Proposal: Vancouver Canucks-Chicago Blackhawks deal (part II)
- Thread starter Horse McHindu
- Start date
6 more years at almost 7 million a year. No thanks.
Excuse me Mr Owner would you like to pay 42 million dollars for a 1st round pick?
Excuse me Mr Owner would you like to pay 42 million dollars for a 1st round pick?
It's not just a first round pick though but a top 10 pick.
Either way though, Vancouver is sending a cap dump back. Something like an Eriksson, a Sutter or a Gagner.
I probably still wouldn't do it. The reason being if Luongo retires anytime soon then the team is in a bad position without Seabrook. Adding Seabrook to the mix only makes everything worse.
Either way though, Vancouver is sending a cap dump back. Something like an Eriksson, a Sutter or a Gagner.
I probably still wouldn't do it. The reason being if Luongo retires anytime soon then the team is in a bad position without Seabrook. Adding Seabrook to the mix only makes everything worse.
RememberTheRoar
“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Hawks are not dumping their highest draft pick since Patrick Kane to get rid of a terrible contract, especially for a guy who is about to play 1000 games with them and won them 3 cups.
They will find another solution besides dumping a top tier prospect or top 10 pick. They panicked on it once with bickell and lost TT four months early right before his MS diagnosis.
Bowman will sit and be patient in handling Seabrook for the right opportunity and certainly not do this.
Close thread
They will find another solution besides dumping a top tier prospect or top 10 pick. They panicked on it once with bickell and lost TT four months early right before his MS diagnosis.
Bowman will sit and be patient in handling Seabrook for the right opportunity and certainly not do this.
Close thread
ChiHawk21
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2011
- 7,310
- 1,552
there will be buyouts during the next cba...the league loves letting the teams off the hook of bad contracts. Seabrook is still a nhl player. The blackhawks have cap space. They will not give away a piece they dearly need to get rid of seabrook.
RememberTheRoar
“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
crazyhawk
Registered User
Agree with the above two posters.
Only way Seabrook goes to Vancouver would be a straight trade for Eriksson with a small add from Chicago ... ( like maybe a Forsling ) Eriksson has 4 yrs left and Seabs has 6!
In other words ... no 1st round picks or Debrincats!
All kind of moot as I believe Seabrook retires as a Hawk .. he is an important leader in the room ... not that much leading has gone on this year!
Only way Seabrook goes to Vancouver would be a straight trade for Eriksson with a small add from Chicago ... ( like maybe a Forsling ) Eriksson has 4 yrs left and Seabs has 6!
In other words ... no 1st round picks or Debrincats!
All kind of moot as I believe Seabrook retires as a Hawk .. he is an important leader in the room ... not that much leading has gone on this year!
Agree with the above two posters.
Only way Seabrook goes to Vancouver would be a straight trade for Eriksson with a small add from Chicago ... ( like maybe a Forsling ) Eriksson has 4 yrs left and Seabs has 6!
In other words ... no 1st round picks or Debrincats!
All kind of moot as I believe Seabrook retires as a Hawk .. he is an important leader in the room ... not that much leading has gone on this year!
The bigger reason Hawks dont do it is they have more holes than just Seabrooks cap hit can replace.
Great, now you dump a no.7 overall pick they badly need, have an extra lets say $7 mil in cap space, that fills MAYBE one glaring hole (lets say if they get Carlson), now what are you going to do about all the holes on offense where they struggled to score? What about the improvements they need at center? they still dont have a solid top 4D event with Carlson then. Who knows whats going on with crawford
makes no sense to for broke just to dump Seabrook, its not like he should be out of the league, he is just grossly overpaid for the player he is today
THall4
Registered User
Doubt Hawks would be all that thrilled to trade the highest draft pick they've had since Patrick Kane. But getting rid of Seabrook's cap it would make a world a difference from them.
Hawks still decline.
Hawks still decline.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
even if the 1st round pick *might* be a top 5 pick, given the lottery system? With those two picks, what if the Canucks selected one forward and one defenseman?
Toews2Bickell
It's Showtime
- Nov 24, 2013
- 23,393
- 23,306
Hawks aren't trading their top 10 pick to get rid of a contract they will probably use a compliance buyout on in the future. They already have $10m+ in cap space to use this offseason, so they don't have to shed Seabrook right now.
Spectra
Registered boozer
- Aug 3, 2005
- 2,520
- 459
Seabrook and NAS 1st for Eriksson. Moving our own 1st is not happening.
CallMeShaft
Calder Bedard Fan
- Apr 14, 2014
- 15,891
- 21,568
Why do you feel like you have to @ me? I said that no Vancouver fans wanted Seabrook. And I'm right, they don't. All they want is another top ten pick with a chance of winning the lottery.
Don't throw a temper tantrum just because I told you Nucks fans don't want him.
Castle8130
Registered User
- May 9, 2017
- 2,734
- 2,017
Seabrooks a negative asset, but he is more than cancelled out with a top 10 pick and debrincat. To move seabrook, I would maybe trade our late 1st round pick.
Maybe trade forsling + 4th + seabrook for a decent bottom pairing dman.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
RememberTheRoar
“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Um, duh. That’s why I added additional assets that they would want to the proposal. You dismissed it, Canucks fans are having a discussion about it.
Not a temper tantrum, just calling you out for blindly dismissing my post.
Canadian Canuck
Hughes4Calder
Chicago 1st (Top 3 protected)+Seabrook for Gudbranson+Eriksson+B prospect?
Gives us another top 10 pick. Eriksson and Gudbranson also have bad contracts (Not as bad as Seabrooks are all, but are still useful
Gives us another top 10 pick. Eriksson and Gudbranson also have bad contracts (Not as bad as Seabrooks are all, but are still useful
Canadian Canuck
Hughes4Calder
It's easy to flush $42 mil down the toilet when it's not your money. But ask an owner what they think, IMHO, that's a tough sell.
Not to mention this would hobble the Canucks capwise till Horvat is 28 and their current crop of prospects are into their mid-20s. Not exactly a formula for success when you add Eriksson's contract into the mix. That's 13 million in dead money for the next 4 years before Erickson is off the books.
