(Signing) Chicago re-signs Brent Seabrook

[Jägermeister]

but back to what i was trying to say before getting blindsided....

So Stawns,kane,JYD,Jager,AJ? do you guys think that he will be able to keep up his physical game, not lose a step and continue to put up points in 4 years? how about 6 years? 8? 9?

this is what i was getting at and you all kind of side stepped it by not getting my reference.

Bieksa in his prime was a very good top 4 guy, but there was never any wide consideration for him being a legit top pairing guy.

Seabrook is a bonafide top 2, and is widely regarded as such. His defensive play and general awareness is incredibly better than Bieksa's ever was. His ability to angle off attackers, and get his stick on the puck will allow him to keep up that level of play even if he does begin to have his physical game begin to wear away.

Seabrook in 4 years, assuming he doesn't have some sort of major hindrance (and keep in mind he has only missed 10 regular season games since 06/07), will still be a superior player compared to Bieksa now.

This is no slight on Bieksa. He was one of my favourite Canucks. But this is more you seemingly underestimating Seabrook. He is arguably one of the top defensive players in the league.

[Guest]

A terrific player on a terrific team, on an excellent contract. Hawks gunning for more Cups!

[coryberg]

Bieksa in his prime was a very good top 4 guy, but there was never any wide consideration for him being a legit top pairing guy.

Seabrook is a bonafide top 2, and is widely regarded as such. His defensive play and general awareness is incredibly better than Bieksa's ever was. His ability to angle off attackers, and get his stick on the puck will allow him to keep up that level of play even if he does begin to have his physical game begin to wear away.

Seabrook in 4 years, assuming he doesn't have some sort of major hindrance (and keep in mind he has only missed 10 regular season games since 06/07), will still be a superior player compared to Bieksa now.

This is no slight on Bieksa. He was one of my favourite Canucks. But this is more you seemingly underestimating Seabrook. He is arguably one of the top defensive players in the league.

Once again "bieksa 2.0" didn't mean he is, was or will be the exact player that bieksa is. The level that either player is at isn't a factor. It was eluding to the fact that he has reached his peak and will undoubtedly slow down over the next 4 years....he has 9 years.

I'm sorry for using bieksa as an example seeing as most people can't wrap their heads around this. Just using a player in the age group, production and position, bieksa was the easiest to convey because he was a Canucks and everyone is familiar with his decline. I didn't think that people would run with it and turn it into a who is the better player thread seeing as not one poster has claimed such a thing.

I could list off tons of better players who's play declined from 30-39. Does anyone dispute that?

[Patrick Kane]

And then shots from the peanut gallery....

-We already got your made up goal differential out of the way.

-Seabrook played quite a bit of time with timonen you say? He played 16 games and averaged less than 12 minutes per game! How much of that was with Seabrook? 1 or 2 minutes? If that?

-he is a big, tough, defenseman. he makes a great #2-3 and is great in the playoffs, can you show any of my posts that say otherwise?

-Seabrook was on team canada (keith connection)....so was bouwmeester (pietrangelo)

-how can i compare him to bieksa? They are both dmen that play a physical grueling game. They are both human as well and slow down with age. their stats are eerily similar (playoff success aside). How can you not compare them?

-Ask any sane hockey fan? Did you bother to ask me? Did i answer such a question from anyone else?

I'll help you out... would i rather have Seabrook or Bieksa? Seabrook. too many people on this board that dont actually read a conversation before blabbing....such as...

Not real life....CDC where you don't have to actually be part of a conversation or know what its about to start it snowballing away.

He played 54% of the time with Keith last year, and the remaining with Timonen, Hjalmarsson and Oduya is my point.

Bieksa played with Hamhuis 77% of the time including playing with him on the PP.

You keep using 'stats' to compare: "their stats are eerily similar" well I guess Michael Del Zotto > Chris Tanev.

I'm out, most people have already laughed at these comparisons. Also Hawks don't care if he declines at 34-35, they are in a win now mode, and that mentality has gotten us 3 cups

Stan Bowman is one of the best GM's in the league, and will work something out (he always has, always will)

[Hunter.S-Kerouac]

Dang there goes next years free agent defence pool with Seabrook and Erik Johnson signed. Yandle is the only d left really that could make an impact if signed. No to Buff and Lucic please. Maybe take a flyer on Schenn if he's willing to sign cheep.

[Pears]

Dang there goes next years free agent defence pool with Seabrook and Erik Johnson signed. Yandle is the only d left really that could make an impact if signed. No to Buff and Lucic please. Maybe take a flyer on Schenn if he's willing to sign cheep.

Anyone with any kind of hockey sense would take Byfuglien over Schenn.

[Guest]

Anyone with any kind of hockey sense would take Byfuglien over Schenn.

Buff at $6m or Schenn at $3m? I'd take Schenn, jettison Sbisa, trade up and take Day or Chychrun.

[stawns]

Bieksa at age 30 put up 44 points and was a +12 playing with hamhuis

Seabrook at age 30 put up 31 points and was a -3 playing with Keith.

Give your head a shake

Hahaha, ok. Hockey Canada thinks differently.

[Pears]

Buff at $6m or Schenn at $3m? I'd take Schenn, jettison Sbisa, trade up and take Day or Chychrun.

If we finish low enough to have a chance at either of those two I'd do that as well. I'm just more sold on Buff as a legit #2-3 than I am on Schenn.

[Monty]

Anyone with any kind of hockey sense would take Byfuglien over Schenn.

Depends on the team, really. I can tell you that the Jets certainly don't have a need for Buff anymore, considering they have Trouba and Myers anchoring the RH side, younger and less expensive. They would take Schenn going forward on the third pairing for a much cheaper contract than what Buff will command.

Just depends on the team's need.

[oldnews]

Great cap hit - too much term - but you have to give up one or the other, and Chicago clearly felt it's worth it to take advantage of the early years of this contract.

Always really likes Seabrook - he's the kind of player you keep from start to finish.

[SaintPatrick33]

Great cap hit - too much term - but you have to give up one or the other, and Chicago clearly felt it's worth it to take advantage of the early years of this contract.

Always really likes Seabrook - he's the kind of player you keep from start to finish.

Add to that his great leadership ability, him and taser sure managed a room filled with quite a bit of emotions last year.

[Jiggs50]

Good point, lets factor in this increased scoring...

The average teams Goals per game?

2011-12 2.73

2014-15 2.73

Looks like you got me there. Huge increase in scoring.

Never talk hockey if you think Bieksa and Seabrook are similar.

[Z Hockey]

Hence why I said he would be bieksa 2.0 in 4 years. They don't want to factor in age, plus minus, points, linemates... just cups won.

Exactly

[coryberg]

Never talk hockey if you think Bieksa and Seabrook are similar.

Never comment in a thread if you can't read.

[Jägermeister]

Once again "bieksa 2.0" didn't mean he is, was or will be the exact player that bieksa is. The level that either player is at isn't a factor. It was eluding to the fact that he has reached his peak and will undoubtedly slow down over the next 4 years....he has 9 years.

I'm sorry for using bieksa as an example seeing as most people can't wrap their heads around this. Just using a player in the age group, production and position, bieksa was the easiest to convey because he was a Canucks and everyone is familiar with his decline. I didn't think that people would run with it and turn it into a who is the better player thread seeing as not one poster has claimed such a thing.

I could list off tons of better players who's play declined from 30-39. Does anyone dispute that?

So you say Bieksa 2.0, and that meant nothing more than Seabrook will be a worse player at 34 than he is at 30, because the same thing happened to Bieksa? I doubt it. Also, the level of a player is without a doubt a major factor in talking about how they will potentially decline.

You made a poor comparison, and clearly you even realize it because you're back tracking on it so badly. Lol, just admit it and move on.

[coryberg]

So you say Bieksa 2.0, and that meant nothing more than Seabrook will be a worse player at 34 than he is at 30, because the same thing happened to Bieksa? I doubt it.

Thats is exactly what I said, if you look back I never edited my statements in any way.

Also, the level of a player is without a doubt a major factor in talking about how they will potentially decline.

Ok lets just look at some higher caliber, 2 way, former team canada dmen and their production at 30 and 34 to see how they declined.

Adam foote

@ age 30 put up .49 points per game

@ age 34 put up .20 points per game

Wade redden

@ age 30 put up .48 points per game

@ age 34 put up 0 (was in the AHL)

Ed Jovanovski

@ age 30 put up .54 points per game

@ age 34 put up .28 points per game

You made a poor comparison, and clearly you even realize it because you're back tracking on it so badly. Lol, just admit it and move on.

I already apologized for confusing the few that couldn't grasp it. I dont think it was a poor comparison, both are human, both play a contact sport, both hit their peak and will slow down....these are facts. Bieksa has declined substantially (as did my other examples) and I believe seabrook will as well. For you to try to make this a "who is the better player" thread instead of actually listening to my reasoning is poor.

The only backtracking I did was repost my quotes to show the few that didn't bother to read. I stand by everything I wrote including when I said I would take seabrook over bieksa.

[Drakrami]

He played 54% of the time with Keith last year, and the remaining with Timonen, Hjalmarsson and Oduya is my point.

Bieksa played with Hamhuis 77% of the time including playing with him on the PP.

You keep using 'stats' to compare: "their stats are eerily similar" well I guess Michael Del Zotto > Chris Tanev.

I'm out, most people have already laughed at these comparisons. Also Hawks don't care if he declines at 34-35, they are in a win now mode, and that mentality has gotten us 3 cups

Stan Bowman is one of the best GM's in the league, and will work something out (he always has, always will)

Freak. Blackhawks fan making a fool out of Canucks fan on a Canucks board. And I have to agree with it. Freaking embarrassing.

[iinatcc]

But honestly, Hawks kinda got screwed on this deal. Seabrook will be trending downwards from this point on and so will the Hawks in general. Lot of money to be giving a guy who has a couple years of prime play left.

I keep hearing that but I see it this way.

Worse comes to worse Hossa, Toews, Kane, Seabrook, and Keith all start to decline in 5 to 8 or so years. Let's say their on ice production no longer matches their contract and become untradeable.

I see two things happening here:

1. By then the Salary Cap will go up high enough that the Hawks can now re-sign the Saad's and Leddy's. By then even if the current core go on a decline the younger guys will be good enough to keep the team competitive.

Or

2. The team sucks but I am willing to wager the current Blackhawks has one more cup by 2020 that even if the Blackhawks go on a decline and become a bubble or even a lottery team the current team would have built a dynasty that the fanbase, as a result of this dynasty, will still be strong, loyal, and stick around the first decade of being bad, long enough to get those high draft picks to build a new cup contending core.

[stawns]

Thats is exactly what I said, if you look back I never edited my statements in any way.

Ok lets just look at some higher caliber, 2 way, former team canada dmen and their production at 30 and 34 to see how they declined.

Adam foote

@ age 30 put up .49 points per game

@ age 34 put up .20 points per game

Wade redden

@ age 30 put up .48 points per game

@ age 34 put up 0 (was in the AHL)

Ed Jovanovski

@ age 30 put up .54 points per game

@ age 34 put up .28 points per game

I already apologized for confusing the few that couldn't grasp it. I dont think it was a poor comparison, both are human, both play a contact sport, both hit their peak and will slow down....these are facts. Bieksa has declined substantially (as did my other examples) and I believe seabrook will as well. For you to try to make this a "who is the better player" thread instead of actually listening to my reasoning is poor.

The only backtracking I did was repost my quotes to show the few that didn't bother to read. I stand by everything I wrote including when I said I would take seabrook over bieksa.

Why are you using points as your measuring stick? Seabrook is considered one of the top, if not the top, defensive dman in the league. Using points is a ridiculous way to measure his performance.