Who do you take at 7th (now 8th) overall?

[ChiHawks10]

Lol are you kidding me? That contract is killing the team and if you can get rid of it with a single first round pick not including 1st overall then you do it..

Yes, waste a top 10OA pick(which has a high likelihood of being a game-changing player) to get rid of a contract that has the potential to only be here one more season, right? Do you ever think before you type?

 

[migi]

Yes, waste a top 10OA pick(which has a high likelihood of being a game-changing player) to get rid of a contract that has the potential to only be here one more season, right? Do you ever think before you type?

He doesn’t!

Preds 1st and prospect like Krys is something I would consider if someone wants Seabrook with assets. As you said, Seabrook is going to be with the team max 2 years.

That trade I would do just because we could be in free agent market and the signing still needs to make a lot sense (Carlson).

 

[ChiHawks10]

He doesn’t!

Preds 1st and prospect like Krys is something I would consider if someone wants Seabrook with assets. As you said, Seabrook is going to be with the team max 2 years.

That trade I would do just because we could be in free agent market and the signing still needs to make a lot sense (Carlson).

Yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question.

 

[Blackhawks]

Yes, waste a top 10OA pick(which has a high likelihood of being a game-changing player) to get rid of a contract that has the potential to only be here one more season, right? Do you ever think before you type?

Potential to be here for one more year? That’s a dream buddy, do you every think before you talk? Your beloved GM already traded a game changer in TT with ONE YEAR of Bickel at 4M, who on earth will take that horrendous Seabrook contract if it’s not for a MINIMUM of a top 10 guy which is no guarantee to be a game changer especially if it’s in the 7th OA range... Man people here are clueless...

 

[ChiHawks10]

Potential to be here for one more year? That’s a dream buddy, do you every think before you talk? Your beloved GM already traded a game changer in TT with ONE YEAR of Bickel at 4M, who on earth will take that horrendous Seabrook contract if it’s not for a MINIMUM of a top 10 guy which is no guarantee to be a game changer especially if it’s in the 7th OA range... Man people here are clueless...

Yeah, I think plenty before I talk. It's obvious you don't. Ever. The NHLPA can opt out of the CBA in September of 2019. So one year from the start of this upcoming season. Knowing that, you trade the pick for what could potentially be a future star player (as soon as this upcoming season, even) to get rid of Seabs' contract, when a buyout likely comes along with the CBA opt-out in just one season? Again, think before you type. It has nothing to do with adding a player to Seabs to move him, so not sure why you brought that up even. It has to do with a buyout being available within the next year. You have one more season of Seabs, most likely. If you actually listened to people who knew more than you once in a while instead of screaming about how smart you are(bigly smart, the only smart one on here), and how the Hawks are nothing but losers, then maybe you'd learn something.

And yes, in this draft, the odds of the 7thOA being a game-changing type of player are pretty good. This is a deep draft.

 

[ChiHawk21]

Yeah, I think plenty before I talk. It's obvious you don't. Ever. The NHLPA can opt out of the CBA in September of 2019. So one year from the start of this upcoming season. Knowing that, you trade the pick for what could potentially be a future star player (as soon as this upcoming season, even) to get rid of Seabs' contract, when a buyout likely comes along with the CBA opt-out in just one season? Again, think before you type. It has nothing to do with adding a player to Seabs to move him, so not sure why you brought that up even. It has to do with a buyout being available within the next year. You have one more season of Seabs, most likely. The only clueless one here is you. If you actually listened to people who knew more than you once in a while instead of screaming about how smart you are(bigly smart, the only smart one on here), and how the Hawks are nothing but losers, then maybe you'd learn something.

And yes, in this draft, the odds of the 7thOA being a game-changing type of player are pretty good. This is a deep draft.

well at least we can agree on this. our 7th overall needs to hit and i would think fairly quickly because the veterans are fading fast.

 

[ChiHawks10]

well at least we can agree on this. our 7th overall needs to hit and i would think fairly quickly because the veterans are fading fast.

Agreed.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I think it's wishful thinking that we will be able to buy out Seabrooks contract in the CBA year without a major penalty of any kind. But possible, I guess. I wouldn't bank on it though.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I think it's wishful thinking that we will be able to buy out Seabrooks contract in the CBA year without a major penalty of any kind. But possible, I guess. I wouldn't bank on it though.

Why, though? If the NHLPA opts out of the CBA after this upcoming season, that typically includes a compliance buyout. Why would they be penalized? It's not like he's on a recapture contract or anything. The only penalty would be owing Seabs that money even though he's not a Hawk anymore.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Why, though? If the NHLPA opts out of the CBA after this upcoming season, that typically includes a compliance buyout. Why would they be penalized? It's not like he's on a recapture contract or anything. The only penalty would be owing Seabs that money even though he's not a Hawk anymore.

Typically? haven't they only done it once? That doesn't make it typical.

The only reason it happened last time is because the cap went down quite a bit from the previous year and teams weren't able to fill out rosters. What if the cap stays the same this time around?

 

[ChiHawks10]

Typically? haven't they only done it once? That doesn't make it typical.

The only reason it happened last time is because the cap went down quite a bit from the previous year and teams weren't able to fill out rosters. What if the cap stays the same this time around?

Pretty sure it happens after just about every lockout/CBA expiration/opt-out. I'm not super familiar with all of the lockouts in history, or the finances surrounding them, but I believe the salary cap doesn't go up in a lockout/opt-out type of situation. There are also regular buyouts that can be used, I believe, but would still carry a cap hit for Seabs based upon an already determined formula. And the cap didn't go down, it didn't move at all in the 2012-13 lockout. Which is why the compliance buyouts were issued. It didn't go up or down specifically because of the lockout, afaik.

The only point being... you don't move a 7OA to move Seabs when a potential buyout is looming just one season away.

I really do believe you argue with me just to argue at this point. You nitpick over single word choices in like every one of my posts. It's getting kind of annoying, tbh.

Can't argue the actual substance of the post... so argue my use of the word "typical". Just like you're arguing with me about the use of the word "unusual" in the other thread. It's f***ing stupid.

 

[crazyhawk]

Wow Tkachuk the overwhelming favourite. Looks like the majority of us Hawk fans want to
inject some truculence!!!

 

[ndgt10]

Wow Tkachuk the overwhelming favourite. Looks like the majority of us Hawk fans want to
inject some truculence!!!

Not me.

 

[JLarucci23]

I don't think Tkachuk will be there at 7. I really want one of him, Bouchard or Whalstrom.

 

[Blue Liner]

I don't think Tkachuk will be there at 7. I really want one of him, Bouchard or Whalstrom.

Bouchard should be there at 7. Outside chance at Wahlstrom though I'd be semi-surprised. I don't see any chance of Tkachuk being there. Wahstrom really shouldn't be either but he's not seeming to get the same attention as the others for some odd reason.

 

[AmericanDream]

I don't think Hughes gets past Detroit - just seems like too much sense for them to take him, great year for defense which is exactly what we need!

 

[Hawkaholic]

Pretty sure it happens after just about every lockout/CBA expiration/opt-out. I'm not super familiar with all of the lockouts in history, or the finances surrounding them, but I believe the salary cap doesn't go up in a lockout/opt-out type of situation. There are also regular buyouts that can be used, I believe, but would still carry a cap hit for Seabs based upon an already determined formula. And the cap didn't go down, it didn't move at all in the 2012-13 lockout. Which is why the compliance buyouts were issued. It didn't go up or down specifically because of the lockout, afaik.

The only point being... you don't move a 7OA to move Seabs when a potential buyout is looming just one season away.

I really do believe you argue with me just to argue at this point. You nitpick over single word choices in like every one of my posts. It's getting kind of annoying, tbh.

Can't argue the actual substance of the post... so argue my use of the word "typical". Just like you're arguing with me about the use of the word "unusual" in the other thread. It's ****ing stupid.

There has only been one lockout where there have been compliance buyouts, as there has only been one lockout where there was a salary cap already introduced.
It's not typical if it only happens once. And the salary cap did go down after the lockout, from 64.3 to 60.

Yes, we could use a normal buyout on Seabrook, but you really believe the Hawks will take a cap hit ranging from 4-7mil for the next few seasons after the lockout? I doubt it.

And I agree, you don't move the 7OA pick to move Seabrook.

I'm going to argue when you say things I don't agree with, like it's typical to have compliance buyouts, when it's not. That's not nitpicking. I argued the main substance of the post originally. Then you came back acting as if it was a fact that with each lockout it's typical for a compliance buyout, so I argued that point.
If you had said they did compliance buyouts last time so they will this time, I wouldn't argue that point. I would have just argued saying I don't think they will do it again this time around.

 

[ChiHawks10]

There has only been one lockout where there have been compliance buyouts, as there has only been one lockout where there was a salary cap already introduced.
It's not typical if it only happens once. And the salary cap did go down after the lockout, from 64.3 to 60.

Yes, we could use a normal buyout on Seabrook, but you really believe the Hawks will take a cap hit ranging from 4-7mil for the next few seasons after the lockout? I doubt it.

And I agree, you don't move the 7OA pick to move Seabrook.

I'm going to argue when you say things I don't agree with, like it's typical to have compliance buyouts, when it's not. That's not nitpicking. I argued the main substance of the post originally. Then you came back acting as if it was a fact that with each lockout it's typical for a compliance buyout, so I argued that point.
If you had said they did compliance buyouts last time so they will this time, I wouldn't argue that point. I would have just argued saying I don't think they will do it again this time around.

That's wrong.

The lockout in 04-05 introduced the salary cap to the NHL. There were compliance buyouts to ease the transition to a salary capped league.

The lockout in 2012-2013 also had compliance buyouts.
"Due to the 2012–13 NHL lockout, the salary cap was not to increase to the projected $70.2 million, so each team was therefore granted two compliance buyouts to be exercised after the 2012–13 season and/or after the 2013–14 season that would not count against the salary cap in any further year in order to better comply with a lower than expected cap value, regardless of the player's age. "

The cap was set at 60m, but teams were allowed to spend to 70m pro-rated for the shortened season... So yeah, technically it went down to 60m from 64m, but it really didn't...

So two salary-cap era lockouts. Compliance buyouts issued at each. For a grand total of 2/2 times.
That would mean it's typical to have compliance buyouts, wouldn't it?

Again, you're arguing with me just to argue, it seems.

My whole point to Blackhawks being, there's a possibility there's a compliance buyout in just one year. So it would be absolutely idiotic to attach a top 10OA pick in a very deep draft to Seabs, just to get rid of one year of salary. When said single player could potentially be huge for turning around this team rather quickly.

 

[ClydeLee]

Is there gonna be a major change? The buyouts seemed graceful because of major changes being harsh to teams. Adding the cap and then changing how you could just bury cap hits like the Hawks did with Huet and Olesz. And of course ending the length manipulation. But unless they alter things again like that or shorten deals lower than 7/8 I don't see a reason to gift GMs free buyouts this time.

Anyway I voted for the guy with the funniest name because I know nada about these boys.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Is there gonna be a major change? The buyouts seemed graceful because of major changes being harsh to teams. Adding the cap and then changing how you could just bury cap hits like the Hawks did with Huet and Olesz. And of course ending the length manipulation. But unless they alter things again like that or shorten deals lower than 7/8 I don't see a reason to gift GMs free buyouts this time.

Anyway I voted for the guy with the funniest name because I know nada about these boys.

There always seems to be some kind of large change, honestly. It's hard to say.

 

[Spectra]

I'm not an expert on all of the prospects, but as far as I can see, if we pick 7th we will get a very nice prospect to get excited about! Don't think Tkachuk, Hughes or Wahlstrom are there, but that might not be a big deal a couple of years down the line.

 

[Hawkaholic]

That's wrong.

The lockout in 04-05 introduced the salary cap to the NHL. There were compliance buyouts to ease the transition to a salary capped league.

The lockout in 2012-2013 also had compliance buyouts.
"Due to the 2012–13 NHL lockout, the salary cap was not to increase to the projected $70.2 million, so each team was therefore granted two compliance buyouts to be exercised after the 2012–13 season and/or after the 2013–14 season that would not count against the salary cap in any further year in order to better comply with a lower than expected cap value, regardless of the player's age. "

The cap was set at 60m, but teams were allowed to spend to 70m pro-rated for the shortened season... So yeah, technically it went down to 60m from 64m, but it really didn't...

So two salary-cap era lockouts. Compliance buyouts issued at each. For a grand total of 2/2 times.
That would mean it's typical to have compliance buyouts, wouldn't it?

Again, you're arguing with me just to argue, it seems.

My whole point to Blackhawks being, there's a possibility there's a compliance buyout in just one year. So it would be absolutely idiotic to attach a top 10OA pick in a very deep draft to Seabs, just to get rid of one year of salary. When said single player could potentially be huge for turning around this team rather quickly.

Well, I mean if you are going to consider a lockout where the situation was completely different (going from a noncap to a cap), then it’s not even worth debating. There has only been 1 lockout where there was a cap before the lockout, that doesn’t set precedence for future salary cap league lockouts.

 

[AmericanDream]

I don't think that it (buyout) would be set in stone for 2019, but it isn't like there would be any opposition to t...it doesn't hurt the players, they still get paid, and it only helps teams spend more money on other players - so not seeing who would vote this down? there are a lot of teams with bad contracts, can't see GMs saying no thanks to this..

 

[ColdSteel2]

I don't think that it (buyout) would be set in stone for 2019, but it isn't like there would be any opposition to t...it doesn't hurt the players, they still get paid, and it only helps teams spend more money on other players - so not seeing who would vote this down? there are a lot of teams with bad contracts, can't see GMs saying no thanks to this..

Agreed. Plus, it helps the overall on ice product so much. Seems like a no brainer for everyone.

 

[ChiHawk21]

i really think we are gunna move up to 2 or 3 and then i dont know what happens.