The Great Dale Weise Debate (& other ex-Hawks) volume 3

[Hawkaholic]

Hawks could have had both Saad + Panarin if they decided to dump Seabrook instead of Saad

Should have traded Seabrook like people were advocating instead of signing him longerm

Meh, we have Anisimov,Saad, and Panik. Instead of Saad and Panarin., and we still have Seabrook as well.

And I like Danault, but he isn't even close to the other players mentioned here. He is a depth player.

 

[LDF]

So what is it for you, Stan moves Seabs or we move Stan out and find someone who can?

i will say this again. no team will accept Seabs and his contract unless the org adds players/prospects and draft picks. this is too much of a hit to accept.

 

[ColdSteel2]

i will say this again. no team will accept Seabs and his contract unless the org adds players/prospects and draft picks. this is too much of a hit to accept.

SB has value that even i can see. i am still on the idea of have 2 gm's, pretty much like the nba. for chi, SB will be in charge of draft and international scouting. the other will be in charge of players contracts and trades.

The 2 GMs thing is interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we already have that with McDonough meddling. Hard to say without really knowing anything. With Seabs, they're gonna have to have a talk and figure out what Seabs wants out of the rest of his career. I agree that it will take a lot to move him. I'd rather just eat it and wait for him to play his way out of the lineup. Let's see how he feels about sitting in the press box in a couple years. Just let him rot up there watching his teammates play. Retirement might become an option.

 

[ChiHawks10]

i will say this again. no team will accept Seabs and his contract unless the org adds players/prospects and draft picks. this is too much of a hit to accept.

This is pretty standard in the NHL as far as moving declining players on larger contracts...

Just about any successful team has had to, or will have to do it. It's the nature of a salary capped league. You don't hit on all your contracts, you don't hit on all your draft picks. As long as you hit on a solid number of them, then you're a successful GM. No world is perfect. In a perfect world, Hossa would still be playing, Seabs would be traded, and Panarin, Saad, Danault, TT, etc. would all be Hawks. Then again... that's not remotely possible in a salary capped league. Good players that you develop inevitably will move on to bigger and better things, making more money for other teams. You can't keep em all. Not even close. Most Hawks fans should know that by now after seeing cap purges after each of the three Stanley Cup seasons...

 

[LDF]

This is pretty standard in the NHL as far as moving declining players on larger contracts...

Just about any successful team has had to, or will have to do it. It's the nature of a salary capped league. You don't hit on all your contracts, you don't hit on all your draft picks. As long as you hit on a solid number of them, then you're a successful GM. No world is perfect. In a perfect world, Hossa would still be playing, Seabs would be traded, and Panarin, Saad, Danault, TT, etc. would all be Hawks. Then again... that's not remotely possible in a salary capped league. Good players that you develop inevitably will move on to bigger and better things, making more money for other teams. You can't keep em all. Not even close. Most Hawks fans should know that by now after seeing cap purges after each of the three Stanley Cup seasons...

i think it is pretty much understood that this will need to be done. i just have a feeling that many may not believe that all this will be needed. next season, even with the circling idea of the cap may go up some 4-5+ mil, the salary cap will still need to be fixed.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Seabrook at wing, co-gm's... What a time to be a Hawks fan.

 

[LDF]

Seabrook at wing, co-gm's... What a time to be a Hawks fan.

if you are against it, why ??

 

[BK]

if you are against it, why ??

Because Seabrook on the wing makes as much sense as jumping in a pool of steak knives.

 

[LDF]

Because Seabrook on the wing makes as much sense as jumping in a pool of steak knives.

that should do the explanation right..... so in other word, it is your personal opinion and whomever and using sarcasm to make it look cook. excellent response.

let me also add this, seabs contract is indisputable an un-moving contract. so utilize Seabs plus, he still can score, he has a big body and he can cause plenty of disruption parking in front of the front on the net .

then let some other younger d-man get their experience.

 

[BK]

that should do the explanation right..... so in other word, it is your personal opinion and whomever and using sarcasm to make it look cook. excellent response.

let me also add this, seabs contract is indisputable an un-moving contract. so utilize Seabs plus, he still can score, he has a big body and he can cause plenty of disruption parking in front of the front on the net .

then let some other younger d-man get their experience.

I mean do we really need to go over why Seabrook would be a terrible wing? Sure why not; he is slow, it eliminates one of his strengths in his stretch pass, he would be terrible at coving the point as he has terrible lateral quickness, he is a average at best stick handler, and he is too slow to play a solid counter attack. Need more?

There is no trying to look cool here, moving Seabrook to the wing is just a terrible idea.

 

[CallMeShaft]

that should do the explanation right..... so in other word, it is your personal opinion and whomever and using sarcasm to make it look cook. excellent response.

let me also add this, seabs contract is indisputable an un-moving contract. so utilize Seabs plus, he still can score, he has a big body and he can cause plenty of disruption parking in front of the front on the net .

then let some other younger d-man get their experience.

Seabrook's best attribute is still his stretch pass, which would be useless if he played up front. Not to mention that it'd be an insult to move him to forward.

 

[BK]

Further, just f***ing bench Seabrook if you want to give the kids time. Putting him at wing wastes a lineup spot that could be drilled by a kid forward.

 

[BobbyJet]

How posters here don't actively use the "ignore poster" feature here is beyond me. Plus with the new site update you can't see 1) that they've posted and 2) that people are quoting their posts like you annoyingly could before.

I can't think of any other reason why you people that are bickering with them are doing it other than because you enjoy doing it.

You can literally make it so they don't exist on your HF experience. Just do it already

I try not to use the "ignore" feature unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary. I find that most of the overly critical posters do bring up some valid, sometimes interesting points, at times.

That said, sometimes it's impossible to ignore the "ignore" option, when posts lack substance, just fluff, over and over again.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

if you are against it, why ??

Because it's goofy as all get out and extremely unrealistic.

 

[TLEH]

The guys biggest problem is he can’t skate, and his biggest attribute is his stretch pass. Both useless on the wing

 

[clydesdale line]

At least when 50 was foolishly advocating moving Leddy to wing years ago, he had elite speed. Seabrook to wing might be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on this board.

 

[Blue Liner]

How posters here don't actively use the "ignore poster" feature here is beyond me. Plus with the new site update you can't see 1) that they've posted and 2) that people are quoting their posts like you annoyingly could before.

I can't think of any other reason why you people that are bickering with them are doing it other than because you enjoy doing it.

You can literally make it so they don't exist on your HF experience. Just do it already

Did not know this. This is one of the reasons I never bothered to do it before, because I'd see their posts anyway when others would quote them. Have yet to put someone on Ignore but damn if I'm close in some cases. It's often pure comedy for me but it also gets really old in some cases.

 

[LDF]

I mean do we really need to go over why Seabrook would be a terrible wing? Sure why not; he is slow, it eliminates one of his strengths in his stretch pass, he would be terrible at coving the point as he has terrible lateral quickness, he is a average at best stick handler, and he is too slow to play a solid counter attack. Need more?

There is no trying to look cool here, moving Seabrook to the wing is just a terrible idea.

the looking cool is in ref to answering and belittling a post thru sarcasm. that is very demeaning esp if the person is doing it is a mod.

your 1st para, is an assumption and you can't say that it will happen as you posted his weakness is. it worked for big Buf, that experiment worked, it may again.

 

[LDF]

Seabrook's best attribute is still his stretch pass, which would be useless if he played up front. Not to mention that it'd be an insult to move him to forward.

it didn't with Big Buf.

 

[LDF]

Further, just ****ing bench Seabrook if you want to give the kids time. Putting him at wing wastes a lineup spot that could be drilled by a kid forward.

well then there is no other further need of Seabs.

 

[LDF]

At least when 50 was foolishly advocating moving Leddy to wing years ago, he had elite speed. Seabrook to wing might be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on this board.

and the most asinine statement is making a statement like this without an ounce of evidence of proof. very astute on your banter.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

it didn't with Big Buf.

Byfuglien was at the beginning of his career and had played both. Seabrook is 32 and one of the most respected guys in that locker room.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

and the most asinine statement is making a statement like this without an ounce of evidence of proof. very astute on your banter.

There's plenty of proof that Fiddy advocated moving Leddy to wing?

 

[BobbyJet]

At least when 50 was foolishly advocating moving Leddy to wing years ago, he had elite speed. Seabrook to wing might be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on this board.

You can say that again.

 

[TorMenT]

What about Seabrook to wing ON THE PP. Tell him to stand in front of the net. End of story.