Salary Cap: Salary Cap Crunch Part 3: Cap and Trade Economics

[TLEH]

If we trade Seabrook, who do we have that can replace what he brings? Not even right away but in the future? Johns? He seems like hes ready to emerge but didn't he just get hurt?

 

[Sevanston]

You don't move top pairing defenseman unless you must.

Full stop.

This is true on its own. But its especially true in an offseason where you're already likely to lose your #4 defenseman too.

 

[Foster81]

The problem will be finding a team that Sharp and Bickel will be willing to be moved to, Don't they both have limited no movement clauses?

They wont agree to going to Edmonton or Florida.

 

[SimpleJack]

Everyone should be okay with the idea of trading Seabrook.

I mentioned it in another thread, but the league is DEFINITELY becoming faster IMO. Soon to be gone are the days of the relatively immobile stay-at-home defensmen that simply patrolled and enforced the crease area. While Seabrook doesn't exactly fit that mold, he's definitely not the most fleet of foot and has definitely lost a step in recent years. Seabs has been abused quite a bit defensively this season and I don't expect that to get any better as he ages.

IMO the Hawks need to be exploring trade options for several reasons. One is the one mentioned above: while being a good offensive d-man I don't think he projects well defensively going forward. Two, is that his value will never be higher than it is right now and I think they could (potentially) get a good/great return. The third is that I don't think he is worth re-signing once his contract expires. For how good he currently is and how good he can be expected to be as the new contract goes forward, I think he will be a TERRIBLE value for all of those years. Especially with what the Hawks would have to match with what some idiot team would give on the open market.

This team needs to identify who the true core pieces are as they can ill-afford to misallocate resources going forward. The core at this moment should be Keith, Hammer, Toews, Kane, Saad, and TT. Everyone else is an expendable piece and should be expended if they don't provide value (production vs. expense). Seabrook simply isn't good/great enough, young enough, or provides enough value (going forward) to be in that discussion. If we can get some pieces now we jump on it. If not, we use him for the next year and plan for the replacement strategy when we let him walk. If the latter, hopefully some young guys have stepped up so that we have a ready-made, cheap, internal option.

Good lord no...

How in gods name can you exclude Seabs from the core?

How can you ignore his role as a leader in the locker room over the years?

His track record for clutch playoff goals?

And say he's expendable!?!?

Thank god the organization has already made it known that they will do whatever it takes to make Seabrook and Saad part of their long term plans. 7 isn't going anywhere, rest assured. The idea of moving him is ludicrous. He's in his prime, coming off a great year, great playoff run....

Sharp, Crawford, Bickell, Oduya, Versteeg/Shaw/Kruger would ALL go before we ever came close to losing Seabs.

Plz stop the madness people.

 

[JaegerDice]

Columbus needs a guy like Seabrook. I think they'd be afraid of him bolting after 1 season though. They seem to have issues with guys not wanting to play there. Who else could we potentially move Seabrook too? I would exclude Edmonton...we don't need to help them build around McDavid.

Philly is always looking for defensemen to spend money on.

 

[Sarava]

Good lord no...

How in gods name can you exclude Seabs from the core?

How can you ignore his role as a leader in the locker room over the years?

His track record for clutch playoff goals?

And say he's expendable!?!?

Thank god the organization has already made it known that they will do whatever it takes to make Seabrook and Saad part of their long term plans. 7 isn't going anywhere, rest assured. The idea of moving him is ludicrous. He's in his prime, coming off a great year, great playoff run....

Sharp, Crawford, Bickell, Oduya, Versteeg/Shaw/Kruger would ALL go before we ever came close to losing Seabs.

Plz stop the madness people.

I'm not sure who the Hawks would move first, between Crawford and Seabrook. We might find out in the next few weeks if things don't go well at the start of the summer/off-season.

 

[Foster81]

Philly is always looking for defensemen to spend money on.

Don't the Flyers have there own cap problems as well? Are they still suffering from that Pronger deal.

 

[JaegerDice]

Philly is always looking for defensemen to spend money on.

Oh, and (ugh) Detroit.

 

[Taze em]

To get off Seabrook... anyone have a problem with retaining 1M on Bickell? I'm ok with it. 2 years 1M won't make the difference.

1.4% of the cap dead. Small price to pay at this point.

 

[Sarava]

Oh, and (ugh) Detroit.

Didn't think I'd ever say this after the Chelios fiasco...but I have no problem moving any player to Detroit. The NHL is killing off that rivalry, so whatever gets the best return.

 

[Sarava]

To get off Seabrook... anyone have a problem with retaining 1M on Bickell? I'm ok with it. 2 years 1M won't make the difference.

I would rather add a player like Mark McNeill to entice someone to take him. But if they have to swallow a mil, then that's what they have to do.

 

[JaegerDice]

Don't the Flyers have there own cap problems as well? Are they still suffering from that Pronger deal.

Pronger is on LTIR, he's off the cap.

They need to figure out what the hell they're going to with Lecavalier, though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Seabrook absolutely must stay.

 

[B4rre]

I don't understand the animosity against trading Seabrook. He's an absolutely magnificent defender and one of the corner pieces of the franchise at the moment no question about that. But the question is can we afford to keep him. If Stan knows he's going to ask for a significant raise in AAV and long term as he most likely is this is the moment to move him if ever. We should get a huge return. Defenders of his caliber are rarely on the market.

Of course we could keep him and sacrifice significantly on our depth. But the depth has brought us one win away from the cup this year so it's not an easy choice either. If we would trade or not resign Sharp, Crawford, Bickell, Oduya, Versteeg/Shaw/Kruger etc as people have suggested we'd have to find much cheaper alternatives to fill their roles which isn't exactly an easy task.

 

[Nothingman*]

If we are going to be unable to afford him after this upcoming year then yes.......you trade him. Not doing so would be terrible asset management.

Full stop.

 

[Thucydides]

I don't want to see Seabrook go, mostly because he's been a huge part of the resurgence of the Hawks. There was times before Toews came along that many were wanting Seabrook as captain.

I don't think we lose Seabrook in the off season. Who will replace him? Johns? Not going to happen. Johns will be a #5 to start, they're not throwing him into a top line role with Keith right away. Next season is not going to be that much of a write off.

Sharp & Bickell must go. After that, my next guess as to who leaves would be oduya. Not Seabrook.

 

[Hawkscap]

With a cap at $71 mil there is really no reason to panic

Move Bickell and Sharp

You can sign Saad for up to $6 mil, Kruger for $2.5

Fill in the the 15-20 with Nordstrom, McNeil,Johns Danualt Hartman and Panarin

and still have $3-4 mil for the last 2 spots

 

[Paul Allen]

With a cap at $71 mil there is really no reason to panic

Move Bickell and Sharp

You can sign Saad for up to $6 mil, Kruger for $2.5

Fill in the the 15-20 with Nordstrom, McNeil,Johns Danualt Hartman and Panarin

and still have $3-4 mil for the last 2 spots

Seabrook isn't a concern for next year's cap. It's whether he will be able to fit after next year since he is a ufa.

If Stan doesn't think he will be able to be resigned then trading him this summer should be done. Of course, I would rather trade Crawford to keep Seabs.

 

[Kurtosis]

I don't know why people are content to punt next season which is what you are saying if you want the team to trade Seabrook.

 

[Hawkscap]

Seabrook isn't a concern for next year's cap. It's whether he will be able to fit after next year since he is a ufa.

If Stan doesn't think he will be able to be resigned then trading him this summer should be done. Of course, I would rather trade Crawford to keep Seabs.

Given that the NHLPA is taking a 5% escalator even in the worst of times and the NHL has a HRR growth avg rate of 5% , the cap for 16-17 looks like $75 mil

Signing Seabrook is not going to be a concern

 

[vegasvic]

Not only do they NOT trade Seabrook, but he'll wear Sharp's "A" next year

 

[Kurtosis]

Not only do they NOT trade Seabrook, but he'll wear Sharp's "A" next year

Yup.

 

[Nothingman*]

I don't know why people are content to punt next season which is what you are saying if you want the team to trade Seabrook.

Only if you don't have the ability to resign him before he hits UFA and the UFA projection is that he is not affordable under the cap. And term is acceptable. Then and only then you trade the guy. Letting him walk for nothing after next year knowing this is poor asset management.

 

[Hawkscap]

Somebody should make a case on how the Hawks can't sign Seabrook.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

I think the Hawks can definitely sign Seabrook if they want to, it is more of an issue of them likely having a bad contract over the second half of his deal if he wants 6-8 years. He's already slowing down a bit. I'd probably bite the bullet and keep him, he's much more difficult to replace than Sharp or Crawford.