Speculation: The Brent Seabrook conundrum

[ColdSteel2]

You're talking about the contract from a perspective of hindsight, and what it is now. This deal wasn't as bad then, as it is now. Was it a bad deal? Yes. Just not on the level it is now, with hindsight, knowing that Seabs was going to fall off a cliff the way he did in just a matter of a single season. This is why I have such an issue with people about this Seabs deal. They speak to it like they absolutely knew it was a horrific deal, among the worst in the NHL, at that time.

Like @hawksrule said, damn near everyone here was unhappy with the deal. I’ve read the thread. So it’s not really hindsight. He was 31 and him being on the roster has cost the team the ability to keep Saad the first time and Panarin. It wouldn’t have taken a cap wizard to figure out he was going to cost the team many younger, more impactful players. Did anyone think Seabrook was going to more valuable at 31-38 than the players that were lost in part because of his contract?

 

[BK]

And that’s fair. From the outside looking in, it seems very plausible. But the deal is so bad that it’s hard to believe most GMs wouldn’t adamantly object, even to the point of resignation. If it went down as you outlined, I hope Bowman isn’t bringing that same mentality into other contract negotiations because agents will smell it from a mile away.

It has not seemed that way since that deal but there is no way of truly knowing. Bowman seems much more calculated and focused this summer and the last few drafts. Seems like he and his team have a plan and they are sticking to it. Missing the playoffs sucked but Dach and Boqvist are they types of talent that re-open cup windows imo.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Like @hawksrule said, damn near everyone here was unhappy with the deal. I’ve read the thread. So it’s not really hindsight. He was 31 and him being on the roster has cost the team the ability to keep Saad the first time and Panarin. It wouldn’t have taken a cap wizard to figure out he was going to cost the team many younger, more impactful players. Did anyone think Seabrook was going to more valuable at 31-38 than the players that were lost in part because of his contract?

It is, because yes, people thought it was bad, but no one thought it would be as bad as it already is, this quickly. To me, that needs to be noted. It's 100% relevant.

And the bolded is just making things up to fit a narrative.

Saad cost the Hawks their ability to keep him.

Panarin wasn't even here when Seabs signed his deal.

And why do you keep conveniently ignoring that Seabs was a top pair D for the first two seasons of that contract?

All your posts seem like you're just grasping at anything you can to push a narrative, while ignoring all the details of the situation, and being objective about it.

 

[ColdSteel2]

It is, because yes, people thought it was bad, but no one thought it would be as bad as it already is, this quickly. To me, that needs to be noted. It's 100% relevant.

And the bolded is just making things up.

Saad cost the Hawks their ability to keep him.

Panarin wasn't here when Seabs signed his deal.

It’s not making anything up that he eats a large slice of the pie cap wise. 8 years was beyond insane at that time. Why in the world he got 8 instead of 5 (which would still be too long), we may never know. And the full NMC was just completely unnecessary given the money and term he got.

 

[Rick C137]

I think saying Seabrook cost the hawks Panarin is disingenuous. I think it’s pretty clear Panarin wanted to get paid like a superstar in a big market. We were never going to be the team to give him 11+ imo.

I wouldn’t doubt Stan got some preliminary numbers of buying UFA years from Panarin and knew he was never gonna pay him more than 19/88.

 

[BK]

It’s not making anything up that he eats a large slice of the pie cap wise. 8 years was beyond insane at that time. Why in the world he got 8 instead of 5 (which would still be too long), we may never know. And the full NMC was just completely unnecessary given the money and term he got.

I don't think anyone could have truly bitched if he got 5 years. They were never going to let him walk as the optics looked bad from a player loyalty standpoint (yes this matters to players) and a marketing standpoint plus the team still needed him. The Hawks miss the playoffs in 15-16 without Seabrook's play in the first half.

 

[ChiHawks10]

It’s not making anything up that he eats a large slice of the pie cap wise. 8 years was beyond insane at that time. Why in the world he got 8 instead 5 (which would still be too long), we may never know.

We won't ever know. And to me, 8 years wasn't insane. It wasn't good, but it wasn't the extreme of saying "insane". It was 3 years too long. I'd have been fine with 6.8m for 5 years. I guarantee no one would have complained if that were the deal. That would have taken him to age 36. He would have been fine the first few years of the contract, and then, if following a typical decline trajectory, he would have been overpaid a couple million for the last couple years, but still a movable asset, or a positive asset. What you continue to ignore, is that he didn't follow the traditional decline trajectory for a player in their early to mid 30s. He was a top pairing D the first two seasons of the contract, and then dropped off a cliff to a bottom pairing guy. That's not normal. That's not how things go most the time. And as I said in other posts, if Seabs were still a middle pairing guy, 75% of the bitching about him wouldn't exist.

I didn't like the contract then. I don't like it now, even more. It does hurt the Hawks, but not on the level that some seem to think. A large slice of the pie? He's 8% of the cap. That's not outrageous with an $83m cap.

 

[BK]

I think saying Seabrook cost the hawks Panarin is disingenuous. I think it’s pretty clear Panarin wanted to get paid like a superstar in a big market. We were never going to be the team to give him 11+ imo.

I wouldn’t doubt Stan got some preliminary numbers of buying UFA years from Panarin and knew he was never gonna pay him more than 19/88.

Yeah I don't think Panarin was ever the long term play here. From day one it was clear he was a star and was going to need to get paid. Him signing here was a huge short term fix for the team but I 100% doubt he would have ever signed for anything less than he did in NYC.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I think saying Seabrook cost the hawks Panarin is disingenuous. I think it’s pretty clear Panarin wanted to get paid like a superstar in a big market. We were never going to be the team to give him 11+ imo.

I wouldn’t doubt Stan got some preliminary numbers of buying UFA years from Panarin and knew he was never gonna pay him more than 19/88.

You're being too kind. Panarin wasn't even on this team when Seabs signed his deal. So his deal cost us a player that we didn't even know existed? That's the epitome of using hindsight to push a ridiculous narrative. And Saad, himself, cost the Hawks Saad. He wanted to get paid, the Hawks didn't want to pay him that much on a bridge deal. So he walked for someone who would.

 

[ColdSteel2]

We won't ever know. And to me, 8 years wasn't insane. It wasn't good, but it wasn't the extreme of saying "insane". It was 3 years too long. I'd have been fine with 6.8m for 5 years. I guarantee no one would have complained if that were the deal. That would have taken him to age 36. He would have been fine the first few years of the contract, and then, if following a typical decline trajectory, he would have been overpaid a couple million for the last couple years, but still a movable asset, or a positive asset.

I didn't like the contract then. I don't like it now, even more. It does hurt the Hawks, but not on the level that some seem to think. A large slice of the pie? He's 8% of the cap. That's not outrageous with an $83m cap.

Everything about Seabrook’s play style and the speed in which the game was accelerating at that time suggested he would be a bottom pairing D at best the last 3 years of the deal. Wouldn’t you at least agree with that?

 

[ColdSteel2]

You're being too kind. Panarin wasn't even on this team when Seabs signed his deal. So his deal cost us a player that we didn't even know existed? That's the epitome of using hindsight to push a ridiculous narrative. And Saad, himself, cost the Hawks Saad. He wanted to get paid, the Hawks didn't want to pay him that much on a bridge deal. So he walked for someone who would.

Do you think they would have kept Panarin and resigned him if they could have traded Seabrook without taking cap in return?

 

[ChiHawks10]

Everything about Seabrook’s play style and the speed in which the game was accelerating at that time suggested it he would be a bottom pairing D at best the last 3 years of the deal. Wouldn’t you at least agree with that?

Yes, which is why I said that his deal was 3 years too long. But if he were a bottom pairing D the last 3 years, it would have been tolerable, IMO. The cap goes up, he eats up a smaller % every single year, and he can still be used in specific roles to make him worth while.

What no one expected was him to be a bottom pairing defenseman in the FIRST 3 years of the deal. Top pairing in 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. Bottom pairing just a short year later... yeah, THAT is insane. That is what no one expected. That is what no one predicted. And how could you, or anyone else? Most declines happen gradually, not going from top to bottom over a year's time.

 

[BK]

Do you think they would have kept Panarin and resigned him if they could have traded Seabrook without taking cap in return?

No. Panarin costs more than Kane and they will not sign anyone to more than Kane and Toews. I am speaking in absolutes but I am 100% confident in this claim.

 

[piteus]

We won't ever know. And to me, 8 years wasn't insane. It wasn't good, but it wasn't the extreme of saying "insane". It was 3 years too long. I'd have been fine with 6.8m for 5 years. I guarantee no one would have complained if that were the deal. That would have taken him to age 36. He would have been fine the first few years of the contract, and then, if following a typical decline trajectory, he would have been overpaid a couple million for the last couple years, but still a movable asset, or a positive asset.

I didn't like the contract then. I don't like it now, even more. It does hurt the Hawks, but not on the level that some seem to think. A large slice of the pie? He's 8% of the cap. That's not outrageous with an $83m cap.

As a one off, Seabrook's current contract doesn't hurt the Hawks as much as you'd think. A lot of teams have bad contracts. However, because of the enormous length of Seabrook's contract, the Hawks have no wiggle room. They can't make another major mistake. Unfortunately, what happens in 2 years when Duncan Keith hits 38 with 2 more years left on his deal ... with a NMC. That's possibly $12.5mn of dead money when combined with Seabrook for a couple of years. That's the equivalent of Karlsson's latter part of his deal. A deal we all laughed at.

The Hawks better be sure about Strome, Cat, and Gus. There is no room for error.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Do you think they would have kept Panarin and resigned him if they could have traded Seabrook without taking cap in return?

Stop with this entire thing. It's foolish. You're using hindsight to push a narrative. Panarin didn't exist as a Hawk when Seabs signed his deal. So we have no way of even knowing what would happen. This is why I keep saying you're making things up. Because you're literally making up scenarios in which the Hawks should have been thinking about keeping a player that DIDN'T EXIST.

To answer your question, though, no. I don't think they ever had any intention of keeping Panarin as a core player, long-term. Especially after Hossa had to go LTIRetirement. They had no intention of ever paying someone that kind of money when they already had T&K making 10.5m each.

 

[Rick C137]

Do you think they would have kept Panarin and resigned him if they could have traded Seabrook without taking cap in return?

He would have had to take a significant discount from his salary now and I don’t see him doing that. Everyone knew the Rangers were his desired destination and his agent still leveraged an offer with the Islanders to squeeze every last penny out of the Rangers (pretty sure they had to make a cap move to get a little more space) to become the second highest AAV in the league.

So no. I don’t see Panarin accepting a cap hit that would make sense for the hawks.

 

[BK]

As a one off, Seabrook's current contract doesn't hurt the Hawks as much as you'd think. A lot of teams have bad contracts. However, because of the enormous length of Seabrook's contract, the Hawks have no wiggle room. They can't make another major mistake. Unfortunately, what happens in 2 years when Duncan Keith hits 38 with 2 more years left on his deal ... with a NMC. That's possibly $12.5mn of dead money when combined with Seabrook for years. That's the equivalent of Karlsson's latter part of his deal. A deal we all laughed at.

The Hawks better be sure about Strome, Cat, and Gus. There is no room for error.

Keith should still be a productive player. I also think that the NHL and NHLPA will eliminate the penalty for the long deals like Keith and Weber. Just a gut feeling.

Seabrook will just be a compliance buyout.

 

[Rick C137]

double post

 

[piteus]

Keith should still be a productive player. I also think that the NHL and NHLPA will eliminate the penalty for the long deals like Keith and Weber. Just a gut feeling.

Seabrook will just be a compliance buyout.

Keith performing as a top 4 DMen until the age of 40 would really help the Hawks. However, it's not a given. We're all hoping Keith is another Chelios, but that was an outlier ... not the norm.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

8 years seemed like a "thanks for all you've done here" set him up for life type deal...

 

[BK]

Keith performing as a top 4 DMen until the age of 40 would really help the Hawks. However, it's not a given. We're all hoping Keith is another Chelios, but that was an outlier ... not the norm.

I think if he is a bottom pair guy it is fine.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Keith performing as a top 4 DMen until the age of 40 would really help the Hawks. However, it's not a given. We're all hoping Keith is another Chelios, but that was an outlier ... not the norm.

Keith performing as a bottom pairing D for 5.5m and roughly 4-7% of the cap at ages 38-40 is not problematic in any way. You always try to bring Keith into the discussion, but he's an entirely different animal, and not relevant.

 

[piteus]

Keith performing as a bottom pairing D for 5.5m and roughly 4-7% of the cap at ages 38-40 is not problematic in any way. You always try to bring Keith into the discussion, but he's an entirely different animal, and not relevant.

That's $12.5mn for 2 roster spots to players who could be washed in 2 years. How is that not relevant in regards to roster management. Roster management isn't a bunch of "one offs." It's how you manage the talent in regards to the salary cap. How is is any different from Karlsson's 2nd half of his contract? Karlsson's contract is a bit longer in the backend but he takes one less roster spot.

You can't talk about Seabrook taking only 8% of the salary cap and then say roster management is irrelevant. Seabrook's contract doesn't matter ONLY if the Hawks are smart about their roster management. Unfortunately, Keith's contract and advancing age are real concerns. You can't pick and choose details just for your narrative. If you're going to argue cap management ... the you have to acknowledge the big picture.

Brent Seatbook isn't the only contract we have to worry about. Every action has a reaction. You have to look at our contracts as a whole ... not just one offs. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[ChiHawks10]

That's $12.5mn for 2 roster spots to players who could be washed in 2 years. How is that not relevant in regards to roster management. Roster management isn't a bunch of "one offs." It's how you manage the talent in regards to the salary cap. How is is any different from Karlsson's 2nd half of his contract? Karlsson's contract is a bit longer in the backend but he takes one less roster spot.

You can't talk about Seabrook taking only 8% of the salary cap and then say roster management is irrelevant. Seabrook's contract doesn't matter ONLY if the Hawks are smart about their roster management. Unfortunately, Keith's contract and advancing age are real concerns. You can't pick and choose details just for your narrative. If you're going to argue cap management ... the you have to acknowledge the big picture.

Not going to get into this with you about Keith, again. There is no narrative here that I'm pushing.

Keith's contract and advancing age are only "real concerns" to you. This is the point you continually miss. I've heard exactly zero other people bring him up on here as being a genuine concern. On the contrary, every single person who ever sees you bring him up in this regard... completely shoots you down, similarly to how I am. Look no further than BK's post above. You choosing to ignore that, entirely, doesn't mean anyone else is pushing a narrative.

Keith being a better player, and only taking up 4-6% of the cap in two years, at a 5.5m cap hit, is not relevant when discussing the shitty Seabrook contract. Particularly when Seab's contract is likely not even here in 2 year's time.

As far as Karlsson, if you can't see the difference... IDK what to say.

Karlsson is one player, one who will likely be a shell of himself within 2 years, and will still have 6 years left on a contract that is $11.5m, and 14% of the cap... Would you honestly think that they're in better shape with that contract than the Hawks are with Seabs and Keith in 2 years? One may not exist, and one will be $5.5m and likely about 5-6% of the cap, for a D who is likely still a productive third pairing guy. The other will be an $11.5m cap hit, and about 13% of the cap, as a single player, as a 3rd pairing D. I know what I would prefer to have on the roster.

This will be my only post on the matter, as it's not relevant to the conversation about Seabs.

 

[piteus]

Not going to get into this with you about Keith, again. There is no narrative here that I'm pushing.

Keith's contract and advancing age are only "real concerns" to you. This is the point you continually miss. I've heard exactly zero other people bring him up on here as being a genuine concern. On the contrary, every single person who ever sees you bring him up in this regard... completely shoots you down, similarly to how I am. You choosing to ignore that, entirely, doesn't mean anyone else is pushing a narrative.

Keith being a better player, and only taking up 4-6% of the cap in two years, at a 5.5m cap hit, is not relevant when discussing the ****ty Seabrook contract. Particularly when Seab's contract is likely not even here in 2 year's time.

As far as Karlsson, if you can't see the difference... I'm not going to explain it to you.

Karlsson is one player, one who will likely be a shell of himself within 2 years, and will still have 6 years left on a contract that is $11.5m, and 14% of the cap...

IF you want to argue Keith will still be a top 4 DMen at age 39 and 40, be my guest. Perhaps he's another Chelios. However, how can anyone not be somewhat skeptical? Not many players have played at a high level at that age.

Of course, you also trashed me for questioning Seabrook as a top 4 DMen last year. Look what happened. Maybe he has a comeback year ... but I'm somewhat skeptical.

My issue with you is looking at every contract was a "one off" while eschewing the percentage of the cap. If you're going to argue roster and cap management, you can't look at the roster so myopically. You have to look at the big picture. You have to project forward. Like I said, if you look at Seabrook's contract as a one off, it's manageable. Unfortunately, roster management is NOT done through "one offs." Every action has a reaction. Hence, the roster is not static.

We get it ... you like Seabrook. We all like him. However, his long term deal accentuates every other bad deal we might have on the books going forward. Unless a miracle occurs, Seabrook's contract is most likely sunk cost. Thus, the Hawks have to work around his contract. It's nothing against Duncan Keith. However, IF (not when) he falters badly in 2 years ... his contract looks exponentially worse due to Seabrook's deal. The Hawks have little wiggle room due to Seabrook's contract. It's not that hard to get.

In a hard cap world, value destroyed must be created at low cost to maintain equal value.