So Hawks give up Wise and Mitchell/Beaudin, and still take Ryan's salary back??
Speculation: Stan Bowman scouting Vancouver Canucks and LA Kings game
- Thread starter Kevin Musto
- Start date
I'd do Seabrook + sweetener for Ladd.
Ladd's contract is one year shorter, 1.3m less cap hit and less actual dollars in the last years if we'd try to dump him off to another team. Plus he's often injuries anyway.
Granted both guy would have to waive, and the only drawback is Ladd is another familiar guy which might not be enough of a shock to the system.
Ladd's contract is one year shorter, 1.3m less cap hit and less actual dollars in the last years if we'd try to dump him off to another team. Plus he's often injuries anyway.
Granted both guy would have to waive, and the only drawback is Ladd is another familiar guy which might not be enough of a shock to the system.
Section88
Kaner? I hardly know her
- Jul 11, 2017
- 5,601
- 4,837
I dont think this team should be rushing to give away top prospects if we aren't sure the core (especially Jonny) is going to live up to the standards. If the price for getting rid of Seabrook is one of Beaudin, Boqvist, Dach, or Mitchell i would wait.
Clarification - if its one of Bo or Dach, i wouldnt even consider it.
crazyhawk
Registered User
I don't know ... I really don't think it's wise to give up a top prospect like Mitchell or Beaudin ( certainly not Dach or Boqvist ) to get rid of Seabs. TT is thriving in Carolina and I can't stomach watching yet another one of our young future stars shining in another city. Don't want to give up our 2020 first either!
Blackhawks
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,685
- 1,143
He was traded June 15th, 3.5 months before supposedly having to be under the cap so his hands were not as strapped as believed around here, he made the trade because he didn’t care much about TT, he didn’t value him like many people did, he just doesn’t have the vision. There was many other avenues he could have went, he could have waited a bit as the summer is very long and if he wanted to give away TT there would have been a line up of teams willing to take that trade. How about get rid of Anisimov which TT was already a better player than him to get under the cap? Stan just didn’t care much for TT. A lot of fans here thought TT was soft and until about last year the notion was that he wasn’t that big of a loss and would say things like “where would he play on this team right now there is no place for him” and silly statements like that.
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
I've said this as well. That deal I proposed is about the only thing I could think of that wouldn't involve one of Bo/Dach. That contract is untradeable for at least this season and next.
Putt Pirate
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 5,300
- 3,046
Toews2Bickell
It's Showtime
- Nov 24, 2013
- 23,423
- 23,347
Big difference between the Bickell deal and a potential Seabrook deal is the Hawks had to deal Bickell to be cap compliant whereas they don't need to deal Seabrook, they can simply wait until summer to work out a solution. There's absolutely zero need to give up a good prospect because Seabrook can't handle sitting a few games. Accept it or go sit at home until the offseason...
My bad, then, I thought it was right before the season. But either way, they had to move Bickell, which they don't here.
featherhawk
Registered User
- Dec 13, 2006
- 14,263
- 4,993
Ya, even though I am a fan of Beaudin I would part with him to rid ourselves of Seabrook, not sure any team would think that is enough though
Have no interest in giving any top prospect while also taking back a terrible contract.
Might be unreasonable all around on my part. But just my opinion. Keep him until uncle Jerry gives us our 3 compliance buyouts.
Might be unreasonable all around on my part. But just my opinion. Keep him until uncle Jerry gives us our 3 compliance buyouts.
BK
"Goalie Apologist"
You are forgetting the fact that you can only go so far over the cap so you have to make the move early so you can get other moves done.
This thread is about Bowman scouting a game. Why do you constantly bring up things that have nothing to do with the thread and try to hide it behind the “well we are talking about Bowman so he will automatically f*** it up” veil?
BK
"Goalie Apologist"
You can only go so far over the cap during the summer so it is much better to get it done early so you can actually be active during the summer.
Drumman44
Kyle Beach Deserved Better
- May 2, 2017
- 1,768
- 2,417
ColdSteel2
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2010
- 34,759
- 3,578
Also have no interest in them giving up anything to move Seabrook, particularly if a bad contract is coming back. If the Canucks want the Hawks to retain some money to balance out the extra years, that would be fine IMO.
Rick C137
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2018
- 3,676
- 6,097
Because he’s getting the exact reaction he wants every time. I swear if everyone just ignored him he would more than likely just go away.
Backyard Hockey
Dealing With It
- Feb 13, 2015
- 13,482
- 5,219
It's snowing in Chicago. Stan heading out there a little early to get a little sun.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
Speaking of which, anyone else think it is a little odd that Crawford is with him? Seems like the Barry Smith Issues all over again- didn’t JC’s record improve significantly after Smith left the scene?
I may be completely off base but given how dis-jointed the Hawks look seems like there could be some trust issues among team and staff that go back to the Q v Smith and Bowman days.
CallMeShaft
Calder Bedard Fan
- Apr 14, 2014
- 15,946
- 21,784
From everything I've heard, it was JC's decision to add Crawford, not Stan's. So I doubt there is anything to Crawford being there other than getting some experienced eyes on a player, or possibly, be Bowman's drinking buddy.
BK
"Goalie Apologist"
Toews2Bickell
It's Showtime
- Nov 24, 2013
- 23,423
- 23,347
