LMAO Keith has negative value huh?

You think the Hawks didn’t fleece the oilers? That’s what you’ve gained from the reaction to this trade?
You thought you were rational?

Are you saying I'm wrong about Keith? If so, Chicago just lost that trade. Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying you both are underestimating Keith's value and the league, aka professionals, just proved that to you both.

Nope. Holland overpaid for "intangibles". Every sane person can see that and is saying same all over the internet / radio / tv.

You mean every person that doesn't have a job in the league and most that have never played the game at a high level?

Sure, and I was wrong to criticize Chiarelli too, right, because he's a multi-million-dollar GM and I'm not? Are you seriously going to make the 'appeal to authority' argument here? Just admit that you think Chicago got hosed so every single use here can block your useless opinion.

You think GM’s don’t make dumb trades? bc they’re professionals ?
You are lost

You think the odds are that you are better informed then GMs and scouts because you sit in front of a computer?

YOU are lost! LMAO

What a weird appeal to authority lol

Imagine that, usually the professionals are right and why you are behind a computer, reading blogs, and sitting on the sidelines being critical and they are making a very good living doing it. Wow, the world must not be fair for you! LMAO

So Suter (who is better than Keith) was bought-out, making him a negative asset.

Was Bill Guerin wrong or Ken Holland? Both professionals, Suter dwarfed Keith’s numbers playing tougher competition and he’s bought out? Can guarentee he won’t sign for 5.5M which professional GM is wrong?

Here's the problem with people that never played the sport at a very high level, been part of a professional team or been NHL lockerroom, they simply don't understand the razor thin margins between player skill and how important intangibles and chemistry are. Googling advanced stat sheets which anyone with a half a brain can do, may work on a online hockey forum where everyone thinks they are genius but it doesn't work in reality. While stats are important, eye test even more so, what is lost on you based on your comment is understanding the intangibles are in some cases just as important or more and hard to argue that with Keith.

Suter, as good as he's been, was never the player Keith was and that matters to a team that struggles to find a defensive identity who needs leadership on D. Clearly Keith will go down as one of the best NHL D players ever with 2 time Norris, 1 Conn Smythe, 3 rings, 2 olympic gold medals, 4 all-star games, etc. Suter doesn't come close to that. Keith is also known for taking a leadership position helping the younger guys by staying at practices regularly to coach technique, off ice training, coaching with the coaching staff, game planning, being early to games/practices and leaving late, welcoming other players to join his beastly off ice training routines which are well known in the league...all this stuff matters for a team that defensively needs to find itself on D to become a playoff threat and understand how the game is played in the playoffs. Lastly, everyone in the league knows at his age Keith was put into an unfair role with the Hawks last season on the ice at 23 1/2 minutes a night (24:23 the year prior) (Suter at 22:11 per game) and knows that with shorter time under 20 minutes a game, Keith will likely thrive given his physical conditioning.

Now, I'm in alignment on a argument that the Hawks should have retained $1M to $2M but absolutely can't get on a board with Keith not being worth a conditional 3rd rounder (3rd round picks are a bag of magic beans) and Caleb Jones (fringe NHL player) to a team that needs a defensive leader and most importantly, a vet that has seen arguably more success then any defensive player currently in the league. Would Ryan Suter be as good with the intangibles, unlikely and would Suter being slightly more productive on the ice be worth the trade off....not to the Oilers.