Seabrook is some magician!

[Pez68]

The bold is obvious. Terribly inaccurate post Bud.

Which part? That he's nothing more than a #4 at this point? That he will likely drop to the third pairing? That he's a horrible skater? Have you ever seen a guy that is 6'3 and 220 lbs. get wrecked as often as Seabrook? It's embarrassing. He skates like he has knee braces on the last few seasons.

 

[Any Colour You Like]

Seabrook's play has been, in a word, bad. In two words, not good.

He gets absolutely demolished in his own end because he just can't skate. He's utterly useless at clearing the puck because he's constantly getting trainwrecked behind his own blueline. Yeah, he earned the contract, but his current play certainly doesn't merit that kind of paycheck.

 

[Bubba88]

Seabrook has been solid to good. His Play has not been bad or whatever.

 

[Blackhawks]

Seabrook is officially the worst D-Man on this team, hell even Murphy is better, sit this bum down ffs...

You just can't win in today's NHL having dead weight on your team like Seabrook, Murphy and Anisimov, thats 15 F'n Million right there...

Also you cant win when you have too many rookies or sophomores on your team who just dont have the experience.

Also you cant win in today's NHL whjen your GM keeps losing young players for nothing in return, good mentions are Saad to begin with in return of dead weight, TT, Panarin(having to lose him to get Saad back), Danault, heck even Leddy. These guys should have been the future but instead you have what you have now... No surprise this team looks slow and uninterested, its because the players suck...

Also the Hammer trade was horrendous...

 

[LDF]

i still refuse to believe that the hammer trade was the best possible trade for the hawks. i will agree that this was the best possible deal SB wanted in a rtn. a d-man and possibly a future forward. i think that the vets are the key, instead of draft picks or young prospects.

second, not every team has great players at each positions, esp going into the playoff.

 

[LordKOTL]

Seabs has looked old and slow this year--like Rosival old and slow.

Now I wouldn't mind if Seabs is dropped to 2nd or 3rd pairing, even if he's making bank at this point. If it makes the D tighter then good. We'll cross the cap bridge when we drive under it (as Ted Kennedy would say). But I think 1st and foremost the issue has to be tightening up the D, since the goalies seeing an average of 36.5 shots/game and having to put up a .949 combined save percentage is untenable over the course of a season.

 

[BK]

The most annoying part of all of this is that Q refused to go with the logical and smart choice of fixing the pairings.

2-5: This allows Keith to do what he does best and not have to cover for Seabrook.
6-7: Kempny has already proven he can bring out the best is Seabrook (what he has left)
42-44: Solid pairing so far.

Rotated 11 in with 5/7/44 as needed for each but we already know Q is too dense or stubborn at this point (I think it is a little of both).

 

[JaegerDice]

Seabrook has been solid to good. His Play has not been bad or whatever.

 

[BK]

Seabrook has been solid to good. His Play has not been bad or whatever.

No. Seabrook has been rather bad after a decent start.

 

[ColdSteel2]

The most annoying part of all of this is that Q refused to go with the logical and smart choice of fixing the pairings.

2-5: This allows Keith to do what he does best and not have to cover for Seabrook.
6-7: Kempny has already proven he can bring out the best is Seabrook (what he has left)
42-44: Solid pairing so far.

Rotated 11 in with 5/7/44 as needed for each but we already know Q is too dense or stubborn at this point (I think it is a little of both).

Yeah, there really isn't anything else that makes sense at this point. Later in the year, I'd like to see them experiment with 2-44 as a top pairing, put our two best guys together. 42-5 then too when Forsling is ready to spread his wings offensively. But yeah, right now we need to untether Seabs from Keith so he can do his thing.

 

[zac]

Seabrook's play has been, in a word, bad. In two words, not good.

He gets absolutely demolished in his own end because he just can't skate. He's utterly useless at clearing the puck because he's constantly getting trainwrecked behind his own blueline. Yeah, he earned the contract, but his current play certainly doesn't merit that kind of paycheck.

Wrong. He hadn't played at a 6 million per year

Stan paid for the short term window.

There was no "short term window".

Seabrook was maybe worth 4.5 at the TIME the ink hit the paper, let alone for the expected decline expected in subsequent. He had been living off a false reputation as a top pairing dman for years. He was adept as an in-zone, offensive threat but had been propped up by other players defensively for the better part of 5 years. He had that one solid year in 11 or 12, but other than a few good stretches he was largely decent to garbage.

As Jaeger already pointed out that money was better used elsewhere. If Stan would have had the balls to trade him after '13 when he still had value and lock up Leddy and Saad on long term deals with that money (ala Tarasenko) we'd be in much better shape. Instead he gives Seabrook a ridiculous deal which, along with the other ridiculous deals he gave out, hamstrung the club.

I hate to say I told everyone about Seabs but I told you so. Now that our team isn't good enough defensively to cover up Seabrook's horrendous d-zone play it shows. I don't think he's every been the same since the concussion in the Cup winning season, but I have no idea to what degree his current or past struggles have to do with that. What I am sure of is that he stinks and he isn't likely going to get better.

 

[LDF]

Wrong. He hadn't played at a 6 million per year



There was no "short term window".

Seabrook was maybe worth 4.5 at the TIME the ink hit the paper, let alone for the expected decline expected in subsequent. He had been living off a false reputation as a top pairing dman for years. He was adept as an in-zone, offensive threat but had been propped up by other players defensively for the better part of 5 years. He had that one solid year in 11 or 12, but other than a few good stretches he was largely decent to garbage.

As Jaeger already pointed out that money was better used elsewhere. If Stan would have had the balls to trade him after '13 when he still had value and lock up Leddy and Saad on long term deals with that money (ala Tarasenko) we'd be in much better shape. Instead he gives Seabrook a ridiculous deal which, along with the other ridiculous deals he gave out, hamstrung the club.

I hate to say I told everyone about Seabs but I told you so. Now that our team isn't good enough defensively to cover up Seabrook's horrendous d-zone play it shows. I don't think he's every been the same since the concussion in the Cup winning season, but I have no idea to what degree his current or past struggles have to do with that. What I am sure of is that he stinks and he isn't likely going to get better.

even if SB didn't trade him .... after the last winning SC , let him walk. there comes time that these players were going to out-price the main, overall budget of the team.

 

[zac]

even if SB didn't trade him .... after the last winning SC , let him walk. there comes time that these players were going to out-price the main, overall budget of the team.

The point of trading him was to get assets in return and have some money available to lock up young guys on 5-6 year deals, giving some security and short term money while potentially giving up a bigger payday for a few years. A lot of the teams that have brilliantly stayed ahead of the cap have done this, and I don't know why Stan is averse to doing it with younger, burgeoning players.

 

[Bubba88]

No. Seabrook has been rather bad after a decent start.

yeah... I disagree. considering playing the Preds the last game and having seen all games so far I think he has done more right than wrong and has been decent at worst. His worst Moment was a mid air pass by Toews.

 

[hawksfan50]

Seabs getting 56% of his starts in the o-zone (Q protecting hom..and Still we get this crappy play) ....Rutta starting over 60 %of his starts in our d'zone which makes his contribution even more impressive...Seabrook clearly dragging Keith down too ...has to try to cover for Seabrook's mistakes and not being able to get to proper spits or to re-cocer loose pucks and so the
attacks on CC and goid scoring chances abound when Seabrook gaffes or fails to get to pucks or to his checks .

Look,we do not need poor stats to grade Seabrook...the eyeball test says slow, trouble skating anymore/cannot move fast enough...cannot re-cocer if he gaffes,Q cannot trust him anymore but of course there are $6.8 million reasons he cannot be benched and too many years left on his deal to buy him out..So we are good and albatross ed for years to come.The costs of Seabrook's now incompetent level of play woukd be worse if CC was not so stellar so far..But we all know no goalie can maintain such a high save_ thru tge long NHL season .I just do not see Seabrook magically playing back to competent level...so here we are stuck with a major problem...for years ahead...Seabrook cannot supreme the shots going on CC when Seabrook is on shifts ..and this despite thev56% o-zone starts !!!IT IS A BIG PROBLEM...and those blisters saying it is not a problem must be watching a different game and certainly are ignoring Seabrook's bad possession stats.

 

[hawksfan50]

But to reply directly on the quote starting this thread ...yes ..100% agree..Seabrook is a magician in that he got Stan to give homn $6.8 m per year for such a lengthy contract ..I would have let hom walk at that price and term..Sometimes a GM has to realize he cannot put his team into albatross peril in a cap -Era. .Stan should have been sure it was money spent on if notcavprigresdion curve at minimum on a maintenance level justifying the pay grade..Unfortunately we are getting pre-maturecaging decline and regression to incompetence ..Maybe we xoukd carry a $3 million guy on a lengthy deal for such poir level of defending ..but at $6.8 for so many years..it bis a disaster.

 

[LDF]

The point of trading him was to get assets in return and have some money available to lock up young guys on 5-6 year deals, giving some security and short term money while potentially giving up a bigger payday for a few years. A lot of the teams that have brilliantly stayed ahead of the cap have done this, and I don't know why Stan is averse to doing it with younger, burgeoning players.

it is obvious that your point is a great way to think about. however is not going to happen in the real world. what team is going to give up good prospects, picks to trade for Seabs.

the negative, Seabs amount per yr of his contract.
the length of his contract
the idea of Seabs talent waning to what he was
the true value of Seabs on any team.
his contract will be paying Seabs for a 1-2 type of d-man and what kind of talent he is now at this point. however i still see him with an offensive ability, that is why i am still thinking he can be a forward and park in front of the goalie.

 

[hawksfan50]

I was just thinking the same thing move Seabrook to forward..Could be a 3RW or 4RW ...it would remove the entire problem of the mental portion of defensive reads and fre him to simplify his responsibilities ..not going to be a great back-check er ..but he does seem to move better tge times he tries to attack..these have been less becausexascacd-man he cannot even get to loose pucks orvto his checks anymore...what have we got to lose by trying to make him a bottom six winger?We still gotta pay $6.8 million of course and n9 way will he give us that either at forward. .but he might be at least competent enough to be a better option than say a Bourma as a 4th liner at least .Free him to attack which is the only thing that motivateds and maybe ee get at least a competent 4th or 3rd liner ..Maybe in closer he can fire his shot from clearer spits than the blocked shots from hom at the point? Q should give it a try .


1.Cannot trade him. .NMC does not modify till last 2 years of the deal (modifies for 22/23 season) ..but nobody will take him now if we could trade him now..why would they take him then?Essentially untradeanle.

2
Perhaps compliance buy-out if there bis a lockout before the 2019/20 season starts ?Rocky would still need to cover the cost of 5 more seasons less any pro rata portion of 2019/20 eaten up by games not played during lock'out. There should be no-recapture to full amount because this not a special circumvention 13 year deal like Hossa and Keith's were ..This only the max 8 year deal under new CBA ..so no special re-capture of his full cap cost average per year.And so if a compliance buy-out option again apoears we do not need to worry about any re-capture.


3.Re-que the "gunk" LTIR solution?Or perhaps another medical solutions presents? Maybe they can find CTE ...a new method of discovering CTE in living persons seems on the bergen of discovery I heard recently.Perhaps alk thise concussions sliwedvdoen his brian such that he cannot message his legs to move fast enough anymore?So.maybe if they find CTE it means an LTIR out...not that I wish CTE on Seabs..but perhaps tge Revis a medical explanation for his regression to incompetence defending anyone in our d-zone.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

What is with Fiddy and moving defenseman to the wing?

 

[CallMeShaft]

What is with Fiddy and moving defenseman to the wing?

Shyamalan level twist here, but what if Fiddy is Q? The core players won't allow for bag skates, so Q comes here all incognito like, complaining about it. And both Fiddy and Q have similar feelings about defensemen playing wing. And what if Fiddy's inability to properly construct a sentence is just his attempt to make us think he isn't Joel Quenneville?

 

[BobbyJet]

Seabrook has been solid to good. His Play has not been bad or whatever.

Seabs has had a few bad moments, and he had a tough game against Preds, but he has also had some good moments in this early season, which conveniently get overlooked by the over the top critics.
I don't think anyone likes the term of his contract but that is on Stan, who seems to always get off the hook around here.

 

[Bubba88]

Seabs has had a few bad moments, and he had a tough game against Preds, but he has also had some good moments in this early season, which conveniently get overlooked by the over the top critics.
I don't think anyone likes the term of his contract but that is on Stan, who seems to always get off the hook around here.

I don't like to see it the way Fiddy does. Yes he has that contract and negative value. He's not playing up to his current contract. Others like Kempny or Ruuta do. They outplay theirs and that evens it out a bit. Talking contract is something different than talking the on ice Performance only. Looking at the on ice Performance, it was decent and he has had some good Moments with a couple of bad. Some just seem to build a bit of "hate" because thinking about the contract and Hearing how bad he is every other thread. You build a Reputation of this.

 

[hawksfan50]

What is with Fiddy and moving defenseman to the wing?

I guess too many of you young whippersnapers never heard of Doug Mohns...started as a D-man with the Hawks and was very good.

But they moved him to LW amd he was a star for several years with the Hawks in the 60s...If they could do nit then,why not now?

 

[BK]

I guess too many of you young whippersnapers never heard of Doug Mohns...started as a D-man with the Hawks and was very good.

But they moved him to LW amd he was a star for several years with the Hawks in the 60s...If they could do nit then,why not now?

In the 60’s...

This is 2017 and things like that rarely happen. It takes special talent like Burns, EK, or Fedorov. What do they all have in common? They are great skaters.

 

[BobbyJet]

In the 60’s...

This is 2017 and things like that rarely happen. It takes special talent like Burns, EK, or Fedorov. What do they all have in common? They are great skaters.

Comparing the speedy Doug Mohns to Seabs is beyond laughable, sorry.