Speculation: The Brent Seabrook conundrum

[ChiHawks10]

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

Was a civil debate for a while. Lol.

 

[ColdSteel2]

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

Yeah, he can have the last word. I’m tapping out. I lose. Let’s move on.

 

[BK]

Yeah, he can have the last word. I’m tapping out. I lose. Let’s move on.

Loser

 

[ColdSteel2]

Loser

I lost the battle but there is still the war.

 

[BK]

I lost the battle but there is still the war.

View attachment 250767

Haha

 

[ChiHawks10]

Yeah, he can have the last word. I’m tapping out. I lose. Let’s move on.

I'm a dick on here. You should know that by now, man. I've always been a dick on here. I'm a nice guy in real life, though. Lol.

And yeah... you've been breathing down my neck in baseball lately. I think I'm gonna hold on, though.

 

[x Tame Impala]

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.

The extra years were necessary to keep his cap hit lower. There were probably some non-hockey related factors in play here but there was also the fact that letting our top 3 dman go with zero replacements in line for him would’ve been a terrible hockey decision.

His play has plummeted for sure, but I don’t think it was realistic to predict this level of dropoff from him so soon. I think Stan didn’t think that would happen until year 4 or 5 of the deal.

 

[ColdSteel2]

The extra years were necessary to keep his cap hit lower. There were probably some non-hockey related factors in play here but there was also the fact that letting our top 3 dman go with zero replacements in line for him would’ve been a terrible hockey decision.

His play has plummeted for sure, but I don’t think it was realistic to predict this level of dropoff from him so soon. I think Stan didn’t think that would happen until year 4 or 5 of the deal.

Yeah, there’s no doubting the drastic dropoff came sooner than expected. However, as you said, it was going to come at some point during an 8 year deal, probably after year 4 or 5. Giving him the full NMC for the first 6 years and then only a 5 team NTC in year 7 followed by a 10 team NTC in year 8 gave them no way out.

For whatever reason, it seems like the front office thought they would be contending for the Cup during those first 4 or 5 seasons so if the wheels fell off afterward, they could rebuild during the last few seasons of the deal. As it turns out, they were dead in the water as contenders after year 1 of Seabrook’s deal. They initiated a rebuild and now as they climb their way back up, Seabrook’s deal will inevitably force them to lose valuable players. It’s entirely possible they will go the entire 8 years without becoming a Cup contender again. They effectively went all in on 16-17 to 19-20, consequences be damned.

 

[Njfj]

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.

Except he was.

Panarin signed his deal on April 29, 2015 according to capfriendly. Seabs signed his extension on September 26, 2015. One full season before he was to become a UFA.

I don’t have a horse in the race - just presenting facts.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Except he was.

Panarin signed his deal on April 29, 2015 according to capfriendly. Seabs signed his extension on September 26, 2015. One full season before he was to become a UFA.

I don’t have a horse in the race - just presenting facts.

I know he and Seabs signed during the same calendar year. What I meant when I said he wasn't on this team, was that he hadn't even played a game. He wasn't Panarin yet. He hadn't shown what he could do in the NHL. Of course he existed in a physical sense, at that time, but he was a complete unknown. So you can't use losing Panarin as an excuse to not give Seabs his contract.

 

[Styles]

Seabrooks contract is only 6 years the way it’s structured. Pay his bonus the 6th year and he’s only owed 5.5M the last 2. Attach a first and he’s gone. The 8 years is irrelevant and I’m sure that was talked about when it was signed. Pay me for the cups thanks a lot. He might even do us a favor and retire.

 

[hawksfan50]

Paying for the Cups is a bad excuse for any deal like the one sewsbs got...Theu always knew the back half of the 8 yr deal would be a future problem but they expected him to retain top form the first half of the deal and hoped he could be a key element in another Cup in those first 4 still prome years..alas Sebs fell right off the cliff as soon as he got the new deal
..to the point that last season he showed total incompetency and that he could no longer move well enough to deserve any NHL shift time.


Justxa total complete waste of a spit now...


Can he rebound back to his form before he got the current deal? I am very skeptical...so to me he is a big albatross weight dragging our d-corps down.
But because of his contract he must be played...this means pucks stay loo ling in our zone when he is on ..and that high danger chances on our net are inflated way beyond what they should be..He simply cannot move well and makes bad clearing decisions...It is a fall off deep cliff...and unfortunately I can see no way back up the mountain for him. One scratches one's head asking how Chara at 42 can still move and play well in defending his own zone but a 10 years younger Seabrook just became so slow as to be not only ineffective in defending bit also embarissingly un-coordinate,easily gotten around,and mentally slow to react and sloppy with the puck on exit attempts or clears.A total embarrassment.

Such incompetent play should not be tolerated by any team...but as I said the contract exists and He Who No Longer Can ,must be played because you cannot sit $6.875 million on the bench..So we have to live with this predicament ...We must accept it ...but cannot grin a out the hopeless situation with him.It is both sad and frustrating...so we watch in mute resignation..that it has come to this and there is nothing can be done about this .. at least for 2 more seasons when we hope we are able to get a Compliance buy-out opportunity with a new CBA ...if they opt out early from the current CBA such that the CBOs can be used after a resumption in play from a walk-out or lock-out to start the 2020/21 season..Even then in summer 2021 after the Exoansion Draft in which Seabs has to be protected,Rockky will face the unpleasant task g of forking over big cash to CBO Seabrook...But it will have to be done cause the dude just cannot play the game anymore. His mobility is no mobility. THAT presents real problems for any shift he gets on the ice.

Even worse if they opt to play out current CBA till September 2022
..that delays new CBA toll pat way in 2022/23 season and means cannot use any CBO granted till summer 2023 instead of simmer 2021 if they terminated early this Seotenber and just play out 2919/20 under the old CBA before going to negotiate a new CBA.

 

[GaryU]

Fiddy, you can still out-word everyone.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

New question: Do Stan and Colliton have the balls to healthy scratch KFC if Boqvist shows he's ready?

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

New question: Do Stan and Colliton have the balls to healthy scratch KFC if Boqvist shows he's ready?

Regularly? No I don't think so. I could see the occasional scratch to keep to keep the workload down, but if you are expecting Seabs to be the 7th defenseman, I think you're going to be disappointed.

Of course, further deterioration of his play could change that, but I don't think we are there yet.

 

[clydesdale line]

I think there's a better chance he rotates someone like De Haan to keep him fresh.

 

[RayP]

New question: Do Stan and Colliton have the balls to healthy scratch KFC if Boqvist shows he's ready?

I think Seabrook has to be really really bad one more season before we see that happen.

Even if Seabrook is bad in camp they’ll chalk it up to him being a veteran and not super invested into camp.