For the record, I wasn't posting making a move for the sake of making a move. And I do know that come the TDL, the 'hawks didn't look as anemic as they did afterwards.
The cut of my jib was that if Seabs, and any other high-price player who is deemed an albatross cannot be moved, the best thing to do was to try to limit Seabs' role (as has been happening), and plugging in some of the young guys to see if they can stand the heat--like Forsling. If they can't, we'll want to cycle them out (or any player which it's not cost-effective to retain for the duration said "albatross" contracts are signed), for personnel that would be ready when those contracts expire.
So, hypothetically, let's say Seabs is with us until 2024. We can't get rid of him in any way, shape or form and he won't leave money on the table, and there is no compliance buyout. What Stan (or any GM) should be doing is trying to acquire someone that, once 2024 hits, we have someone who can either step into that 1-2 defender role that Seabrook was paid for, or is already in that role but is due a paycheck when Seabs clears.
...and of course acquiring said player without mortgaging the farm. If it takes a player who could be in a step-in role (like El Gato for one of our core forwards), no, non, nein, nie, nyet. But, if the trade would be something like Hartman and Murph for a prospect of that ilk and a bad deal for a couple of years (as opposed to 6)...you consider it IMHO.