Speculation: The Brent Seabrook conundrum

[Styles]

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.

Why are you even worried about this right now? There are way too many unknowns to even project what our cap situation will be like in 2 years time. I get it's a talking point in the middle of the summer but you act like there is a cap space apocalypse on the horizon that no one is seeing.

1. We don't know what Cat and Strome are going to be making.
2. We don't know what ELC players will be on the team.
3. We don't know who our goalie will be and what they are making.
4. We don't know if the likes of Maatta, Saad, Shaw, Gus, de Haan, and Murphy will still be here.
5. We don't know how much the cap is going to rise.
6. We don't know who will be taken in the expansion draft.

The list goes on.

 

[ChiHawks10]

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.

Lol. I don't like Seabrook at his current level of play. I'm convinced you don't read complete posts ever. You find a line you want to respond to and just hammer at it.

And your attempts at finance lessons in every post concerning money... are bad. So just stop.

Love that you're absolutely, 100% guaranteeing that Keith will be bad in 2 years time, also. Lol. Alright Miss Cleo.

And no one is arguing Keith will be a top 4 D in 2 years. Actually, to the contrary, me and @BK both stated he'd be fine as a bottom pairing D at his cap hit and % of the cap. Just more proof to me that you don't read posts.

 

[ColdSteel2]

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.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up that Panarin didn’t exist. I never said he did. All I claimed was that the opportunity cost of keeping Seabrook for 8 years was losing other players and opportunities to use the cap space in other ways. If not Panarin, then any number of other possibilities. That’s not a narrative, that’s a mathematical fact.

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.

Agreed that his decline was surprisingly fast. Disagree that it was tolerable or acceptable to tack on the extra 3 years knowing full well he was most likely going to be a bottom pairing guy making 6.8M. And that’s especially important given that Kane and Toews will be in their early to mid 30’s and Keith will be pushing 40. It severely reduces their chances to win during those seasons. There was no reason to do that, hence why it was insane IMO.

 

[piteus]

Why are you even worried about this right now? There are way too many unknowns to even project what our cap situation will be like in 2 years time. I get it's a talking point in the middle of the summer but you act like there is a cap space apocalypse on the horizon that no one is seeing.

1. We don't know what Cat and Strome are going to be making.
2. We don't know what ELC players will be on the team.
3. We don't know who our goalie will be and what they are making.
4. We don't know if the likes of Maatta, Saad, Shaw, Gus, de Haan, and Murphy will still be here.
5. We don't know how much the cap is going to rise.
6. We don't know who will be taken in the expansion draft.

The list goes on.

Correct ... but that's not how a competent front office operates. They have to look forward. That's how you have proper roster and cap management. Good organizations look forward ... make projections. They also try to remain flexible if unforseen events occur.

It's the reason why we were okay with the Maatta and de Haan trades. Their contracts still give us flexibility. Cap space is important going forward so we have the option of retaining Cat, Strome, Gus if they have good seasons. Nothing is done in a vacuum. Now if you were to say the Hawks are going for it this year, I'd understand. However, I get the feeling the Hawks are a couple of years away from really being contenders.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I don’t know why you keep bringing up that Panarin didn’t exist. I never said he did. All I claimed was that the opportunity cost of keeping Seabrook for 8 years was losing other players and opportunities to use the cap space in other ways. If not Panarin, then any number of other possibilities. That’s not a narrative, that’s a mathematical fact.




Agreed that his decline was surprisingly fast. Disagree that it was tolerable or acceptable to tack on the extra 3 years knowing full well he was most likely going to be a bottom pairing guy making 6.8M. And that’s especially important given that Kane and Toews will be in their early to mid 30’s and Keith will be pushing 40. It severely reduces their chances to win during those seasons. There was no reason to do that, hence why it was insane IMO.

You specifically said that Seabs' contract cost the Hawks Saad and Panarin...

As far as being tolerable... those contracts happen to every single team giving long-term contracts to aging vets... pretty much every team has one or two of these contracts... making it tolerable.

 

[piteus]

Lol. I don't like Seabrook at his current level of play. I'm convinced you don't read complete posts ever. You find a line you want to respond to and just hammer at it.

And your attempts at finance lessons in every post concerning money... are bad. So just stop.

Love that you're absolutely, 100% guaranteeing that Keith will be bad in 2 years time. Lol.

And no one is arguing Keith will be a top 4 D in 2 years. Actually, to the contrary, me and @BK both stated he'd be fine as a bottom pairing D at his cap hit and % of the cap. Just more proof to me that you don't read posts.

How am I guaranteeing Keith will be bad when I literally hope Keith is the next Chelios?

This is not finance. This is common sense. When you argue roster/cap management, nothing can be looked as a 'one off.' Each contract can't be looked in a vacuum, especially in a hard capped sport. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[ColdSteel2]

You specifically said that Seabs' contract cost the Hawks Saad and Panarin...

As far as being tolerable... those contracts happen to every single team giving long-term contracts to aging vets... pretty much every team has one or two of these contracts... making it tolerable.

Yeah, Seabrook being immovable cost them the opportunity to sign Panarin. That’s just math. Now, it seems like the people in the discussion don’t think they would have kept him anyway so it isn’t something we need to harp on.

And the second part, what other teams do is irrelevant. Every situation is different. Our situation involves an aging core during those last 3 years he is making 6.8M. Furthermore, when the Hawks won 3 Cups, they didn’t carry bad contracts with them. The only exception is Bickell in 15 but they went well over the cap with the Kane injury so it washes out. And the ELCs washed Huet out in 10.

 

[ChiHawks10]

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.

How am I guaranteeing Keith will be bad when I literally hope Keith is the next Chelios?

This is not finance. This is common sense. When you argue roster/cap management, nothing can be looked as a 'one off.' Each contract can't be looked in a vacuum, especially in a hard capped sport. It's not that hard to understand.

I misread something in the bolded, that's my mistake.

And no one is arguing anything as a one-off. This is a Seabs thread, discussing the Seabs contract, so that's what I'm focusing on... this is common sense. Yes that was me being a snarky dick. Lol.

One-off doesn't need quotes btw.

 

[piteus]

You specifically said that Seabs' contract cost the Hawks Saad and Panarin...

As far as being tolerable... those contracts happen to every single team giving long-term contracts to aging vets... pretty much every team has one or two of these contracts... making it tolerable.

I don't understand why you are so angry. I actually agreed with you that from a 'one off' standpoint, Seabrook's cap hit is manageable. Unfortunately, due to the numbers years, NMC, and future cap management ... it becomes an obstacle / liability. There is no room for error including Cat, Strome, and Gus' possible future contracts AND players with long term deals like Toews, Kane, and Keith. Toews and Kane had really good years and younger in age ... hence less concerns. Keith on the other hand is older, lots of wear and tear, and his game has definitely slowed some. Thus, there should be some concern.

I'm not saying anything controversial. It shouldn't anger anyone. No one is arguing if Keith or Seabrook's contract are "intolerable (as you put it) as a one off. However, there is decent risk that both those contracts become anchors to the Hawks future in a couple of years. One DMen has already fell off the cliff. Let's pray the other doesn't when he turns 38 in a couple of years.

I actually understand your argument about Seabrook as a 'one off.'

 

[ChiHawks10]

I don't understand why you are so angry. I actually agreed with you that from a 'one off' standpoint, Seabrook's cap hit is manageable. Unfortunately, due to the numbers years, NMC, and future cap management ... it becomes an obstacle / liability. There is no room for error including Cat, Strome, and Gus' possible future contracts AND players with long term deals like Toews, Kane, and Keith. Toews and Kane had really good years and younger in age ... hence less concerns. Keith on the other hand is older, lots of wear and tear, and his game has definitely slowed some. Thus, there should be some concern.

I'm not saying anything controversial. It shouldn't anger anyone. No one is arguing if Keith or Seabrook's contract are "intolerable (as you put it) as a one off. However, there is decent risk that both those contracts become anchors to the Hawks future in a couple of years. One DMen has already fell off the cliff. Let's pray the other doesn't when he turns 38 in a couple of years.

I actually understand your argument about Seabrook as a 'one off.'

I'm not angry in the least. I don't know why you always think I am. I'm not even sure how you can infer anger from the quoted post...

And my tolerable comments were if Seabs' contract had been 5 years, or if his decline wasn't so sharp. Gotta read whole posts and follow them better man. You seem to be missing the context in which I'm saying things, a lot. There are multiple discussions going on with different people. I was not talking about Seabs' contract, as it stands, with @ColdSteel2. I was talking about if it had been 5 years, in that particular conversation about it being tolerable. Or if his decline hadn't been from top pairing D one year, to bottom pairing D the next. Hypothetical scenarios...

 

[piteus]

I'm not angry in the least. I don't know why you always think I am. I'm not even sure how you can infer anger from the quoted post...

And my tolerable comments were if Seabs' contract had been 5 years, or if his decline wasn't so sharp. Gotta read whole posts and follow them better man. You seem to be missing the context in which I'm saying things, a lot. There are multiple discussions going on with different people. I was not talking about Seabs' contract, as it stands, with @ColdSteel2. I was talking about if it had been 5 years, in that particular conversation about it being tolerable. Or if his decline hadn't been from top pairing D one year, to bottom pairing D the next. Hypothetical scenarios...

Fair enough. I misunderstood the context of the thread.

 

[ColdSteel2]

I'm not angry in the least. I don't know why you always think I am. I'm not even sure how you can infer anger from the quoted post...

And my tolerable comments were if Seabs' contract had been 5 years, or if his decline wasn't so sharp. Gotta read whole posts and follow them better man. You seem to be missing the context in which I'm saying things, a lot. There are multiple discussions going on with different people. I was not talking about Seabs' contract, as it stands, with @ColdSteel2. I was talking about if it had been 5 years, in that particular conversation about it being tolerable. Or if his decline hadn't been from top pairing D one year, to bottom pairing D the next. Hypothetical scenarios...

Fair enough. I misunderstood the context of the thread.

No, CH10 said the last 3 years of the 8 year contract would be tolerable if Seabrook was a bottom pairing D during those seasons. I was trying to get him to admit giving Seabrook 8 years instead of 5 was ridiculous. He said if Seabs was still a bottom pairing D, the Hawks could tolerate it since the cap would go up and every team has a bad contract or 2.

 

[ChiHawks10]

No, CH10 said the last 3 years of the 8 year contract would be tolerable if Seabrook was a bottom pairing D during those seasons. I was trying to get him to admit giving Seabrook 8 years instead of 5 was ridiculous. He said if Seabs was still a bottom pairing D, the Hawks could tolerate it since the cap would go up and every team has a bad contract or 2.

Yes, in the context of: If his decline had been gradual, as is the norm, and not a straight drop off a cliff, from top pairing D to bottom pairing D, over one offseason.

My point was, the 8 year contract wouldn't be considered "insane" had Seabs followed a more traditional decline. In hindsight, knowing that Seabs literally fell off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote chasing Roadrunner on Saturday morning cartoons, yes, it was ridiculous.(happy?) I just don't think it was as ridiculous at the time, had things trended normally for his decline. It was too much length, but I don't think it was an "insane" deal at that time, not knowing what the future held. Had Seabs declined normally, the Hawks would have gotten a top pair guy for the first couple seasons, a middle pairing guy for the next 2-3, and then a bottom pairing guy for the final 2-3. At which time, dependent on the cap, and his % of it, it could be tolerable to have him as a bottom pairing guy for those final 2-3, or he may have even had value as a deadline trade chip to a contender. Alas, that's not the way things went, so we suck it up and deal with it.

And talk about disingenuous discussion/debate. Your goal was to get me to admit something that you want me to admit, rather than have a good discussion about something? Trying to manipulate me into saying what you want me to say? That's f***ed up. I guess you showed your hand to everyone on here, though. Now everyone knows what they should expect with you in a discussion.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

An August thread about Brent Seabrook went about as well as expected.

 

[BK]

An August thread about Brent Seabrook went about as well as expected.

We have seen worse...

 

[ChiHawks10]

We have seen worse...

True.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

We have seen worse...

What a low bar to set.

 

[BK]

What a low bar to set.

Better than reddit...

Did I just set the lowest bar?

 

[ChiHawks10]

Better than reddit...

Did I just set the lowest bar?

Definitely.

 

[AmericanDream]

An August thread about Brent Seabrook went about as well as expected.

honestly, does it matter what part of the year we are at when it comes to Seabs?? everything turns into a shitshow with him now.

 

[BK]

Definitely.

 

[ChiHawks10]

 

[ColdSteel2]

delete

 

[ChiHawks10]

You’re damn near the only person here that will stubbornly defend the contract. It doesn’t matter how anyone frames it. And as far as showing hands, that’s hilarious.

This is you every day on here, particularly when in your rage fits:

It’s a projector and this isn’t news to anyone but you, asshat.

Lol.

Never defended the contract, actually, that I recall. You can go through my post history for hours again trying to find where I might have, though I think you'll come up empty.

Awwwwww... speaking of rage fits. First you talk about specifically trying to manipulate me to say what you want me to say, then you somehow talk about projection, likely not knowing how to apply the term, and call me an asshat. Who is having the rage fit?

I think people on here mistake my incredulity towards their stupidity with anger.

 

[hawksrule]

You guys have gone in circles for three days. How about a truce?