Duncan Keith - Norris Trophy Lock?

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225323" data-time="1397096519">


Well see Jim, in order to even have this discussion with you, you have to tell me if you agree that goalies are very dependent on the quality of team in front of them or not. If the answer is no, this is pointless. Because this is the same guy you're talking about who should've won the Conn Smythe and justifying the contract the Hawks gave him off of that when the season before after Phoenix and those horrible OT goals he gave up, people would've liked to have never seen him with the Hawks again. Because no one would've come out and said after that they'd expect him to be in the running for the Conn Smythe the very next season. So.....you understand my caution here with these overreactions and me having to ask you that question.</p></blockquote>
The Phoenix series is irrelevant. He's a champion now. Only idiots would evaluate him with that series in mind.


Goalies are dependent on the teams in front of them, and vice versa.


Crawford works well with this team and has its trust.


His stats this season, especially since January, put him in the upper eschelon.


Even Guest_RK wouldn't argue with that math.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-time="1397098991" data-cid="225324" data-author="puckjim">

Goalies are dependent on the teams in front of them, and vice versa.

Crawford works well with this team and has its trust.</p></blockquote>
Yup there is a symbiotic relationship between the goalie and the players in front of them. Both are dependent on their style of play (and playing to each other styles), and communication. Team scheme and goalies that either need lots of shots to stay sharp or goalies that can stay focused with lower number of shots comes into play. Much more to that symbiotic relationship than meets the eye.

 

[Forklift]

After Crawford got his extension, I got into a conversation with someone who argued that giving him a long-term deal was a bad idea. His thinking was that it was because Crawford's success was due to the players in front of him.</p>


 </p>


Which is a valid concern until you realize the players in front of him are also all signed for the long term.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225301" data-time="1397071945">
<div>


I think these guys worked as hard as they did to get where they've gotten so they wouldn't have to play in places like Winnipeg or Buffalo.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Well exactly, which is basically what I followed that sentence with.</p>

 

[Forklift]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="225337" data-time="1397139265">
<div>


Well exactly, which is basically what I followed that sentence with.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 I was thinking more in terms of the cities themselves, and not the teams who wear their home uniforms there.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225344" data-time="1397142728">
<div>


 I was thinking more in terms of the cities themselves, and not the teams who wear their home uniforms there.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I never bought any of that "Toews wants to play for Winnipeg/Kane wants to play for Buffalo" drivel.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225316" data-time="1397081816">
<div>


Where does Bickell "drop" to?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Not sure, and I know Bickell has been injured most of the year, but considering that somehow we managed to move Campbell's contract, and that eyes will be on Bickell in the post season, I think it's prossible that if he doesn't perform the team will cut it's losses and get rid of him.</p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225336" data-time="1397138096">
<div>


After Crawford got his extension, I got into a conversation with someone who argued that giving him a long-term deal was a bad idea. His thinking was that it was because Crawford's success was due to the players in front of him.</p>


 </p>


Which is a valid concern until you realize the players in front of him are also all signed for the long term.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


It's a very valid point.  I also think that if you could literally plug any goalie into our lineup and they would have success, then Huet, Khabi, and Turco shouldn't have looked as bad as they did, and Raanta, when played, would average about 2 goals a game--not 3 or more.</p>


 </p>


Besdies, Crawford stole the game against Montreal last night.  I don't think we would have won with Raanta in net.</p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225346" data-time="1397143214">
<div>


I never bought any of that "Toews wants to play for Winnipeg/Kane wants to play for Buffalo" drivel.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I see it as possible--assuming that either/both are about 38+ years old, and the 'hawks lineup is full--assuming they don't have much left in the tank, and they want another year or two in the NHL and Buffalo/Winnipeg have an unrealistic shot at it all so aren't afraid to hand out a low-money PR contract.</p>


 </p>


In the near term, I don't think so.  The 'hawks are poised to be a top team for a lot of years coming and any player would want to be a part of that.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="225349" data-time="1397144832">
<div>


Not sure, and I know Bickell has been injured most of the year, but considering that somehow we managed to move Campbell's contract, and that eyes will be on Bickell in the post season, I think it's prossible that if he doesn't perform the team will cut it's losses and get rid of him.</p>


 </p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Well if he doesn't perform in the postseason, who would want him at that price?</p>


 </p>


Campbell was traded to clear cap room.  He was still quite productive.</p>

 

[Forklift]

There are a lot of teams that would be quite happy to take Bryan Bickell at three more years at $4MM/per. This isn't Ryane Clowe or David Clarkson we're talking about here.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225352" data-time="1397146656">
<div>


Well if he doesn't perform in the postseason, who would want him at that price?</p>


 </p>


Campbell was traded to clear cap room.  He was still quite productive.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Actually, Bickell does have a Modified NTC.  That might make moving him dicey.  Ditto with Oduya and Rosie.  Unfortunately that's 3 out of my 4 "expendible" player who are not FA's this coming year.</p>


 </p>


Well, hopefully we lose Versteeg and re-up Morin.</p>

 

[Forklift]

Versteeg will be pretty easy to move, since Florida is eating half his salary & hit. The way Morin is playing now (and given Q's love of riding hot players), I'm guessig Steeger's going to be in street clothes next week.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225356" data-time="1397151810">
<div>


Versteeg will be pretty easy to move, since Florida is eating half his salary & hit. The way Morin is playing now (and given Q's love of riding hot players), I'm guessig Steeger's going to be in street clothes next week.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


He also loves Versteeg.  </p>


 </p>


He seems to believe he is a versatile player that can play on any line in any situation.</p>


 </p>


He should NEVER see time with the number one power-play unit.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

Keith still a lock?</p>

 

[genefoley]

Man, Versteeg can bring some skill and some "energy" (I guess, for lack of a better word) to the powerplay but sometimes you have to wonder where his head is. So many dumb plays and penalties from that guy. Would love to see Morin over Versteeg if it comes down to that.</p>

 

[Forklift]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="225359" data-time="1397153790">
<div>


Keith still a lock?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


As much as a handful of writers seem to think Chara should get it, Keith has been far and away the best DMan this season. I'm sure having Edzo campaigning endlessly for him on National broadcasts hasn't hurt.</p>


 </p>


Anyone who votes for anyone else should have their head examined.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225372" data-time="1397165195">
<div>


As much as a handful of writers seem to think Chara should get it, Keith has been far and away the best DMan this season. I'm sure having Edzo campaigning endlessly for him on National broadcasts hasn't hurt.</p>


 </p>


Anyone who votes for anyone else should have their head examined.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Are the votes public?</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

I think Keith wins it--there have been games this year where he was stand-out bad, but overall he's been *far* more good.</p>


 </p>


I'm sure if I followed Hot Karlsson, Chara, Suter, etc. a lot better I can make the same determination with them--some stand-out bad but far more good.</p>


 </p>


That being said, I think one of Pat's rants was spot-on; Since James E. Norris was not a player, decide whether the Norris goes to the best offense or best defensive defenseman, and then create another award for the other best defenseman, respectively.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225324" data-time="1397098991">
<div>


The Phoenix series is irrelevant. He's a champion now. Only idiots would evaluate him with that series in mind.


Goalies are dependent on the teams in front of them, and vice versa.


Crawford works well with this team and has its trust.


His stats this season, especially since January, put him in the upper eschelon.


Even Guest_RK wouldn't argue with that math.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I'm not evaluating him on that series alone. That wasn't the point.  I'm not arguing he hasn't been good, I'm saying, in today's NHL who's easier to replace? Seabrook or Crawford? Again because of your vague answer to my question, I don't know whether or not you believe that or buy into the bullshit "Cup winning goalie" schtick. Again, if you do, it's pointless to go on. Goalies are much more dependent on their team than the other way around. The "vice versa" in that are guys like Hasek, Luongo,  Roy, etc. Some of the best goalies that have ever played, who could play amazingly well even with poor teams and at times in their career could carry the entire team on their back.</p>


 </p>


Huet, Khabi, and Turco looked bad with the Hawks because Huet, Khabi and Turco were done as NHL goalies. None of them (assuming Khabi is going to retire) stayed in the league after their stints with the Hawks (besides Turco's disastrous few games with Boston). Believe me Jim, a LOT of goalies can work well with a high possessive team like the Hawks. Parity in the position is higher than ever. They just don't need to pay that guy that much of the cap in order for it to happen. It's much better to spend that on the team in front of the goalie.</p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-time="1397143214" data-cid="225346" data-author="puckjim">

I never bought any of that "Toews wants to play for Winnipeg/Kane wants to play for Buffalo" drivel.</p></blockquote>
How many games did Roenick play for Boston? Joe Mullin for a NY team?

 

[Pez68]

"Cup winning" goalie is such a fucking cop out. How many elites goalies have never won a cup? List is endless. How many shit goalies have won a cup behind a stacked team? Again, the list is endless.</p>