Value of: Seabrook to Vancouver (zero retention on Chicago’s end) IF......

[Horse McHindu]

Canucks take on Seabrook’s contract in its entirety IF

1) Hawks take Eriksson and Gagner off our hands.

2)........I guess there is no number 2.

I believe that Chicago’s overall cap hit would go up after this, but those two contracts would come off the books a lot sooner.

My line of thinking is this from a Canucks standpoint. Even though the Seabrook contract is possibly the worst contract in the NHL right now, the Canucks need on defense is so severe, that accepting a bad contract on the right side defense might be necessary.


A washed up Seabrook is likely our 2nd best defensemen on our right side, as sad as that is.

With a few of our prospect forwards likely to make the team over the coming years, I think the Canucks can afford to part ways with Eriksson and Gagner, and instead, accept a bad contract in a position of far more necessity.

Click to read more...

 

[ColdSteel2]

I could go either way on it. It would be kind of nice to just change things up for fans of both teams.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

6 years vs 4. I get the whole swapping bad contracts thing but those extra 2 years kill it for me.

 

[gianni]

Relax.

1. Nikita Tryamkin should be coming back in a year or two.
2. Canucks will likely be drafting a rhd at 7OA.
3. There's the option of free agency.
4. Would actually experiment putting Loui Eriksson as a right side d-man before pursuing this trade. haha.
5. Canucks should literally be open to trading for any other d-man -- if acquired, Brent Seabrook would have the longest contract on the team. And I feel that Chicago's the only place that he can hang his hat since he won them a few cups -- anywhere else, I think the fans turn on him.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Maybe something around Seabrook for Sutter as a base.

 

[CherryToke]

No way. The Hawks are stuck with that contract and it looks good on them.

 

[Addison Rae]

Maybe something around Seabrook for Sutter as a base.

what the f***

 

[puckpilot]

Seabrook to Vancouver again, sighhhh.

First Eriksson has a NMC and so does Seabrook.

Second, they don't need an aging vet on D. Better options from FA or maybe try giving the young D they have a shot.

Third, Erikssons NMC turns into a modified trade clause in a couple, so he could be moved in the last two years of the contract. This is way better than being stuck with Seabrook for four before his modified trade kicks in.

At this point in Canucks development, its not exactly a disaster if they miss the playoffs and play the lottery again.

As for Chi they'd still need to replace Seabrook, and filling up more cap space than you move out doesn't exactly make that easy especially if they plan on the playoffs

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

Seriously, Brent Seabrook will never be traded. It's a non-starter no matter what any video game scenario presents itself here.

Long contract with a NTC, that's all anybody needs to know since Seabrook will never accept a trade away from the Hawks.

That being said, Seabrook isn't as bad as some suggest...well...putting it this way, he does have his moments where he plays great, and while those moments are few and far between, he still has them. To say he doesn't have value at this moment is absurd. He does. Granted he will be wasting cap space on the Hawks as a human pylon in about two years, he has considerable value to the Hawks no matter what anybody wants to think on top of three Cup rings.

One more Cup and the guys a certified lock for the HOF. You don't trade those guys away unless they ask for it.

 

[markog]

The pairing of Seabrook-Gudbranson would be a killer

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

Relax.

1. Nikita Tryamkin should be coming back in a year or two.
2. Canucks will likely be drafting a rhd at 7OA.
3. There's the option of free agency.
4. Would actually experiment putting Loui Eriksson as a right side d-man before pursuing this trade. haha.
5. Canucks should literally be open to trading for any other d-man -- if acquired, Brent Seabrook would have the longest contract on the team. And I feel that Chicago's the only place that he can hang his hat since he won them a few cups -- anywhere else, I think the fans turn on him.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Deal does not make sense for Nucks. While they move the two contracts hate the most--it is the length of the deal for Seabrook that kills it for them and on the flip side--the two players heading to the windy city does not address their needs and hand cuffs them with the extra contract spot taken up. This is a rare deal where the deal neither helps either team and in fact slightly hurts both team

Seabrook is 33 and his contract is 6 more years

Seabrook cap hit 6.75 for 6 years

gagner cap hit 3.15 for 2
Erickson cap hit 6 for 4

Can the hawks even take on extra 2.35 a year right now for a 3rd line D man and C?

 

[Brock Radunske]

Canucks take on Seabrook’s contract in its entirety IF

1) Hawks take Eriksson and Gagner off our hands.

2)........I guess there is no number 2.

I believe that Chicago’s overall cap hit would go up after this, but those two contracts would come off the books a lot sooner.

My line of thinking is this from a Canucks standpoint. Even though the Seabrook contract is possibly the worst contract in the NHL right now, the Canucks need on defense is so severe, that accepting a bad contract on the right side defense might be necessary.


A washed up Seabrook is likely our 2nd best defensemen on our right side, as sad as that is.

With a few of our prospect forwards likely to make the team over the coming years, I think the Canucks can afford to part ways with Eriksson and Gagner, and instead, accept a bad contract in a position of far more necessity.

You're going to regret those last two years of Seebs deal when you're looking to start competing

 

[ColdSteel2]

On the flip side, if a compliance buyout is awarded, the Hawks still end up stuck with one of these two and the Canucks walk away clean.

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

y tho?
let the Hawks eat those albatrosses lmao.

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

You're going to regret those last two years of Seebs deal when you're looking to start competing

Top that off with Luongo's cap recapture penalty. Brrr....brutal.

 

[Brock Radunske]

Top that off with Luongo's cap recapture penalty. Brrr....brutal.

Yep.
Tough to rebuild with those anchors weighing you down

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

Yep.
Tough to rebuild with those anchors weighing you down

Yeah...

 

[Cogburn]

I'd take Seabrook on, but if we do, we are committing to this "selling cap space" idea. We could, but we should be getting futures backwards. We're not competing, so shedding shorter and cheaper contracts to get a better play makes 0 sense to me.

What's Seabrooks contract worth to Chicago fans?

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

No way. The Hawks are stuck with that contract and it looks good on them.

umad bro?

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

You're going to regret those last two years of Seebs deal when you're looking to start competing

The ONLY silver lining there would be if Seabrook is really starting to break down by then and he is now closer to home in BC, either he A) retires the last two years or B) Vancouver could buy him out as his second to last year his salary drops to $5m and down further to $4.5 the last year

 

[Peter Griffin]

You're going to regret those last two years of Seebs deal when you're looking to start competing

This. There is a reason that even Benning has said they're only willing to to offer big money contracts for UFA's if they are on shorter terms(2-3 years). I would expect the same would apply to taking on cap dumps. The Canucks have two more years of Gagner and Eriksson, at which time Eriksson's NTC becomes a MNTC and his last two years go down to something like $5M total salary over the two years. They should be able to dump him on some budget team at that point if needed.

 

[notsocommonsense]

Maybe something around Seabrook for Sutter as a base.

Username checks out

WTF indeed

 

[NYVanfan]

got another Teuvo?
not particularly interested if not ... perhaps not even if so

 

[rent free]

Yeah...

its not all bad. at least you fill up some cap space