Value of: Brent Seabrook

[DingDongCharlie]

His equipment is about to start feeling really itchy I imagine. So you probably won't have to worry about it for much longer.

Close, more like his equipment is going to have a reaction too him. He's hot stemming dog poop now

 

[LDF]

Seabrook + Strome for Bryan Little + Roslovic

stunning idea ....... i have been waiting for the Jets idea to pop up , but no one would ever thought of that idea.

if strome is involve, the pkg will need to be chg ..... no for Roslovic and yes for rhd - Neal Pionk and rhd - Johnathan Kovacevic we will even throw in Dylan Sikura or Perlini

 

[zar]

I was going to poke some fun at the OP but Holland did what most would have said impossible... so it’s possible the Hawks could trade Seabrook for a 25 goal scorer.... would just have to retain a mill and offer a conditional 3rd.

 

[LastWordArmy]

You give us kirby dach or adam boqvist and we can discuss taking on that crap Seabrook contract

 

[Dr Quincy]

That makes no sense. Then you essentially take a bad contract in return at basically the same cap hit of Seabrook if not more

You're better off attaching an asset to him to dump him in full

His post makes way more sense than yours.

How many teams can fit his salary right now?
MTL- Maybe... barely... But will have to re-up Domi in the offseason.
WPG- But need D badly and would rather spend the $7m in the offseason on actual D who can play.
CBS- But needs to resign PLD and either 1 of their goalies will earn a raise or they'll have to get one.
OTT- OTT isn't taking a dump that has significant real dollars

No team has the room to take his contract on in full, and the "asset" you'd have to add would be one that I'm assuming you would hate to lose. Not simply a "1st"... more than that.

 

[Muffinalt]

Wennberg for Seabrook + 1st + 1 ok prospect/Perlini?

Seabs contract is only 1 year and 2m more than Wennberg's. Would we have to add more?

 

[Spazkat]

Wennberg for Seabrook + 1st + 1 ok prospect/Perlini?

Seabs contract is only 1 year and 2m more than Wennberg's. Would we have to add more?

People forgetting its not just the dollars. That protection spot Seabrook is going to take up is going to limit their options even further

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Wennberg for Seabrook + 1st + 1 ok prospect/Perlini?

Seabs contract is only 1 year and 2m more than Wennberg's. Would we have to add more?

With the state of the Hawks right now, I'm not trading a 1st, Boqvist or Dach to rid Seabrook's contract....but you're getting somewhere here. I'd do something around Seabrook and Wennberg though. Perlini is a good add, I'd also do a 2nd and another decent prospect if necessary. At least Wennberg can be exposed to the expansion draft. Given that Seabrook is from BC maybe he can be convinced to waive his NMC for the expansion draft. Seattle is only 2 hrs away from Vancouver.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

His post makes way more sense than yours.

How many teams can fit his salary right now?
MTL- Maybe... barely... But will have to re-up Domi in the offseason.
WPG- But need D badly and would rather spend the $7m in the offseason on actual D who can play.
CBS- But needs to resign PLD and either 1 of their goalies will earn a raise or they'll have to get one.
OTT- OTT isn't taking a dump that has significant real dollars

No team has the room to take his contract on in full, and the "asset" you'd have to add would be one that I'm assuming you would hate to lose. Not simply a "1st"... more than that.

no, it still makes no sense. dumping seabrook for a contract that likely costs more in total in return when combined with 50% retention on seabrook makes ZERO sense

not to mention the rift it would create in the locker room because he is well liked and a captain to dump him off for some mutant with a marginally better contract just to, what, get out a year earlier than if they kept seabrook?

hard pass

 

[Dr Quincy]

no, it still makes no sense. dumping seabrook for a contract that likely costs more in total in return when combined with 50% retention on seabrook makes ZERO sense

not to mention the rift it would create in the locker room because he is well liked and a captain to dump him off for some mutant with a marginally better contract just to, what, get out a year earlier than if they kept seabrook?

hard pass

Awesome points. You are a hard negotiator operating from a position of strength here.

I guess I'll have to say: You win. You get to keep him. Enjoy.

 

[Muffinalt]

People forgetting its not just the dollars. That protection spot Seabrook is going to take up is going to limit their options even further

Yeah that's fair, I did forget about that. So a trade is only ever realistic after the expansion draft.

 

[Lenerdosy]

Yeah I just don't see a contract in the league bad + long enough to warrant a club making such a swap. I wouldn't have done Lucic as he had 4 years remaining and I definitely wouldn't consider Neal.

Retain 50% and maybe Vancouver gives you Eriksson

For the extra 2 years thats pretty much the only way Vancouver would consider it, we are just waiting until Loui is off our books, we don't want even more dead weight for 2 more seasons.

 

[Mick Jagr]

That contract = no value.

 

[bandwagonesque]

With the state of the Hawks right now, I'm not trading a 1st, Boqvist or Dach to rid Seabrook's contract....

It would clearly take more than any one of those assets to move him. If Bowman isn''t willing to trade any of them, Seabrook almost certainly isn't getting moved.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

Awesome points. You are a hard negotiator operating from a position of strength here.

I guess I'll have to say: You win. You get to keep him. Enjoy.

I'm sorry, I was laying things out from a perspective of reality.

Retaining 50% on Seabrook, adding a big sweetener, and taking back a lucic/Bobby Ryan/Eriksson contract in return to make them essentially a $10-11 mil cap hit player is so far beyond even considerable for Chicago is laughable to suggest it's possible

 

[StreetHawk]

Players that are with a team for a decade I don’t see any reason why they would waive a ntc or nmc in the final 2-3 years of their career. They would have lived in that city for a long time, be settled, possibly married someone local, have school aged children, etc, so the idea of uprooting all of that doesn’t seem like something a player would do. Add to that, someone who has already won a Cup, so they don’t have to chase one on another team.

I don’t see seabrook leaving Chicago.

 

[elitepete]

I'd toss in a 1st to make that happen.

Canucks accept.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I'm sorry, I was laying things out from a perspective of reality.

Retaining 50% on Seabrook, adding a big sweetener, and taking back a lucic/Bobby Ryan/Eriksson contract in return to make them essentially a $10-11 mil cap hit player is so far beyond even considerable for Chicago is laughable to suggest it's possible

This is a thread about another team taking Seabrook and his contract. Reality left the station a long time ago.

 

[Ivan13]

And they need to protect him in the expansion draft

I sense a buyout coming before the expansion draft even though they gain no financial benefit, but just to get under from needing to protect him.

 

[LDF]

Players that are with a team for a decade I don’t see any reason why they would waive a ntc or nmc in the final 2-3 years of their career. They would have lived in that city for a long time, be settled, possibly married someone local, have school aged children, etc, so the idea of uprooting all of that doesn’t seem like something a player would do. Add to that, someone who has already won a Cup, so they don’t have to chase one on another team.

I don’t see seabrook leaving Chicago.

excellent and i agree......

btw i would like to add something to your excellent post. it really isn't Seabs fault for his contract. anyone and everyone would have accepted this contract if they were in Seabs shoes. the blame does not fall on him but on others for offering him this contract.

 

[OTC]

i know the Bhawks, due to Seabs contract is trying to find a way to utilize him.

well for the past yr +, he is a failing image of what he used to be. i still would try to find a way for him to be a useful piece. take him off the PK, keep him on part time for the PP. use him 10-15 mins a game and a bottom pairing d-man.

then lets see what the results will be around x-mas time.

I would rest him (healthy scratch) throughout the season. I would also include Keith.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

It would clearly take more than any one of those assets to move him. If Bowman isn''t willing to trade any of them, Seabrook almost certainly isn't getting moved.

I'd be willing to deal with that. As he has fewer seasons remaining on his deal, he becomes more moveable.

 

[RebuildinVan]

The term and cap hit are bad enough, having to protect him for the Seattle expansion draft makes his the worst contract in the league. Imagine having to loose a young D to protect him

 

[garyturner3]

Glad to see this OP is finally coming around on Seabrook being a negative asset. I remember him starting multiple threads last season arguing for Seabrook returning value when the entire hockey world has realized for a long time now that Chicago isn't dumping that contract without adding significant assets to make it happen.

Look at what TO had to give up to dump ONE year of Marleau. Seabrook's contract is obviously going to be harder to move than that. That's the cap world we live in now if you've got players like that on your roster.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Five more years left and a full NMC to boot. Woof, this is not happening. He's a BC native so maybe he'll accept to go to Seattle but before that I can't see him getting moved anywhere.

He has to use a protection spot for the Seattle expansion draft?