Value of: Brent Seabrook

[DingDongCharlie]

Went with option 2. Traded to Edmonton for Mark Letesu and a 2018 2nd.

You forgot DeBrinct and 5 first rounders from Chi-Town

 

[LeafGm]

Let's run down the list when it comes to Seabrook's contract.

• He's currently 32 years old
• He has six years left on his deal after this season
• He has a full, ironclad no-movement clause for the first four of those years
• He's the 9th highest-paid defenseman in the NHL by cap hit
• He's the 3rd highest-paid defenseman in the NHL by salary
• His bonus structure basically makes his contract buyout-proof

...and he appears to be in full-blown, rapid decline already.

I think all of this adds up to the Blackhawks being stuck with him for a long time. It's unlikely that Seabrook would consent to leaving Chicago so soon after signing a long-term deal with no-move protection, and it's even more unlikely that any team would be willing to take him on.

It's so weird, too. Bowman's been so ruthless and shrewd about repeatedly tossing some serious talent overboard when it became too old and/or too expensive. I guess Seabrook played such a big part in all three of Chicago's Stanley Cups that Bownman just had a serious blind spot where he was concerned.

 

[lanceuppercut75]

I think it would be clever if Chicago could somehow convince Minnesota to swap Parise for Seabrook plus. Any chance of Minnesota saying yes would require Parise's injury issues to continue and also for his play to regress when he does play.

Parise is slightly more expensive and has an additional year of term, but he's getting injured more and more. Chicago would basically be gambling that Parise ends up "LTIR retiring" at some point before Seabrook's contract ends in 2024.

Both would have to waive clauses for the deal to happen though...

 

[CokenoPepsi]

He will be bought out after the next lockout

 

[belair]

Doctors find out he's allergic to ice

You can always pull a Lombardi. Plant the 'ice' in his luggage. Problem solved.

 

[Bazeek]

I think it would be clever if Chicago could somehow convince Minnesota to swap Parise for Seabrook plus. Any chance of Minnesota saying yes would require Parise's injury issues to continue and also for his play to regress when he does play.

Parise is slightly more expensive and has an additional year of term, but he's getting injured more and more. Chicago would basically be gambling that Parise ends up "LTIR retiring" at some point before Seabrook's contract ends in 2024.

Both would have to waive clauses for the deal to happen though...

There's less than zero chance of Minnesota swapping Parise for Seabrook, even ignoring the movement clauses.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

No chance of buying him out. He retires early, retires on time, or comes down with a career ending sniffle

 

[CallMeShaft]

It's simple. Rocky hands Bettman a sack full of cash. Soon after, the league announces that each team gets a compliance buyout that won't affect their cap.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

It's simple. Rocky hands Bettman a sack full of cash. Soon after, the league announces that each team gets a compliance buyout that won't affect their cap.

This.

There's so many long, high priced contracts being handed out to 30 and older players. Owners are going to beg for another compliance buyout during next CBA negotiations.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Likely a CBO if there is a lockout soon and teams are given one.

Let's run down the list when it comes to Seabrook's contract.

• He's currently 32 years old
• He has six years left on his deal after this season
• He has a full, ironclad no-movement clause for the first four of those years
• He's the 9th highest-paid defenseman in the NHL by cap hit
• He's the 3rd highest-paid defenseman in the NHL by salary
• His bonus structure basically makes his contract buyout-proof

...and he appears to be in full-blown, rapid decline already.

I think all of this adds up to the Blackhawks being stuck with him for a long time. It's unlikely that Seabrook would consent to leaving Chicago so soon after signing a long-term deal with no-move protection, and it's even more unlikely that any team would be willing to take him on.

It's so weird, too. Bowman's been so ruthless and shrewd about repeatedly tossing some serious talent overboard when it became too old and/or too expensive. I guess Seabrook played such a big part in all three of Chicago's Stanley Cups that Bownman just had a serious blind spot where he was concerned.

Ownership has loved him wouldnt be shocked if they said keep him at all costs