Speculation: Tanev

[migi]

Do you think Blackhawks have any assets to bring Tanev in Chicago and in the same deal dumb Seabrook to Vancouver? Just throwing this.

Click to read more...

 

[TLEH]

Tanev has value with a solid contract. Seabrook has negative value with an awful contract. The gap in value is too much to even overcome with anything. You're looking at attaching Panarin to that deal

 

[TheSting]

Tanev has value with a solid contract. Seabrook has negative value with an awful contract. The gap in value is too much to even overcome with anything. You're looking at attaching Panarin to that deal

Yep. It would have to be a bribe trade. In order to take on this player with this contract we are forced to give up <draft picks or valuable player> to make it happen.

Seabrook at his age and cap hit is not going anywhere less take on a bad contract in return or scenario listed above.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Tanev has value with a solid contract. Seabrook has negative value with an awful contract. The gap in value is too much to even overcome with anything. You're looking at attaching Panarin to that deal

Seabrook doesn't have "negative" value.... Seabrook can justify his cap hit for the next couple of years (maybe longer) but that isn't certain.... The issue with Seabrooks contract isn't the "hit" it's the term.

That doesn't make him have negative value.. Any team would love to have him on the ice but if a deal was to happen the Hawks would have to take salary back and Seabrook would have to agree to move his NMC.

Bowman would have to find the right team.

1. Seabrook has to waive.

2. Seabrook's contract would need to not cripple that teams future plans.

3. Seabrook would need to fit into that teams plans. They would need to need a guy like Seabrook.

Many teams meet #3 but #1 & #2 are the issue..... I mean there are probably some teams that will give up quality players to take his contract but Seabrook wouldn't waive his NMC to go to those teams and there are teams that would love to have Seabrook but just cant financially do it without crippling their future because they're on the upswing and they know their young guys (their core) will need raises in the future and know Seabrook will inhibit that.

The only logical way a team that is on the upswing could justify bringing Seabrook in (such as Toronto or Edmonton for example) would be to trade for him, then use him for the next couple of years and then take a loss in dumping him somewhere when he is done, but that would be a difficult gamble considering he has a NMC...

Seabrook doesn't have "negative value" what he has is a tricky contract...... No, a guy like Bickell had negative value, however Seabrook is a different situation.

 

[EdzosCrayon]

Moving Seabrook looks like it would be pretty difficult. I'm not one of those over-reacting "LOL he's a 7M bottom pairing D-man, include your next 18 firsts and retain 50% and I still lean no" people you see on the trade board but I don't know how many teams really meet that #3 criteria on the above list. I agree that Seabrook would be a nice short-term add to a contender but he's not on a short term contract and I'm not sure how many contenders could afford that cap hit. Even if you found one with interest, Seabrook would have to waive to go there.

 

[TLEH]

As if term doesn't make him have negative value. It's literally what makes him have negative value.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

It would probably just take the Hawks taking on a cap dump like the Campbell trade in 2011. Soupy had a ridiculous term left as well and the AAV was very high as a % of the cap at the time.

 

[TheSting]

Contact Dale Tallon. He's made some questionable high dollar contract deals in the past, paying Bolland 5.5 million, trading for 34 year old Luongo (Stan Bowman has fawked up too). If a Roberto Luongo trade can be had, the doors wide open for Seabrook as well, lol