CanuckleHorse Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Would rather have Adam Mcquaid big, tough, mean ombré who wants to punish the opposition I want pure goonism shove the puck down their throat type hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, smokes said: 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. You do realize he is 32 and under contract for 7 more years at a cap of 6.875 million and an actual salary that is going to be paying him 9 million for the last few years? No one wants that contract without an incentive to take it. At those numbers, owners will have a say to and as we all know, money talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, smokes said: Why would Toronto take Tanev over Seabrook? As I mentioned in my last response to you. You need to look at 1. Age. 2. Contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Lol I remember a few years ago when Seabrook signed this deal. Lots of posters loved the deal, couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the contract took him to age 39 and his play would decline along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonecoldstevebernier Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 If they toss in Nick Schmaltz, then we'll talk. Put Boeser and Schmaltz together again and combined with Horvat plus a possible high centre pick this draft and we could suddenly have the makings of a deep centre ice for years to come. Plus Seabrook would be a good choice to anchor a young defense for the next few years while he's still effective. Trade Tanev for other assets and hopefully Sbisa is taken by Vegas to maintain space on the back end for the prospects to compete. Ah, one can dream though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Seabrook's footspeed was exposed vs Nashville. I don't know if it was the long season but he could not keep up with them. The league is becoming faster and faster and it's more and more 5 guys in all zones (defending and attacking) and if one can't keep up - it's too much of an advantage for opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Seabrook to Toronto would make sense and really help them out, they could use a Cup champion to steady their defence and goalie and provide a nice veteran to the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 37 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Seabrook to Toronto would make sense and really help them out, they could use a Cup champion to steady their defence and goalie and provide a nice veteran to the kids. Not the D they are targeting - they are a team that plays with pace and he is slowing down. LeBrun reported that they are one of the teams lining up to acquire Vatanen. Ferraro was talking of how he would be a great fit for them - a young D who can grow with the team and fits the way the league is trending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Seabrook is slowing down real fast out there, but he's got the experience to help teach the young kids how to win cause he's won everything BUT I'd want something real juicy if we're gonna take him on for the next 7 years. Chi would be looking for cheap fill in players and mid round picks I'm assuming to chi: gaunce, subban, boucher, 3rd pick 2017 to van: seabrook (10% retained-6.1m cap hit), motte, schmaltz no clue how to structure a proposal like this so let's be chill alright just threw something together for some context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuporbust Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 4 hours ago, The Weasel said: why would we take on old man seabrook when we're rebuilding? Tanev trade imminent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 A pick and prospect to us just for taking Seabrook is more like it. This rumour is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 9 hours ago, cripplereh said: agreed why now??? Rebuilding teams have cap space if they have a true rebuilding plan (e.g. several years) and will take on some bad contracts in exchange for something....in this case it wouldn't be Seabrook alone but would need to include something like either pick(s) or prospect(s) that Canucks feel can contribute to their rebuilt team in a few years. That is the only way "now" makes sense. If this were just to get the player, I would 100% agree with you as the "now" makes absolutely zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said: Rebuilding teams have cap space if they have a true rebuilding plan (e.g. several years) and will take on some bad contracts in exchange for something....in this case it wouldn't be Seabrook alone but would need to include something like either pick(s) or prospect(s) that Canucks feel can contribute to their rebuilt team in a few years. That is the only way "now" makes sense. If this were just to get the player, I would 100% agree with you as the "now" makes absolutely zero sense. CAP space for a rebuilding team is the equivalent of draft picks. As you suggest teams at the top who have to make choices from their higher cost vets will add prospects or picks to unload higher CAP players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 9 hours ago, RRypien37 said: Better be as a cap dump incentive with us getting a solid piece for taking on that insane contract. Seabrook and DeBrincat or Bondra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Boudrias said: CAP space for a rebuilding team is the equivalent of draft picks. As you suggest teams at the top who have to make choices from their higher cost vets will add prospects or picks to unload higher CAP players. Yup....however, as someone rightly pointed out, Seabrook's contract is a beast and may be too much for any team to bear - plus if you are a Canuck fan it may be fun watching Hawks flounder starting in a few years when all those heavy long-term deals become very hard for them to ice a good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 6 hours ago, mll said: Seabrook's footspeed was exposed vs Nashville. I don't know if it was the long season but he could not keep up with them. The league is becoming faster and faster and it's more and more 5 guys in all zones (defending and attacking) and if one can't keep up - it's too much of an advantage for opponents. Yeah, and we're already going to have two of those guys on our team in Edler and Gudbranson. They're both probably still quicker than Seabrook too...him coming here would make our defensive core incredibly slow. If he's a cap dump, there'd have to be some great futures coming back with him I would think. That contract is an albatross. I doubt it's more than the media pinging major markets though. Management (or ownership, probably) is really out to lunch if they genuinely think this would be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 9 hours ago, J.R. said: Be interesting if this had a cap dump angle and a moving Tanev angle. Otherwise, not really interested. The return would have to be very good for that kind of cap dump. 9 hours ago, Provost said: 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. Unless he's planning on retiring after the first ~4 years it makes no sense for us almost regardless of what they can thrown in. 9 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said: There'd better be MINIMUM 1.5 mill annually being carried by them dirtbags, AND a brilliant prospect included. No..don't touch this! My first thought was, "if the Hawks are retaining 50%, sure," but it still doesn't make sense. All that said, if the Hawks were trying to move him and he listed Vancouver as a team he'd go to, the Hawks wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't call us and ask. And we wouldn't be doing ours if we didn't pick up the phone and see how sweet they were willing to make the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, Pears said: Seabrook and DeBrincat or Bondra? Bondra has gone to the KHL because the Hawks didn't sign him. He's not even close to DeBrincat. He's a C prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckswincup8 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Benning taking cap dumps to acquire more assets. But id rather have brown (cap retained) + la 1st for nothing (or deal for eriksson) than getting seabrook. I think if benning gets seabrook deal done, he will then pull the trigger on a tanev trade. He probably want a vet dman to replace tanev so canucks d core wont be so young and inexperienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 9 minutes ago, elvis15 said: The return would have to be very good for that kind of cap dump. Unless he's planning on retiring after the first ~4 years it makes no sense for us almost regardless of what they can thrown in. My first thought was, "if the Hawks are retaining 50%, sure," but it still doesn't make sense. All that said, if the Hawks were trying to move him and he listed Vancouver as a team he'd go to, the Hawks wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't call us and ask. And we wouldn't be doing ours if we didn't pick up the phone and see how sweet they were willing to make the deal. It would come down to the expectation of how many years he has left vs the cap retention. If we think he'll play out the deal, it would need to be near 50% retained. If we expect 4 years then $1.5 mil might be enough. Let's say it's Sbisa and the 55th for Seabrook at $5.3 and Schmaltz, Hawks get a cheaper D-man and save $1.7 mil for one year but are freed up for the following season. The Canucks could then move Tanev for futures and protect Seebs, Guddy and Eddie. Then take a D at 5th or trade down, or take one with a pick returned from the Tanev trade. I'd say.... It's not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.