Confirmed with Link: Slavin re-signs, 7 years/$5.3 AAV

[Vagrant]

I'm sorry, I don't see Slavin as being close to Duncan Keith. I mean come on, let's pump the brakes a bit here. I love Slavin too but there are much better defensemen in this league.

I was talking about trajectory in that particular example. Keith's production across the board in his 22 and 23 year old seasons are almost identical to Slavin's 21 and 22 year old seasons. It's really close. It could even be argued that Slavin's start has been far superior.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I was talking about trajectory in that particular example. Keith's production across the board in his 22 and 23 year old seasons are almost identical to Slavin's 21 and 22 year old seasons. It's really close. It could even be argued that Slavin's start has been far superior.

"Trajectory" implies a future estimate as well, though. Slavin's trajectory is not similar at all to Keith's, unless you're saying Slavin projects to become a multi-Norris winning Hall of Famer.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Subjective discussion, but I’m not buying the idea of Slavin as a future-Norris contender, or even #1D, just yet. I still see him as a high-end #2 defensive defenseman, a la Vlasic and Lindholm.

If he can take a step forward offensively and be a 40+ point guy, then he’ll get to the McDonagh-tier of mid-range to low-end #1 defensemen. If he can get to 50+, then we’re talking Norris contender.

That's a long way to go. I'm not sure he has that kind of skill, at least in the offensive zone, to get to those levels on a team that won't have high-end scorers.

 

[Vagrant]

"Trajectory" implies a future estimate as well, though. Slavin's trajectory is not similar at all to Keith's, unless you're saying Slavin projects to become a multi-Norris winning Hall of Famer.

For sure. I'm saying that if you compare Slavin and Keith's first two seasons, there's a lot of encouraging data there. They play a similar style. The nature of projections obviously being that they won't always be reached, but it's cool to chart the similarities. What makes you say their trajectories aren't similar?

 

[bleedgreen]

Keith was always a bit more of an offensive threat, and a more aggressive skater. I saw him his first year and he was a hot mess. Took a little time to put it together but he was a fast skater with obvious skills. I don't think they're that similar in style, but obviously it would be great if Slavin developed that way.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

"Trajectory" implies a future estimate as well, though. Slavin's trajectory is not similar at all to Keith's, unless you're saying Slavin projects to become a multi-Norris winning Hall of Famer.

You know another guy who probably didn't project to become a multi-Norris winning Hall of Famer at 22 years old? Duncan Keith.

Of course he's not that guy yet. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a chance -- maybe a good chance -- to turn into that guy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You know another guy who probably didn't project to become a multi-Norris winning Hall of Famer at 22 years old? Duncan Keith.

Of course he's not that guy yet. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a chance -- maybe a good chance -- to turn into that guy.

Duncan Keith's trajectory was to become Duncan Keith.

Jaccob Slavin's trajectory is VERY likely to fall short of this. I don't know if there's an insane overrating of Slavin happening here or what, but he's very very very very very likely to not ever be that. He's not that level of offensive player, he's not that level of physical/nasty.

Saying Slavin "could" become Duncan Keith is like saying Aho "could" become Ron Francis. It's crazy talk.

 

[bleedgreen]

He's not close to being that kind of skater. He moves great for a bigger guy, but he doesn't have much of Keith's lateral shiftiness/puck handling/straight line speed.

It's a poor comparison other than possible "level of impact". I'm with tarheel though, I'm just not seeing that kind of player in Slavin. I think he's going to be exactly what he has been so far, with more confidence with the puck as he gets more experienced. Maybe that equal production, maybe it doesn't. I'm just happy we have a guy worth the contract, he doesn't have to be any better for me to be content with him.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Duncan Keith's trajectory was to become Duncan Keith.

No one had any idea that "Duncan Keith" would mean "multi-Norris winner" at the time, or he wouldn't have been a second rounder, he would have been an overall #1. That's my point.

Jaccob Slavin's trajectory is VERY likely to fall short of this. I don't know if there's an insane overrating of Slavin happening here or what, but he's very very very very very likely to not ever be that. He's not that level of offensive player, he's not that level of physical/nasty.

Saying Slavin "could" become Duncan Keith is like saying Aho "could" become Ron Francis. It's crazy talk.

You're parsing words and you know it. I never claimed that Slavin was a lock to become Duncan Keith, and neither did anyone else. The claim was that Slavin's early-career numbers are comparable to Keith's early-career numbers. Which they are. My claim on top of that is that no one expected Duncan Keith to become Duncan Freaking Keith when he was 22. Which they didn't.

From there, it does not follow that Slavin will become Keith. It does, however, follow that Slavin's early success makes much greater success more of a possibility.

 

[Roboturner913]

Talking about "trajectories" is pointless because nobody here can predict the future, but I think a lot of us (not me, for sure) get so caught up in "pumping the brakes" as it were we forget to realize that hey, we're allowed to have good players too, every once in a while.

Will Slavin ever win a Norris? Who knows? Would Keith have ever won a Norris had he not played on a perennial contender and won a couple Stanley Cups? Would Brindy have won two Selkes without team success increasing his visibility in his late year? Awards are popularity contests - who cares.

Unless you're pretty certain that Laine is an Ovechkin and will score 50 goals a year for forever and be our franchise player, I don't know. I don't pretend to know enough about the young man to have a clue. Nor does it matter because the Jets aren't trying to trade him for Slavin or anybody else.

As for the general concern of acquiring a goal scoring winger, part of me wonders what happens in terms of maximizing that player's talent since we have no true playmaking center. I think we'd be putting the cart before the horse in that scenario.

 

[Roboturner913]

What I do know is that management thinks highly enough of Slavin that they invested 7 years and 37 million into him when they're not doing the same thing for say, Lindholm or Pesce or Hanifin at this point, so they probably see him as something akin to a cornerstone player that they want to have around for a long time, and I trust Ron Francis knows a bit more than hockey about me, but I bet he couldn't give two wet farts right now whether Slavin wins a Norris or not.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

With Faulk and Hanifin, Slavin is 3rd on pp d duty.

He's not gonna hit 60 points under current remit. Not enough pp time.

Since we're the carolina blackhawks, faulk is Keith. Keith didn't become what he is until 26, Faulk is actually ahead of the Keith trajectory. Slavin is Hjalmmarsson, Hanifin is campbell, Pesce, Seabrooke, Tvr is...tvr.

 

[Joe McGrath]

With Faulk and Hanifin, Slavin is 3rd on pp d duty.

He's not gonna hit 60 points under current remit. Not enough pp time.

Since we're the carolina blackhawks, faulk is Keith. Keith didn't become what he is until 26, Faulk is actually ahead of the Keith trajectory. Slavin is Hjalmmarsson, Hanifin is campbell, Pesce, Seabrooke, Tvr is...tvr.

Has a Hurricanes defenseman ever scored 60 points?

Edit: No. 49 the most by Faulk. Zarley Zalapski scored 65. Mark Howe was over 60 twice but pretty sure he spent a lot of time as a forward with his father.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No one had any idea that "Duncan Keith" would mean "multi-Norris winner" at the time, or he wouldn't have been a second rounder, he would have been an overall #1. That's my point.

But how is that relevant to comparisons with Slavin? I mean nobody knew at age 26 that Martin St Louis would win a scoring race one day, but doesn't mean a mediocre 5'8" 26-year-old is on a St Louis type trajectory. Unless the player is hinting somehow at having that sort of ceiling (and Slavin is NOT hinting at having a Duncan Keith ceiling) it's just doing him a disservice to even draw the comparison.

You're parsing words and you know it. I never claimed that Slavin was a lock to become Duncan Keith, and neither did anyone else. The claim was that Slavin's early-career numbers are comparable to Keith's early-career numbers. Which they are.

No, the claim is that Slavin is on a similar trajectory to Keith at the same age. And it's not parsing words to understand that a trajectory is a course of direction including both the past and the future. Slavin doesn't have a Keith future, he just doesn't.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Slavin doesn't have a Keith future, he just doesn't.

Don't waste your breath here, dude. Go buy some lottery tickets while you've got your Future Vision on so strong.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Don't waste your breath here, dude. Go buy some lottery tickets while you've got your Future Vision on so strong.

This isn't exactly crazy talk. Slavin's still trying to match Keith's rookie year goal total with his career total. He's not a Keith level player and he never will be.

Earlier it was criticism about hedging bets, now here I am not hedging anything and it's "buy a lottery ticket".

 

[Roboturner913]

I guess this has to be the part where I point out that Keith had 52 total points in 163 games and was minus-11 after his first two seasons, whereas Slavin has 54 points in 145 games and is plus-24.

And forgive me but it's not like Keith is some offensive whiz kid, most of his career save for 2 seasons he's been about a 45 point guy.

I don't think the comparison is all that crazy, outside of the two 60-point seasons Keith had that Slavin probably never will. All we can go on is what Slavin has done to this point and it obviously compares pretty favorably.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So now that we've established that Slavin is a comparable to Duncan Keith and as valuable as Laine straight-up, let's not say a word when people call him overrated. Because that's exactly what's happening here.

 

[Joe McGrath]

So now that we've established that Slavin is a comparable to Duncan Keith and as valuable as Laine straight-up, let's not say a word when people call him overrated. Because that's exactly what's happening here.

Someone said Slavin was worth more than Laine straight up? Are you ****ing serious? Give your balls a tug you tit****ers.

 

[Brock Anton]

 

[Roboturner913]

So now that we've established that Slavin is a comparable to Duncan Keith and as valuable as Laine straight-up, let's not say a word when people call him overrated. Because that's exactly what's happening here.

Frankly, I couldn't give two ****s what other people think is overrated, but you're really putting words in people's mouths here.

 

[Roboturner913]

Someone said Slavin was worth more than Laine straight up? Are you ****ing serious? Give your balls a tug you tit****ers.

Yeahhhhh....not one single person here has said that. Apparently all sense of nuance and critical thought has fled the board tonight.

We're just going to pretend to be the trade board now, no brain required, let's just grunt and fling **** at each other.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

I do love the offseason.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Side A: "Gee, Slavin is pretty good. He's not a Norris candidate yet, but he could be one day, isn't that neat? He could be our own Duncan Keith one day!"

Side B: "HE'S NOT ****ING DUNCAN KEITH"

A: "no, he's clearly not, but he really could be something one day..."

B: "NOT DUNCAN KEITH!!!!"

A: "Yes, we established that, but y'know, maybe one day..."

B: "HE WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS DUNCAN KEITH!!!!!!"

A: "Oooookay, but here's some actual numbers, and you know, he's probably not going to end up being that good, but y'know, maybe it's possible."

B: "IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE KEITH. ONLY THE KEITH IS THE KEITH."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Vagrant]

I really opened a can of worms with the Keith comparison. I just want to illuminate some things about his path to stardom that maybe get overlooked due to where he ultimately ended up. In 2005, on HF, Keith was Chicago's 19th rated prospect and they only ranked 20. He was behind Babchuk, Baker, Seabrook, Wisniewski, and a glut of other guys who didn't have a modicum of the success he had. He wasn't overwhelmingly productive in the NCAA prior to jumping to the CHL, where he posted some really good numbers with Kelowna. Prior to making the jump, there was a lot of talk about limited offensive upside. Great first pass, great skater, not "dynamic." He goes to the AHL his first season and scores 25 points in 78 games with a -11 rating. As a touchstone, Haydn Fleury posted better last season in the AHL and we have all basically accepted his offensive capacities are probably fairly limited. The next season in the AHL is essentially a carbon copy of the first, but his defensive capabilities started inching him up the depth chart that was already pretty crowded. Chicago started to take notice and shift some pieces so that he could crack the roster the next season. The idea being that while his offense at the AHL level never really came through, he could certainly take some difficult minutes with the growth that his defensive game had taken. He wasn't going to get powerplay time, but he'd probably get as much icetime as he could handle and he did. 23 minutes worth per game as a 22 year old rookie, where he managed 21 points and a -11 rating. Respectable for sure as a rookie to get that much TOI, but as anticipated the offense was limited to infrequent contributions and was primarily a result of getting so much TOI that you're bound to score *some* points if you're not entirely inept at moving the puck. So coming into his 23 year old season, Duncan Keith was viewed as a strong up and coming defensive defenseman with limited offensive impact. His shot was said to be a little subpar and it was unlikely he'd ever play significant time on the PP because to that point he had never even shown an indication that kind of upside was in his arsenal. Plus, Chicago had some other guys they liked a bit better offensively. Cam Barker chief among them. Former 3rd overall pick who had been offensively productive at every level. Dustin Byfuglien. Anton Babchuk. Brent Seabrook. All of which had displayed significant tools that would make them more viable PP options.

What happened for Keith in his 23 YO season was a significant spike in assists on a pretty terrible team. 29 assists while playing in all 82 games (23:36) on a team that scored 195 goals. (Jaccob Slavin (16-17) 82 GP - 29 A - 23:26 TOI - 212 team goals - 22 YO) At this point, people started to say.... hmm. Keith's a really smart player but he didn't produce a lot of those points on the PP. With Wisniewski and Barker on the way, he's probably not going to be a primary PP guy moving forward but it's encouraging to see a little development in his offense.

Are we starting to see the explanation for the term "trajectory" as it pertains to this comparison?

Byfuglien arrives the next season and takes a lot of the PP load. Seabrook takes a bunch as well. Wisniewski, Keith, and Barker are battling it out for the remaining TOI in that situation. Nobody is in a huge hurry to give Keith all those minutes because he's already so damn valuable at ES and the PK that it would probably be ideal if one of those other options really embraced the PP role in order to more ideally distribute the load. Keith posts another 32 point season as the other PP options flounder a bit, but posts a ridiculous +30 and finishes 11th place in Norris voting.

So that is where we are as it pertains to Slavin vs. Keith at this point in their development. Any conclusions or similarities you draw are entirely up to you, but to ignore the similarity in the story to me seems inauthentic. Does he take the dramatic jump that Keith took at 26 to ascend to the upper echelon? Who knows. But the stories read so remarkably similar all the way down to league perception.