Well, that's why I said there are only two reasons not to waive his NMC. Delusion and spite.
2021 Seattle Kraken Expansion Draft
- Thread starter ChiHawk21
- Start date
Well, that's why I said there are only two reasons not to waive his NMC. Delusion and spite.
RayP
Tf
- Jan 12, 2011
- 94,109
- 17,878
I’d say delusion and not wanting to relocate his family at this stage of his career are why he won’t waive, if he’s even asked to. And I won’t be mad at him one bit.
I’ll continue to scratch my head to how in the world could anyone, especially the GM of an NHL team, have thought this deal was reasonable. It’s incomprehensible.
Lol. Again, how does this have anything to do with relocating his family? Even if he's delusional about his abilities, Seattle isn't taking him because of his cap hit. There is zero risk of that happening. This should be very easy to explain to him.
Hopefully someone will attempt to sit down and have a conversation with Seabs about all of this.
They will absolutely ask him to waive. I'd put money on it. Especially after this season.
RayP
Tf
- Jan 12, 2011
- 94,109
- 17,878
Because like we agreed, he’s probably pretty delusional regarding his on ice performance and thinks he still has a lot to give.... so why even risk it? Who is to say Bowman doesn’t screw him over and attach some assets with him after the fact?
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 11,787
- 5,325
It doesnt do anything for him.
If he comes to the conclusion he is bad and will be regularly sratched, not being deluded, what is in it for him still?
Its not spiteful to say, why should I do this if it doesn't help me? Again there has to be an actual given reason FOR him to say yes.
What is it? If he wants to play he still can't be sent to thr AHL 1 more year. After it his NMC becomes a NTC. Even if he sees he is bad, he still wants to play and saying no gives him a better chance to play. Its not spiteful if he wants to keep playing in the NHL.
If he comes to the conclusion he is bad and will be regularly sratched, not being deluded, what is in it for him still?
Its not spiteful to say, why should I do this if it doesn't help me? Again there has to be an actual given reason FOR him to say yes.
What is it? If he wants to play he still can't be sent to thr AHL 1 more year. After it his NMC becomes a NTC. Even if he sees he is bad, he still wants to play and saying no gives him a better chance to play. Its not spiteful if he wants to keep playing in the NHL.
It helps the TEAM. Which, last I checked, he's still a member of?? It's absolutely spiteful to not waive your NMC and cost your team another defender, if you're being honest about your abilities. This scenario is pretty cut and dry. It's not rocket science. Everyone in the league knows Seattle isn't selecting him if he's exposed. If he can't understand that, f*** him.
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 11,787
- 5,325
Execpt doing so has personal benefit still. You've never expressed anyway its good for him personally or his career.
Another point being missed here. You think the newer guys, who don't have the undying loyalty to Seabrook that the core does, won't be pissed off that they lose a good defender because he refuses to waive his NMC? Or realize where he's at in his career? It will absolutely happen. I guarantee it's talked about between teammates, outside the circle of his close friends.
The new guys want to win and if a player is preventing that from happening, they will resent him. These guys are super competitive and likely don't give a f*** about Seabrook's contributions in the past, if he's hurting the team now.
The new guys want to win and if a player is preventing that from happening, they will resent him. These guys are super competitive and likely don't give a f*** about Seabrook's contributions in the past, if he's hurting the team now.
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 11,787
- 5,325
If hes that bad he will only be there 1 more year then after he could be waived to the AHL and Murphy or CDH would probably only be the yea not be kept. If anything likely they should be traded after saved to get value for a future impact because it would be a miracle for it to matter for the 21-22 season.
Lol. Did you seriously just suggest Seabrook would be sent to the AHL in 2022?
Murphy is plenty young enough to be a part of this team, going forward. It would be a shame to lose him, and he could be a big help in developing the young defenders here. It's not a hole easily filled.
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 11,787
- 5,325
Yes that's when Seabs, if he still wants it keep player can be waived with his NMC weakening. You can't waive a player with a NMC.
My point is how long does keeping Murphy help you?? Any extension of Murphy will be signing him post 30. Thats exactly when they traded Hjalmarsson instead of extending him and track records of more Defensive oriented guys breaking down in the 30s is common. He'd probably command more than 4mil, it just wouldnt be worth it unless you got a favorable short deal.
This loss would really only be for some of the 21-22 season and what value you aren't getting from trading him. Its not a loss easily filled, yet either way it may be a loss you wind up having.
Brightwing
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2019
- 2,401
- 3,657
Apparently players can now be asked to waive NMCs for the draft. Report says Seabrook is expected to be asked: Seravalli: With 'no-move' request window open, how no-move clauses shaped 2017 Expansion Draft - TSN.ca
Brightwing
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2019
- 2,401
- 3,657
No, I mean today is the first day teams are allowed to ask.
bwana63
carter blanche
Highly doubt that the Hawks are going to attach a quid pro quo to waiving.
Seattle isn't going to select Seabs. Hawks know it, you know it, I know it and Seabs knows it. Hawks have done right by Seabs, so I'm expecting him to help the team out here. Of course, he may not, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't waive.
Brightwing
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2019
- 2,401
- 3,657
Yeah you can't circumvent the players' collective agreement like that. The association would have a big problem with an ultimatum like that.
bwana63
carter blanche
Not to mention it would backfire w/Seabs. Big time can of worms. Non-starter.
Brightwing
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2019
- 2,401
- 3,657
Aight, so assuming Seabrook waives his NMC
D: Keith, Murphy, Zadorov
F: Kane, Toews, Strome, DeBrincat, Hagel, Kampf, Nylander
G: Lankinen
Notably left exposed: Shaw, De Haan, Highmore, Carpenter, Carlsson and Subban
Who Seattle picks: Shaw probably but maybe De Haan or Carlsson
I would protect Shaw normally but if we're a youth movement, I can see how they choose the young guys with RFA years over Shaw who is a UFA after next year. Shaw would bring leadership to the Seattle group and really help them come together. There's usually more good d-men than forwards available during an expansion draft but if we lose De Haan or Carlsson, it's not the end of the world.
Janmark is a UFA so the Hawks could simply re-sign after the draft if they want to.
Why protect Hagel, Kampf or Nylander?
Hagel and Kampf are excellent bottom six pieces. I know people complain about Kampf, but a defensively solid 4C who is good at the dot and has a reasonable contract is an important piece for winning team. If Shaw cost less and was younger, I would keep him over Kampf but he doesn't. Nylander's upside is so high you have to give him a chance to develop. If it works out, he's a solid top six piece but worse case he can certainly play in the bottom six and put up some points. He's an NHL player at minimum.
D: Keith, Murphy, Zadorov
F: Kane, Toews, Strome, DeBrincat, Hagel, Kampf, Nylander
G: Lankinen
Notably left exposed: Shaw, De Haan, Highmore, Carpenter, Carlsson and Subban
Who Seattle picks: Shaw probably but maybe De Haan or Carlsson
I would protect Shaw normally but if we're a youth movement, I can see how they choose the young guys with RFA years over Shaw who is a UFA after next year. Shaw would bring leadership to the Seattle group and really help them come together. There's usually more good d-men than forwards available during an expansion draft but if we lose De Haan or Carlsson, it's not the end of the world.
Janmark is a UFA so the Hawks could simply re-sign after the draft if they want to.
Why protect Hagel, Kampf or Nylander?
Hagel and Kampf are excellent bottom six pieces. I know people complain about Kampf, but a defensively solid 4C who is good at the dot and has a reasonable contract is an important piece for winning team. If Shaw cost less and was younger, I would keep him over Kampf but he doesn't. Nylander's upside is so high you have to give him a chance to develop. If it works out, he's a solid top six piece but worse case he can certainly play in the bottom six and put up some points. He's an NHL player at minimum.
Brightwing
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2019
- 2,401
- 3,657
I didn't add him because I don't think he'll be picked. He'll probably be used to meet exposure requirements. Others that may be picked that are fringe players at this point are Lindholm, Quenneville, Morrison and Wallmark. All RFAs.
Now, if De Haan and Shaw are traded at the deadline it would be a different story. But even then, I would see Seattle taking Carpenter before Bowey unless they slot him in for the A.
I agree they aren’t taking him. Was just saying put him up there for folks who still get confused on whose eligible
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
If Seabrook does waive then the Hawks can get through relatively unscathed. They aren’t really exposing great talent.
Hawkaholic
Registered User
They could be in a position to trade an asset for an established younger player. Like a draft pick for a guy who may have to be exposed that the team exposing him doesnt want to lose him for nothing.
Then the Hawks replace a guy like Nylander, Or Hagel, or Carpenter, whoever that final keeper spot is for, with the acquired player.
