Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,056
- 6,631
2019 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread V
- Thread starter Bleach Clean
- Start date
- Status
Would you do this deal?
To Chicago: 10th overall pick
To Vancouver: 3rd overall pick, Brent Seabrook
I think I would. You'd have to get really aggressive about moving out dead weight salary like Loui Eriksson and Jay Beagle though.
To Chicago: 10th overall pick
To Vancouver: 3rd overall pick, Brent Seabrook
I think I would. You'd have to get really aggressive about moving out dead weight salary like Loui Eriksson and Jay Beagle though.
CanuckleBerry
Benning Survivor
Ehhhhh, tempting. If the purpose is to draft Bowen Byram then our defence would be in pretty good shape moving forward, even with an aging Seabrooke. However the cap restraints would mean pursuing free agent wingers would be brutal. Our forward depth sucks, so if it is not being addressed in Free agency or draft this year, that really hurts the usefullness of this trade. If we had some good forward prospects on the horizon, I think I would do this deal. But since we don't, I'm leaning no.
Last edited:
I do it. I'd even add Tanev probably for a small adder back from Chicago. Presumably that would be so Chicago could take a run at Panarin while their window is still open. Seabrook wouldn't make much more than, say, Myers so the salary is kind of a wash. Neither player is a top pairing D anymore. You could even still add Myers if you wanted. I think he's going to cost less than people think.
The only reason to hang on to Tanev is to see if he can recover some trade value and then dump him at the deadline. I don't see him as a long-term piece anymore, with all the injuries unfortunately. And like the above poster mentioned, I'd aggressively shop Eriksson and Sutter as well.
Fire Benning
diaper filled piss baby
Basically yeah, I'd do it but you'd have to move out some dead money to negate taking on Seabrook's contract.
I do it knowing this year with Benning in charge dead cap space is probably good.
Then once we have good management... hopefully they can figure out the cap problems.
Then once we have good management... hopefully they can figure out the cap problems.
Seabrook is signed for 5 more years, he's 35. And people are scared to go 3 years taking Edler to 35.
To me that would be a hard, hard no.
Yeah it isn't an immediate problem though - you'd have 2 years to figure it out.
Bettman Returnz
Why so serious?
Absolutely. Would rather take on Seabrook with an incentive over whatever Benning is itching to give Wayne Simmonds.
Canadian Canuck
Hughes4Calder
That’s tough, I’d probably stand pat at 10. We’re going to get an excellent forward prospect at ten. I have enough confidence in Juolevi to be a top 4 dman as well.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 25,412
- 11,859
Hell no. Thats way too cheap to let Chicago, your conference rival, outta a bad contract when they're in cap trouble.
Should be able to get the 3rd and keep the tenth.
Should be able to get the 3rd and keep the tenth.
If we had 3rd overall would you give it up to trade down to 10 and lose Loui Erickson’s contract
I doubt that
Would you trade 10 and Loui for 20 ?
For the record I would probably trade up to 3 and seabrook for 10 because Byram is very exciting, I just think it’s unrealistic and I believe I was first to propose this the day after the lottery, just had time to think about it
I doubt that
Would you trade 10 and Loui for 20 ?
For the record I would probably trade up to 3 and seabrook for 10 because Byram is very exciting, I just think it’s unrealistic and I believe I was first to propose this the day after the lottery, just had time to think about it
I don't think Chicago would do that deal. We would probably have to sweeten it a little at least.
Seabrook could find his game again playing with Hughes though.
Seabrook could find his game again playing with Hughes though.
BROCK HUGHES
Registered User
Chicago would be stupid doing this,and miss out on Byram.They could dump Seabrook as a cap space in the expansion draft I'm thinkin or I could be wrong.But missing out on Byram would be a big mistake.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,443
- 20,400
That and even if he was willing to waive why would Seattle take on that contract willingly without being compensated considerably?
Here's a question for the hive mind: are we sold on Troy Stetcher as a top-4 D long term? On a championship caliber defence, he's probably a good #5. I was in the camp to extend him long term, but now I'm not so sure. He's a steady dman but the main motivation for me to extend him would be to retain his value, not necessarily because I see him as a key piece when the team is good. He is definitely a good story and found money for a regime that needs all the wins it can get. Maybe it's time to cash in the chips. I don't think his value will be much higher than it is now.
I am kind of cool with this season being a lost season, us taking everyone else's garbage, shipping out everyone with any value, and slowing down the rebuild. If Vancouver manages to take on Seabrook and Lucic, sends out Markstrom, Stetcher, and Tanev, signs some 2nd tier free agents for <3 year deals and compiles 2 or 3 more high first rounders in the process I'd call that trending in the right direction. The team itself will probably be frustrating to watch though.
I am kind of cool with this season being a lost season, us taking everyone else's garbage, shipping out everyone with any value, and slowing down the rebuild. If Vancouver manages to take on Seabrook and Lucic, sends out Markstrom, Stetcher, and Tanev, signs some 2nd tier free agents for <3 year deals and compiles 2 or 3 more high first rounders in the process I'd call that trending in the right direction. The team itself will probably be frustrating to watch though.
Man, I really wanna do it, but...five more years. Just an insane contract.
Bettman Returnz
Why so serious?
I agree! Theres just no chance the difference is between offloading a boat anchor in seabrook and picking @ 10 vs 3 (and picking a stud D/ byram). Won’t happen so moving on...
It’s like another team offering to take eriksson off our hands and including Hughes.
BROCK HUGHES
Registered User
Yeah they did,but what draft position did they move I cant remember.But a chance at a stud dman I'm sure they wont do that again.
They trade them for a second. I would say the proposed trade is better value when you look at all aspects including the terrible contract of Seabrook. His contract is much worse than Bickell.
It's gross ... but it would mean we wouldn't sign Myers to 6-7 year deal which is even more gross, so somehow taking Seabrook's awful contract might actually be a win for the franchise in the bigger picture?
We're in this bizarre place as a franchise where everything has to be evaluated against a Benning Baseline and a move that would seem to be bad might actually be good if he prevented Dim Jim from making an even worse move.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 2 Milwaukee Admirals @ Texas Stars - Texas Stars leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 7 Toronto Maple Leafs @ Boston Bruins - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 20Staked: $203,130.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-