Proposal: Vancouver Canucks-Chicago Blackhawks deal (part II)

[COHawk]

What if the deal happens after the lottery knowing Chicago didn’t win it?

I think as others have mentioned future buyouts, Hawks would likely still say no.

 

[CallMeShaft]

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.

Canucks fans are discussing how much they'd be willing to screw the Hawks out of just to put up with Seabrook.

Every team in this league would take Seabrook if the price is right (as in prospects and picks bundled with him). But that price is obscenely high. We have the cap for him for at least another year. It's stupid to trade him now. Not like there's any GM stupid enough to think Seabrook is still a decent player.

And I would've just let it go after my comment in the other thread. I didn't feel like having a back and forth about it. But you had to @ me. Didn't even post anything to go along with the comment. You literally just made a comment to say "hey look, you were wrong, this Nucks fan wants Seabrook as long as they can rake us over the coals to get rid of him. You must feel so silly right now." But I don't. Not at all.

 

[ClydeLee]

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

is this a thought of yours that Gundbranson is useful and Seabrook isn't or is less of an effective player? I thought it would still be a draw for a swap in salary value of these two that might be proposed. If Benning loves Gudbranson so much to what he brings surely Seabrook with actual passing and shooting offensive additions would be loved as a similar D stalworth.

 

[Jay haller]

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.

Wrong! Seabrook is the worst contract in league history. He’s clarkson x 1000.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

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?

Yeah, we'd need two or three 1st round picks for this to make any sense.

 

[mouser]

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.

I wouldn't count on it. At this point, given the issues that appear to be on the table for the next CBA I'd say it's doubtful we see more compliance buyouts.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

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.

I mean, all you have to do is look at the Datsyuk, Bolland, and Bickel trades to see how expensive bad contracts are to unload. Seabrook is far worse than any of the three mentioned. It would take at least two 1st round picks, but even that is a bad offer in this context.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Canucks fans are discussing how much they'd be willing to screw the Hawks out of just to put up with Seabrook.

Every team in this league would take Seabrook if the price is right (as in prospects and picks bundled with him). But that price is obscenely high. We have the cap for him for at least another year. It's stupid to trade him now. Not like there's any GM stupid enough to think Seabrook is still a decent player.

And I would've just let it go after my comment in the other thread. I didn't feel like having a back and forth about it. But you had to @ me. Didn't even post anything to go along with the comment. You literally just made a comment to say "hey look, you were wrong, this Nucks fan wants Seabrook as long as they can rake us over the coals to get rid of him. You must feel so silly right now." But I don't. Not at all.

That was the point of my original post, and you apologized for some reason to Canucks fans as if I said Seabrook for their first.

I mean, I’m fine dropping it, just wanted to point out it was a dick-ish comment for you to make.

 

[StreetHawk]

That was the point of my original post, and you apologized for some reason to Canucks fans as if I said Seabrook for their first.

I mean, I’m fine dropping it, just wanted to point out it was a dick-ish comment for you to make.

What concerns me most about Seabrook is his NMC when it comes to the expansion draft for Seattle. He’s in full control whether he waives it or not.

To limit yourself down to protecting only 2 D doesn’t seem worth it to me.

 

[ThatSaid]

Meh, no thanks. A pick in the top 10 this year is really valuable, and we're not far off from a likely compliance buyout. I'd like to see us make a UFA pickup or two next year, and keep developing the young talent we have. No need to panic and throw away a key player from this draft.

 

[puckpilot]

For reference. The price for moving Datsyuk's contract that only had one year left on it was a mean nothing player, flip of mid-round firsts, and a 2nd round pick.

 

[CallMeShaft]

That was the point of my original post, and you apologized for some reason to Canucks fans as if I said Seabrook for their first.

I mean, I’m fine dropping it, just wanted to point out it was a dick-ish comment for you to make.

I was saying that what you offered wouldn't have been enough and that i was sorry that yet another "Seabrook to Vancouver" thread was being made.

There's a million of those damn things here already, and it always winds up going the same way (not enough value going with Seabrook, Nucks fans don't want to be stuck with that ugly ass contract). And you actually threw in Forsling in that deal, which I'm sure annoyed the f*** outta that fan base.

So no, I wasn't acting like a dick for basically calling that proposal crap.

 

[StreetHawk]

For reference. The price for moving Datsyuk's contract that only had one year left on it was a mean nothing player, flip of mid-round firsts, and a 2nd round pick.

1 year left on his deal with no actual money paid versus 6 years and $37 million.

Massive difference in both term and real money. Even bolland, AZ only paid $1 million in actual money with insurance covering the other $4.4 million per year

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I was saying that what you offered wouldn't have been enough and that i was sorry that yet another "Seabrook to Vancouver" thread was being made.

There's a million of those damn things here already, and it always winds up going the same way (not enough value going with Seabrook, Nucks fans don't want to be stuck with that ugly ass contract). And you actually threw in Forsling in that deal, which I'm sure annoyed the **** outta that fan base.

So no, I wasn't acting like a dick for basically calling that proposal crap.

Funny how you are seemingly more annoyed than any Canucks fan who commented.

 

[CallMeShaft]

Funny how you are seemingly more annoyed than any Canucks fan who commented.

Of course Nucks fans weren't going to be all that annoyed after I mentioned how ridiculous that proposal was and most Hawks fans knew it wasn't realistic. Though I'm not all that annoyed either. Maybe you are seeing as how you had to make sure I saw this thread. Like I touched a nerve just because I dissed your trade proposal.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

Of course Nucks fans weren't going to be all that annoyed after I mentioned how ridiculous that proposal was and most Hawks fans knew it wasn't realistic. Though I'm not all that annoyed either. Maybe you are seeing as how you had to make sure I saw this thread. Like I touched a nerve just because I dissed your trade proposal.

True.

I screw up determining actual value, but what pissed me off was the “most of us Hawks fans know and understand you guys don't want Seabrook under any conditions.”

First, I read that with an “this guy’s an idiot Hawks fan” tone.

Second, it’s not true. Canucks fans do want him under the circumstances they get pieces that help them rebuild.

Third, I obviously know it would cost the Hawks to move Seabrook. That’s why I added the most NHL ready defensive prospect, and retained salary. My values were off, sure, and that’s why Canucks fans countered.

To sum it up, dick-ish comment from a generally not dick-ish poster, and it irked me.

 

[Icebreakers]

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.

"highest draft pick since Kane" lol that's an interesting way to put it. I understand what you mean but Kane went first overall so every pick higher than like 16 for the Hawks is the highest since Kane.

 

[CallMeShaft]

To sum it up, dick-ish comment from a generally not dick-ish poster, and it irked me.

I'm not going to get into the Seabrook proposal anymore outside of this. The main boards, especially the trade boards, can be ruthless. I've made one or two proposals here, and I got massacred for it. Your value was way, way, way too low for getting rid of Seabrook and if a Hawks fan didn't call you out on it, Nucks fans would have. And not one or two of them either. But they see that a fan of the OP's fanbase calls it a bad trade proposal, and their need to point out the trade diminishes. Not to mention that there has been a million of these "Seabrook to Vancouver" trade threads. Those fans are growing tired of seeing us trying to offload him on them, I am sure.

But to call me a "generally not dick-ish poster"? That hurts bro. Just because I can be calm and light hearted at times should not take away from me being a sarcastic, evil asshole. I literally have an avatar of Keith holding a poop. I'm just very good at blurring the lines between troll and intelligent poster.

 

[thesaadfather]

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

The point of trading Seabrook is to get rid of a guy who's not worth his contract and free up cap space. Why would the Hawks pay a top 10 pick to add cap and trade him for two guys who are bad and overpaid. In 3 years when the Hawks see any difference their key players will all be at the age where there's nowhere to go but down. Not to mention that Seabrook's NMC would become a limited NTC after another year making it easier to move him. I wouldn't trade Seabrook alone for that, let alone adding a top 10 pick, and this is from someone that thinks Bowman needs to look hard for a deal for Seabrook.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I'm not going to get into the Seabrook proposal anymore outside of this. The main boards, especially the trade boards, can be ruthless. I've made one or two proposals here, and I got massacred for it. Your value was way, way, way too low for getting rid of Seabrook and if a Hawks fan didn't call you out on it, Nucks fans would have. And not one or two of them either. But they see that a fan of the OP's fanbase calls it a bad trade proposal, and their need to point out the trade diminishes. Not to mention that there has been a million of these "Seabrook to Vancouver" trade threads. Those fans are growing tired of seeing us trying to offload him on them, I am sure.

But to call me a "generally not dick-ish poster"? That hurts bro. Just because I can be calm and light hearted at times should not take away from me being a sarcastic, evil *******. I literally have an avatar of Keith holding a poop. I'm just very good at blurring the lines between troll and intelligent poster.

Haha, fair enough.

I try to straddle that same line between troll and intelligent poster. My avatar is a guy upper decking while drinking a beer.

 

[RebuildinVan]

Quit trying to give us Seabrook!!!!!

 

[82Ninety42011]

Seabrook is worth about 4 per as a 3rd pairing PP guy now. However even with retention and Hawks are not retaining that much it's the length thats the killer. 6 more years after this that's nuts. He stays a Hawk or gets bought out nobody is touching that deal.

 

[bobg1]

You're probably looking at something more like Seabrook and Debrincat and the 1st for Sutter. That Seabrook contract is really awful.

Sutter is not worth anything close to that offer

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

Sorry to say, but we already have Eriksson's contract and Luongo's contract retention. We cannot take any more bad cap hits.

 

[JuniorNelson]

OP is on the right track. Canucks, with no Sedin salary will have cap space. Accepting a big contract is very possible. Abdelkader?