Speculation: The Brent Seabrook conundrum

[ColdSteel2]

You literally just proved my point. No one can predict the future.

They signed him to the deal believing he would be worth it, because no one on this ****ing earth could predict that he would fall off a cliff from top pairing D to bottom pairing D in a matter of a single season... I don't care who you are. I don't care if you're Miss Cleo, herself. Dolt? The irony of you calling someone else stupid is absolutely amazing.

So that’s how you operate? After a mistake, instead of learning from it and making changes to improve, instead, it’s just, “Well, nobody could have predicted the outcome so it wasn’t even a mistake to begin with!”

 

[ChiHawks10]

So that’s how you operate? After a mistake, instead of learning from it and making changes to improve, instead, it’s just, “Well, nobody could have predicted the outcome so it wasn’t even a mistake to begin with!”

Is that what I said? Please, show me where I said that. Where the hell did you even pull that from? Had to have come from your ass, because I said nothing even close to that.

 

[ColdSteel2]

Is that what I said? Please, show me where I said that.

You’ve repeatedly said nobody could have predicted Seabrook’s decline. The reality is the Hawks didn’t, but nobody is going to believe that every NHL organization would have handled that situation the same way. It doesn’t matter how often that point is repeated.

 

[ChiHawks10]

You’ve repeatedly said nobody could have predicted Seabrook’s decline. The reality is the Hawks didn’t, but nobody is going to believe that every NHL organization would have handled that situation the same way. It doesn’t matter how often that point is repeated.

Yes, and pointed out why. Because he was a top pairing D for two seasons after he signed that contract... and then he just wasn't. He was a bottom pairing D. He fell off a cliff. No one could have predicted him falling off a cliff the way he did... no one. Not the best f***ing hockey minds in the NHL. The Hawks have one of those in Scotty Bowman. He apparently couldn't predict it either.

What does that have to do with you pulling something out of your ass about me thinking his contract wasn't a mistake because no one could have predicted it? Move the goalposts because you said something dumb, then just make shit up that was never said... Very BWC-esque.

In hindsight, yes, it was a mistake. The contract actually would have been fine at that amount, if it were 2-3 years less. Then there wouldn't be pages upon pages of people crying about it. But alas, it's not. So we have to suck it up and deal with it.

And is this where you tell me that most other organizations would have severed ties, and let one of their franchise D walk?
A guy who literally put the team on his back with Duncan Keith, and carried them to a Cup. Yep. All those other teams would have walked away from that guy, and let him go elsewhere. I'm sure that's what they would have done. I'm just... I'm done.

 

[piteus]

That's amateur scouting. Different department from pro scouting, so you're correct about that part of it.

It's semantics but those scouts work for a pro organization ... thus known as "pro" scouts. There are coaches / scouts who work for colleges and juniors as well. Thus, if a baseball, basketball, or football scout comes to a game, we differentiate by saying, "college" or "pro" scout. We don't say, "amateur" scout.

 

[ColdSteel2]

Yes, and pointed out why. Because he was a top pairing D for two seasons after he signed that contract... and then he just wasn't. He was a bottom pairing D. He fell off a cliff. No one could have predicted him falling off a cliff the way he did... no one. Not the best ****ing hockey minds in the NHL. The Hawks have one of those in Scotty Bowman. He apparently couldn't predict it either.

What does that have to do with you pulling something out of your ass about me thinking his contract wasn't a mistake because no one could have predicted it? Move the goalposts because you said something dumb, then just make **** up that was never said... Very BWC-esque.

In hindsight, yes, it was a mistake. The contract actually would have been fine at that amount, if it were 2-3 years less. Then there wouldn't be pages upon pages of people crying about it. But alas, it's not. So we have to suck it up and deal with it.

And here's where you tell me that most other organizations would have severed ties, and let one of their franchise D walk.
A guy who literally put the team on his back with Duncan Keith, and carried them to a Cup. Yep. All those other teams would have walked away from that guy, and let him go elsewhere. I'm just... I'm done.

They gave Seabrook top dollar, top term and a NMC. The complaints in the thread are mostly about giving him the term and the NMC. If they gave him 5 years instead of 8 or chose not to give him the NMC, it would be far less of a problem than it is. That’s the whole point. Some organizations surely wouldn’t have looked at the player he was with the mileage he had and elected to give him a max deal with an ironclad NMC. Hence my point, it seems like the Hawks thought he would age like fine wine to give him such a deal.

As for the rest, look at how emotional you get when someone contradicts your opinion. Who else around here does that?

 

[hawksrule]

Yes, and pointed out why. Because he was a top pairing D for two seasons after he signed that contract... and then he just wasn't. He was a bottom pairing D. He fell off a cliff. No one could have predicted him falling off a cliff the way he did... no one. Not the best ****ing hockey minds in the NHL. The Hawks have one of those in Scotty Bowman. He apparently couldn't predict it either.

What does that have to do with you pulling something out of your ass about me thinking his contract wasn't a mistake because no one could have predicted it? Move the goalposts because you said something dumb, then just make **** up that was never said... Very BWC-esque.

In hindsight, yes, it was a mistake. The contract actually would have been fine at that amount, if it were 2-3 years less. Then there wouldn't be pages upon pages of people crying about it. But alas, it's not. So we have to suck it up and deal with it.

And is this where you tell me that most other organizations would have severed ties, and let one of their franchise D walk?
A guy who literally put the team on his back with Duncan Keith, and carried them to a Cup. Yep. All those other teams would have walked away from that guy, and let him go elsewhere. I'm sure that's what they would have done. I'm just... I'm done.

Meh. Seabrook's decline wasn't hard to predict. To the contrary, it was so obviously going to happen that there wasn't a single person on this board who was happy with the contract. Imagine how remarkable it was for HFHawks to have a unanimous consensus. Everyone knew the contract was terrible. No hindsight required.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Meh. Seabrook's decline wasn't hard to predict. To the contrary, it was so obviously going to happen that there wasn't a single person on this board who was happy with the contract. Imagine how remarkable it was for HFHawks to have a unanimous consensus. Everyone knew the contract was terrible. No hindsight required.

People were generally upset with the term and not the dollar value all that much iirc. No one predicted he'd fall off the way he did, though. I'm talking about the extent of the decline over such a short time period. Of course he would decline. Everyone knows pro sports players decline as they age. Who the hell thought he'd go from top pair to bottom pair in a season, with no inbetween? If he declined like most players, he'd be a serviceable 2nd pairing guy right now, and 75% of the bitching about him wouldn't exist.

 

[ChiHawks10]

They gave Seabrook top dollar, top term and a NMC. The complaints in the thread are mostly about giving him the term and the NMC. If they gave him 5 years instead of 8 or chose not to give him the NMC, it would be far less of a problem than it is. That’s the whole point. Some organizations surely wouldn’t have looked at the player he was with the mileage he had and elected to give him a max deal with an ironclad NMC. Hence my point, it seems like the Hawks thought he would age like fine wine to give him such a deal.

As for the rest, look at how emotional you get when someone contradicts your opinion. Who else around here does that?

Lol. Sorry if I can't handle stupidity. It has nothing to do with contradicting my opinion. It has to do with stupidity. Plenty of people have different opinions than me on here, and I don't get "emotional" as you say, when I discuss things with them. I'm just not tolerant of stupid people, or people saying stupid things.

 

[ChiHawks10]

It's semantics but those scouts work for a pro organization ... thus known as "pro" scouts. There are coaches / scouts who work for colleges and juniors as well. Thus, if a baseball, basketball, or football scout comes to a game, we differentiate by saying, "college" or "pro" scout. We don't say, "amateur" scout.

You're trying to explain scouting in hockey to someone who has, and may still, scout for hockey, btw.

 

[hawksrule]

People were generally upset with the term and not the dollar value all that much iirc. No one predicted he'd fall off the way he did, though. I'm talking about the extent of the decline over such a short time period. Of course he would decline. Everyone knows pro sports players decline as they age. Who the hell thought he'd go from top pair to bottom pair in a season, with no inbetween? If he declined like most players, he'd be a serviceable 2nd pairing guy right now, and 75% of the *****ing about him wouldn't exist.

But that's the whole point. If he had been given a 5 year deal, people would have dealt with it knowing the last couple years were going to be a waste. But no one could live with the last 5+ years being a waste, and everyone saw it at the time. Whether years 2&3 of the contract were worse than anticipated is more or less incidental to the greater issue.

 

[Njfj]

Crazy to think that over their careers it’s Seabrook and not Keith who earned more money.

 

[featherhawk]

Crazy to think that over their careers it’s Seabrook and not Keith who earned more money.

no kidding, all on account to that sweet deal that Keith signed with the hawks...

perhaps Seabrook forks over some cash to Keith for his spousal support payments....LOL

 

[Blue Liner]

It's semantics but those scouts work for a pro organization ... thus known as "pro" scouts. There are coaches / scouts who work for colleges and juniors as well. Thus, if a baseball, basketball, or football scout comes to a game, we differentiate by saying, "college" or "pro" scout. We don't say, "amateur" scout.

It’s not semantics, though, within the organizations it’s their literal job title and department title and within the context of this thread when someone was referring to the pro scouting department I think the distinction is worth pointing out. There is a difference in job title and subsequently their duties. I get what you’re saying and you’re not wrong with your original post, generally speaking. But given the context of how this all started the titles are worth distinguishing, I think, and can avoid confusion for some people who may not know the difference. Not trying to be difficult.

 

[ColdSteel2]

It’s not semantics, though, within the organizations it’s their literal job title and department title and within the context of this thread when someone was referring to the pro scouting department I think the distinction is worth pointing out. There is a difference in job title and subsequently their duties. I get what you’re saying and you’re not wrong with your original post, generally speaking. But given the context of how this all started the titles are worth distinguishing, I think, and can avoid confusion for some people who may not know the difference. Not trying to be difficult.

I was wrong for lumping the scouts into the decision to resign Seabrook, thanks for clarifying.

The front office must have thought he had many good years left to offer him an 8 year deal. Not sure what they saw to come to that conclusion. Big, physical players typically decline sooner and more rapidly than players that rely on skating to be successful.

 

[piteus]

It’s not semantics, though, within the organizations it’s their literal job title and department title and within the context of this thread when someone was referring to the pro scouting department I think the distinction is worth pointing out. There is a difference in job title and subsequently their duties. I get what you’re saying and you’re not wrong with your original post, generally speaking. But given the context of how this all started the titles are worth distinguishing, I think, and can avoid confusion for some people who may not know the difference. Not trying to be difficult.

Fair enough. The thread was from a different context I misunderstood.

 

[piteus]

You're trying to explain scouting in hockey to someone who has, and may still, scout for hockey, btw.

I wasn't wrong from where I was coming from. I misunderstood the context of the thread. When a scout comes to see a player, they differentiate between college and "pro" scout. I know the pro scout comes from the "amateur scouting" department from their team. However, from the player's point of view, we don't call them "amateur scouts." We call them "pro scouts."

In the thread, I said there are two types on scouting departments (at least in the NFL and NBA). One who looks at prospects for the draft. Another who looks at other pro players on other teams. That's why I said "semantics" ... but in the context of the thread, my input was irrelevant.

 

[Blackhawks]

So that’s how you operate? After a mistake, instead of learning from it and making changes to improve, instead, it’s just, “Well, nobody could have predicted the outcome so it wasn’t even a mistake to begin with!”

He’s the Stan excuse master, he says he can’t handle stupidity but his homersism is through the roof.

 

[ChiHawks10]

He’s the Stan excuse master, he says he can’t handle stupidity but his homersism is through the roof.

I rest my case.

Apparently homerism has something to do with stupidity...

Nevermind not having a clue how to use the word homerism.

 

[BK]

I was wrong for lumping the scouts into the decision to resign Seabrook, thanks for clarifying.

The front office must have thought he had many good years left to offer him an 8 year deal. Not sure what they saw to come to that conclusion. Big, physical players typically decline sooner and more rapidly than players that rely on skating to be successful.

From everything that has been reported it was the front office plus McCub that was directly responsible for the Seabrook deal. This is the reason why marketing should never be involved. It is on Bowman for making the signing but ignoring the reports that McCub was highly involved would be ignorant.

 

[Blackhawks]

I rest my case.

Apparently homerism has something to do with stupidity...

Yes when you are so blinded by your homerism and love for something your excuses become so outrageous it becomes pure stupidity.

 

[Blue Liner]

I wasn't wrong from where I was coming from. I misunderstood the context of the thread. When a scout comes to see a player, they differentiate between college and "pro" scout. I know the pro scout comes from the "amateur scouting" department from their team. However, from the player's point of view, we don't call them "amateur scouts." We call them "pro scouts."

In the thread, I said there are two types on scouting departments (at least in the NFL and NBA). One who looks at prospects for the draft. Another who looks at other pro players on other teams. That's why I said "semantics" ... but in the context of the thread, my input was irrelevant.

I got what you meant and you weren't wrong, I just was clarifying the difference given the context of the discussion. All good.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Not even worth my time.

 

[ColdSteel2]

From everything that has been reported it was the front office plus McCub that was directly responsible for the Seabrook deal. This is the reason why marketing should never be involved. It is on Bowman for making the signing but ignoring the reports that McCub was highly involved would be ignorant.

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.

 

[ChiHawks10]

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.

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, when I can say for a fact, that no one knew it was as bad as it looks now. Most people on here, back then, had issues with length. They knew the back end of that deal was going to be awful. No one knew and/or expected the middle of it to be as bad as it is.