when needed.

I mean if anybody thinks I'm devaluing Keith in the convo by comparing to K Lowe, it seems they aren't too familiar with K Lowe, the player.
The point anyway was that K Lowe was around 6 on that depth chart of players depending on who people list any given year. Now thats damn good because that was the best team selected ever in hockey. A team miles better than the Chicago Black Hawks were.
Now that said I do view Keith as the 3rd best hockey player during that cup run. Maybe thats unfair, and people put him at first.
In anycase transpose Duncan Keith to 80's Oilers and he's also 2nd best to Paul Coffey, with Coffey just being that good.

Present day Keith is not even a comparable to Barrie in value, performance, anything. One led the NHL in points just this season. The other put up very ordinary numbers in every aspect and with clearly declining assets. I mean cannot you not see that in Barries case the attributes are still there. and that we obtained him in prime, at age 28. I was thrilled to get Barrie in prime. Said he would be transformative here and he was.

So this year we're getting Keith, watching Larsson leave, and not even attempting to resign Barrie which is a cats breakfast piece of work.

Finally Barrie is a highly prized asset seeking a big contract that probably gets it on the basis of leading the league in pts as a D. Keith is viewed generally, as somebody making 5.5M that should have had substantial retention in trade. So clearly its not equitable value. Unless one believes in this kind of mythical lore of players going to new clubs and getting them a cup. It rarely happens.
When it Happened with Mark Messier he added so many former Oilers that at one time the Rangers had 7 Oilers. The latter being the kind of extent a club needs to go to to try to buy a cup. Not possible in Cap era.

I liked Lowe as a player, was all blood and guts, but IMHO he was in no way shape or form equal to Duncan Keith at his peak. Not even close.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I liked Lowe as a player, was all blood and guts, but IMHO he was in no way shape or form equal to Duncan Keith at his peak. Not even close.

Keith had a strong supporting cast of D on the Hawks, and the strongest forward group in hockey. Lots of games where Keith wasn't even the best D on the club. Nobody has ever seen him play a game without the Hawks, and we're about to.

He sure hasn't looked like a Norris Trophy winner any time lately.

Disagree on your assessment. Lowe would at least be in that convo, and similar D. Keith was more prolific, but also on the PP. Lowe had MUCH better goal differential on ice stats. Needs to be understood that Lowe played D on a team, and was its shutdown guy, on a high flying team that often didn't care about D. What would Lowe have looked like in a career playing dedicated system D when all players were buying into the effort?

Lowe had 4 better +/- seasons than Keith ever had and was +260 in career. Keith 144. Lowes worst ever season was -10, as a 20yr old. Keith has been as bad as 29, and -13, just last season.

I think our perceptions of Lowe as a manager colors our thoughts on how much of a tower he was as a player.