Salary Cap: Salary Cap Crunch Part 3: Cap and Trade Economics
- Thread starter Kurtosis
- Start date
- Status
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
Sure, it's always a balancing act and I wouldn't call next year "all in" either. But going into a season with Keith, Hammer and 4 kids is punting the year IMO and I don't think you do that with 19/88/2's prime. Plus they are going to be forced to move a few guys this year and thus be getting assets back as it is. The choice between moving Sharp and Seabrook is an easy one to me, in terms of which one the Hawks can afford (on the ice) to lose.
I agree that Seabrook is more valuable but that is why I think it's more important to move him if you a re-signing is unlikely. And yes trading Seabrook would be something of a "punt" for next season but a good NHL-ready return on him plus the development of Johns and others should allow for a quick and strong rebound. Again, this is not my plan A for this offseason, I just think it should be on the table depending on how negotiations go.
Or because Shero continued to draft defenseman when they needed forwards. That guy Saad would have been a nice pick
Yes drafting has obviously been a big part of their problem as well but Stan passed on Saad 3 times and Andrew Shaw 7 times. Shero passed on Saad once (too take a defenseman that was later moved for rental Brenden Morrow).
HockeySauce
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2011
- 16,349
- 759
As a carry over from the last thread: Brent Seabrook isn't being moved. You're insane if you think otherwise. It's not about trade value, it's about getting under the cap while maintaining as strong a roster as possible. Seabrook can't be replaced, no matter how big a fan you are of Johns, Paliotta, etc.
Hawkaholic
Registered User
Here is my order of players who I would trade first - last.
Kris Versteeg
Bryan Bickell
Patrick Sharp
Andrew Shaw
Marcus Kruger
Corey Crawford
Brent Seabrook
Kris Versteeg
Bryan Bickell
Patrick Sharp
Andrew Shaw
Marcus Kruger
Corey Crawford
Brent Seabrook
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
HockeySauce
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2011
- 16,349
- 759
Combining salary, impact in the team and trade value:
Bickell
Versteeg
Crawford
Sharp
Kruger
Shaw
Seabrook isn't an option to be traded.
HockeySauce
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2011
- 16,349
- 759
I don't know. I'd give him 6.8M. Don't know where the cap will be or what he'd want.
Pepe Silvia
Registered User
This. He is a different player than Keith which is probably part of the reason the Hawks didn't give him a lifetime contract the first time around.
Toews2Bickell
It's Showtime
- Nov 24, 2013
- 23,419
- 23,347
Again they should trade him...not because he stinks ...in playoffs he has been a lot better than his awful regular season...but because of both through raise he will demand (especially if we win another Cup with him) and how that would mess up.our cap at that time ...and because of the term he will want from us which if too long would be an albatross down the line as he ages 4-5 years out after upping with us..But there are 2 even more compelling g reasons to do it: A. Because we are deep with RD younger but ready prospects..Johns Paliotta and TVR...they have to have spots to play and Johns needs to be a top 4...So waste if Seabrook is only 3rd RD at huge cost or if he is the cause of a logjam preventing proper development of all of them....and B..The sell high incentive 9f what we can get back for him...in a multi-player multi-picks and a top prospect back from the trade partner..If he can be the main cog in a deal we get Draisaitl and picks from EDM ..then we gotta do it ...both for our current cap dilemma and for the best result for our continuing long-term success..Not saying to trade him because he us some weak link (he was in the regular season but has woken up in playoffs to re-prove his value as a minutes crunches and solid leader and big moment guy)..Saying g to trade him because this summer is the best time we can max shorter and longer term benefits from doing it. It is also a poor Ufa market this summer so hockey trades will interest tens a lot more than the alternatives of ufas to improve their teams. It simply is the correct thing to do..IF we get the right deal back. I am not in favour of dumping him. 9nly for cap relief...but for cap relief plus maximum trade return back we are not likely to get a shot at. a high top talent to draft ourselves ...but if we can add a big centre with great talent in a return 9n such a trade (not 1 for 1 but in some larger package) then we should do that..We probably do not get such a convergence of needs and opportunities i again for a long long time.
Any Colour You Like
Regular bean eater
I agree with Fiddy pretty much. Did I really just say that? But I agree for longer term success and continuing to maintain the roster (TT will need a bridge in there and maybe Panarin....when Seabs gets a raise and term length).
Versteeg and Shaw don't get us much cap relief.
Versteeg and Shaw don't get us much cap relief.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Only way a Seabrook trade works is if Hawks get a capable top 4 defender back
For instance if Dale wanted him then Hawks would need a guy like Kulikov or Gubrandson back in deal
For instance if Dale wanted him then Hawks would need a guy like Kulikov or Gubrandson back in deal
CourtneyDagger50
Resident Pig Expert
zac
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2009
- 8,484
- 42
He should be. The only defensemen that are out of the question are Keith and Hammer.
We don't need to trade him but I'd explore the possibility. The NHL is moving away from the slower, less mobile defenseman and Seabrook has noticeably slowed over the last few years. I don't Seabrook is good enough to warrant a contract extension and I'd look to see what I would get for him.
Seabrook has been pretty bad, and with Q getting away from putting Keith and Seabs together it's become more and more apparent who was really carrying that tandem.
zac
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2009
- 8,484
- 42
This is probably true. I'd "like" him gone, but the reality is it will be hard to get what the Hawks need back from him. I also don't like the idea of trotting 3-4 really young and unproven dmen out there. Seabrook really isn't great but he's not terrible either.
If we were to get something like that, namely a young, somewhat proven controllable asset we should do it in a heartbeat.
Kurtosis
GHG
zac
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2009
- 8,484
- 42
Aside from a few years ago where he was probably our most consistent dman and I gave him his due props? Probably.
- Status
