70seven Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Jay ZawaskiVerified account @JayZawaski670 Follow More Lots of smoke around the Hawks tonight. Texts w several sources have me in "hold on to your butt" mode. Good chance core guy is moved soon. John Jaeckel @jaeckel Follow More Hearing Seabrook to one of 2 Canadian teams possible, LOTS of rumors out there, Kruger to LV for a pick also close RETWEETS38 LIKES41 John Jaeckel @jaeckel Follow More Two Canadian teams I heard re: 7 are VAN and TOR, for the record John Jaeckel @jaeckel Follow More Repeating, all I've heard re: Seabrook are discussions. Kruger deal much more likely, FWIW Random stupid rumor, (and Im bored so lets talk about it lol)but Ive said all along that if the Canucks move Tanev, thered likely have to be some kind of top pairing replacement. Hes 32, and hes got a massive 6.875M cap hit for another 7 years. Full NTC, but he's from Richmond, and may consider playing at home even within a rebuild. This would be a massive cap dump for the Hawks. Could Van take the bad contract, effectively replace Tanev, and move him for a youthful return?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Better be as a cap dump incentive with us getting a solid piece for taking on that insane contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weasel Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 why would we take on old man seabrook when we're rebuilding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobi Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 minute ago, The Weasel said: why would we take on old man seabrook when we're rebuilding? If it includes a prospect then maybe JB will bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 agreed why now??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted June 10, 2017 Author Share Posted June 10, 2017 Just now, The Weasel said: why would we take on old man seabrook when we're rebuilding? just for the sake of discussion... so they can trade Tanev for futures, and not throw their kid Dmen to the wolves. Theyll have a veteran leader to absorb the heavy minutes still. I dont understand why people think since its a rebuild, they should just play their developing kids above their heads minutes. Its more likely to ruin their development than help it. FWIW Id have no interest in adding seabrook either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 LOL, this off season fabrication is getting ridiculous, I mean even worse than Tanev for two firsts and a first born son ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Take Seabrook and a top prospect or 1st (for taking on that contract), then it frees up moving Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Drogo Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I could see Seabrook possibly waiving his NTC to come home. He's won a few cups and international championships, and is on the tail end of his career. Not saying he doesn't want to win anymore, but maybe he really wants to raise his children (I'm guessing he has some) at home where his friends and family are. On the Canuck side it would make sense as well, as that would free up our dependence on Tanev and allow us to trade him for a solid piece that would go towards our rebuild. The thing is, with our team not set to win anytime soon, and with Seabrook's brutal contract, I personally wouldn't give up much for him. Maybe a second, but you would think that Chicago would probably find that insulting for a player of his calibre, because let's not forget just how good of a player he is (even though I really don't like him lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickly Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, The Weasel said: why would we take on old man seabrook when we're rebuilding? I have no problem with it as long as the return for Tanev is good and Benning doesn't overpay for Seabrook. The Canucks would be doing the Hawks a huge favour acquiring Seabrook and he could log big minutes for at least another 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 7 years remaining? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Be interesting if this had a cap dump angle and a moving Tanev angle. Otherwise, not really interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Seabrook has a NMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobi Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 It better be one hell of a return if his contract has 7 years remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted June 10, 2017 Author Share Posted June 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, mll said: Seabrook has a NMC. Word being that he'd consider waiving for a couple canadian teams Speculation being TO and Van. Why would the Leafs give up 32 year old Phaneuf at 7M per expiring in 20/21 for cap dumps and meh prospects only to turn around and give up a cap dump and meh prospects up for 32 year old Seabrook at 6.85M per expiring in 23/24. It doesn't make sense. Van could be a logical destination from both sides. Seabrook is a local kid, and the Canucks could take a bad contract thats still an effective player, and move Tanev for something we need for the future. Its honestly not a horrible idea. They could upgrade the defence and prospect pool at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I have enough faith in Benning to think Seabrook won't be coming to Vancouver if he does get moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 20 minutes ago, khay said: 7 years remaining? No way. Ya, cap dump that goes into the range where we might actually need cap space is dumb. A 1-3 year bad contract is do-able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 34 minutes ago, RRypien37 said: Better be as a cap dump incentive with us getting a solid piece for taking on that insane contract. If that is the case then guaranteed Seabrook won't be coming to Van. The was Toronto needs a bonafide defenceman, the Hawks would actually get something for him in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 There'd better be MINIMUM 1.5 mill annually being carried by them dirtbags, AND a brilliant prospect included. No..don't touch this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 14 minutes ago, 70seven said: Word being that he'd consider waiving for a couple canadian teams Speculation being TO and Van. Why would the Leafs give up 32 year old Phaneuf at 7M per expiring in 20/21 for cap dumps and meh prospects only to turn around and give up a cap dump and meh prospects up for 32 year old Seabrook at 6.85M per expiring in 23/24. It doesn't make sense. Seabrook is more accomplished and a straight up better defenseman than Phaneuf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.