Quoting: Windjammer
Sure the deal benefits Chicago greatly, but sticks Winnipeg or whoever takes Keith with with a declining 38 year old defenseman with a bad contract for another two years. Teams aren't going to do that just for the heck of it. Look what Toronto had to give up to dump one year of Marleau's contract and tack on more because Keith's contract is worse.
Keith may have value to Chicago fans for all the good ol' days, but every other team couldn't care less about that "value".
You genuinely didn’t even read any of what I said properly. So I’ll lay it out for you
1. After salary retention Keith’s contract is far less than half of what Marleaus was. It’s not even close to being as bad as Marleaus and I don’t understand how you could view it the other way.
2. I recognize Keith is bad, you recognize Keith is bad. Teams still value his leadership and experience, especially a guy like Chevy.
3. The only reason the Marleau deal happened is because the Leafs needed to pay Marner. That’s literally the only reason that trade occurred. Do you think they gave up a first just because? No it’s because they needed to pay their stars. The Hawks are not in that situation and in order for a team to get Keith, it’s because that team wants him. Not because the hawks want to get rid of him. If you don’t think a team should trade for Keith, fine, but the hawks will not be decreasing in draft capital for a player they don’t NEED to get rid of. And besides, considering what some teams are paying players, Duncan Keith on a 2.8 cap hit for a new team is far from the worst deal in hockey.