Proposal: VAN-CHI

[bandwagonesque]

That’s fine, I didn’t make the OP.

Also, yes I’m not pretending like Seabrook’s contract is better. Do you think me saying that was some gotcha moment?

You asked where you'd said Eriksson's contract is close to as bad as Seabrook's. He just showed you where you said it. So yes, it kind of is a gotcha moment, for whatever it's worth.

 

[topnotch]

I don't care who the OP is, nor do I claim the Hawks MUST trade Dach to offload Seabrook.

I'm just saying you can't look at the Lucic trade as a comparable. The Oilers PAID a third to ADD $500K to their cap for 4 years.

This deal would see the Hawks SAVE $875K for 3 years and then a whopping $6.875M for 2 years. How much do you think it costs to unload $16.375M, a total difference of $18.375M over what the Oilers did? That poster said that they would only accept if Dach was attached. Can you blame them? Of course the Hawks wouldn't do that, but that's not the point.

The last two years of Seabrook's contract are 4mil signing bonus + 1mil salary, then 2mil signing bonus and 2.5mil salary. If Seabrook is a Hawk after July 1 2022, his 5.5mil remaining over two years would carry a 13.75mil cap hit (40% of his cap hit is paid in actual dollars). That has some use to a budget team. If the Hawks add a first and a cheap NHL player (similar to Perlini) to Seabrook I could see a budget team taking him on for two years.

 

[Space umpire]

You asked where you'd said Eriksson's contract is close to as bad as Seabrook's. He just showed you where you said it. So yes, it kind of is a gotcha moment, for whatever it's worth.

Eriksson's contract is close to as bad as Seabrooks. Seabrook in spite of all the trash he gets here is still a usable 2nd pair and PP specialist. Possibly the 3rd year he is 3rd pairing guy and the last 2 years are bad.
After those 3 years where is can play and be a key guy in the room for that young squad the majority of his money has been paid and he becomes attractive in a trade with budget teams.
Eriksson is not really an NHL player now and won't be for the extent of his deal.
They are the same in that they will both have 'dead years'. Eriksson's just happen to be now and Seabrooks appear like they can be sold/traded.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Eriksson's contract is close to as bad as Seabrooks. Seabrook in spite of all the trash he gets here is still a usable 2nd pair and PP specialist. Possibly the 3rd year he is 3rd pairing guy and the last 2 years are bad.
After those 3 years where is can play and be a key guy in the room for that young squad the majority of his money has been paid and he becomes attractive in a trade with budget teams.
Eriksson is not really an NHL player now and won't be for the extent of his deal.
They are the same in that they will both have 'dead years'. Eriksson's just happen to be now and Seabrooks appear like they can be sold/traded.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I was talking about, which was disputing another posters claim that he'd never something that he had in fact said. I will mention, though, that Eriksson is very obviously still a useful bottom 6 forward, and claiming he isn't in order to emphasize the fact that his contract is poor value is dumb and pointless.

 

[skyo]

Eriksson's contract is close to as bad as Seabrooks.

Seabrook in spite of all the trash he gets here is still a usable 2nd pair and PP specialist. Possibly the 3rd year he is 3rd pairing guy and the last 2 years are bad.

After those 3 years where is can play and be a key guy in the room for that young squad the majority of his money has been paid and he becomes attractive in a trade with budget teams.

Eriksson is not really an NHL player now and won't be for the extent of his deal.

They are the same in that they will both have 'dead years'. Eriksson's just happen to be now and Seabrooks appear like they can be sold/traded.

It's a nice snake oil salesman pitch, but that's like us trying to sell off Eriksson for Boedker who has 1 year left on his contract.

Eriksson still gets top penalty kill minutes, still a savvy vet defensively, plus under former coach Willie Desjardins he got 5 powerplay goals, played much better for Team Sweden, except under coach Green he's been regulated as a checker. All you gotta see is his powerplay time on ice dwindle from Willie to the Travis era.

We can say the last two years of Eriksson's contract he can be a mentor for the young swede prospects in Ottawa.

Anyways, 3yrs > 5yrs.

In addition Eriksson starting next July 1st, has a 15 team no trade list - much easier to move, while Seabrook has a ironclad NMC for another 3 seasons - right through to the expansion draft where he has to be protected.

 

[Space umpire]

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I was talking about, which was disputing another posters claim that he'd never something that he had in fact said. I will mention, though, that Eriksson is very obviously still a useful bottom 6 forward, and claiming he isn't in order to emphasize the fact that his contract is poor value is dumb and pointless.

Useful bottom 6 forwards on teams loaded with youth who are trying to build a winner for the 1st time every aren't said to have a bad attitude.
That wouldn't seem very beneficial to meeting the hoped for goal.
After Seabrooks demotion from the 1st pairing last year he spent nearly all his 2nd/3rd pairing time with Dahlstrom or Keokkoek and was a noted leader and tutor for them. Not all veterans are like that, It's probably something a few teams could use.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Useful bottom 6 forwards on teams loaded with youth who are trying to build a winner for the 1st time every aren't said to have a bad attitude.

You're using a No True Scotsman fallacy and saying nothing about Eriksson's actual performance. He's obviously still a useful player. He scored 29 points with 3rd/4th line ES deployment and was one of the best penalty killers in the league. You're simply wrong.