(Signing) Chicago re-signs Brent Seabrook

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

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.

So basically you're Desi 2.0. I think I get it. It's a totally clear way to say something.

[coryberg]

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.

why use offensive output to show decline? Because it is plain as day and linked to age in each case. Also Adam Foote was considered one of the top if not the top defensive dmen in the league. He went from a +7 @30 to a -17 @34.

Does anyone who is arguing with me actually believe that Seabrook will be as good of a player at 34? How about 36? Or 39?

Most replys are "omg he thinks bieksa is better" by the illiterate crew. Pretty sad.

[coryberg]

So basically you're Desi 2.0. I think I get it. It's a totally clear way to say something.

Coming from anyone else that might hurt. I'm guessing you think that Seabrooks play won't decline over the next 9 years and this will be a good contract?

[canuck73_3]

I say the Hawks regret this deal in 5 years.

[aGENT]

Good, now I can stop seeing all the silly Seabrook signing in Van this summer posts. Wasn't happening, we'll be after other D IMO.

[Mongrel]

why use offensive output to show decline? Because it is plain as day and linked to age in each case. Also Adam Foote was considered one of the top if not the top defensive dmen in the league. He went from a +7 @30 to a -17 @34.

Does anyone who is arguing with me actually believe that Seabrook will be as good of a player at 34? How about 36? Or 39?

Most replys are "omg he thinks bieksa is better" by the illiterate crew. Pretty sad.

Nobody would think that he is likely to be as good overall at 34 as 30. So what's the problem? Is that your argument that players usually degrade with age? And your way of proving it is to point out specific players? What else changed for Adam Foote between the ages of 30 and 34 ? Here's a hint. (3rd to 23rd)

As far as the contract goes. Do you know what's going to change in 4 years? or 9? An educated guess says this contract (without something drastic happening) looks pretty good for the entire time.

Also buddy...you should just own the Bieksa thing rather than piss and moan every post about how everybody else is stupid. You said something dumb...own it and move on. You can't expect to not be called out for something like that.

[coryberg]

Nobody would think that he is likely to be as good overall at 34 as 30.

Lol not if you go by this thread

Is that your argument that players usually degrade with age?

Ding ding!!! Hence the bieksa 2.0 reference.

An educated guess says this contract (without something drastic happening) looks pretty good for the entire time.

What have you based this "education" on? Id live to see the text book that says NHL players are as good at 39 as they are at 30. It sure as hell isn't a human anatomy education.

Also buddy...you should just own the Bieksa thing

You mean like this?....

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.

or for the second time?

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.

Little late for that Sparky

[Z Hockey]

Just like Shea Weber and Alex Edler are similar players?

I do remember your trolling in that thread was exceptionally good.

I never said S. Weber and Edler were similar, and I was not trolling so don't jump to conclusions. I was telling those people to stop underating the mentioned players.

[Kazmanian Devil]

Lidstrom at 30: 0.90 PPG

Lidstrom at 34: 0.46 PPG

Bieksa is Lidstrom 2.0 confirmed???

[TheHitman]

Seabrook can be a viable #1, Bieksa can barely be a viable #4. Lol.

[coryberg]

Lidstrom at 30: 0.90 PPG

Lidstrom at 34: 0.46 PPG

Bieksa is Lidstrom 2.0 confirmed???

He was born in 1970

@30 he put up .87PPG

@34 he never played in the NHL (lockout)

@35 he put up 1.00PPG

I guess Seabrook is going to be Lidstrom. How could I be so blind. Thank you for showing me why all these posters think his play won't decline.

[Kazmanian Devil]

He was born in 1970

@30 he put up .87PPG

@34 he never played in the NHL (lockout)

@35 he put up 1.00PPG

I guess Seabrook is going to be Lidstrom. How could I be so blind. Thank you for showing me why all these posters think his play won't decline.

Where did I mention Seabrook m8?

:]

[coryberg]

Where did I mention Seabrook m8?

:]

I'm sorry... you post in the wrong thread?

[Amish Rake Fighter]

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

he's not really a Blackhawks fan, though, he's more of a hockey fashionista

[SaintPatrick33]

Seabrooks game is not built on speed, he is just a smart player overall and knows when to be physical and to avoid hits. He can be good until 37 realistically and by then the NTC is moved, great signing. He can QB a PP and has a wicked shot, how many big goals has he scored in the playoffs with that Boomer? I doubt his shot will decline so fast.

[Mongrel]

1. Lol not if you go by this thread

2. Ding ding!!! Hence the bieksa 2.0 reference.

3. What have you based this "education" on? Id live to see the text book that says NHL players are as good at 39 as they are at 30. It sure as hell isn't a human anatomy education.

4. You mean like this?....

or for the second time?

5. Little late for that Sparky

1. Absolutely if you go by this thread. Just because people think you're talking out of your ass doesn't mean they're all stupid.

2. Yeah and almost every other player in any sport ever. The unfortunate part of your argument is the hyperbole.

3.I base it on having half a brain. You see his cap hit as he ages will obviously stay the same. However chances are the percentage that he takes up will go down because history dictates the cap keeps going up.

4. JUST own it. After that leave it alone. I mean hell you even brought it up again in this response.

5. You conveniently didn't comment about Adam Foote. Why's that? Here let me do it for you. When Adam Foote was 30 he played on the Colorado Avalanche; A team that finished that year in 3rd place league wide. 4 years later he played on the Columbus Bluejackets who finished 23rd in the league. Your example; along with being a dishonest representation of your point, leaves out the context of the situation. 4 years isn't that much and most players don't become decrepit by the time they hit 34. Most players who are star calibre players are still star calibre players. Seabrooke is without a doubt a star calibre top pairing D-man. Give your head a shake.

[coryberg]

Oh wow, where to begin...

1. Absolutely if you go by this thread. Just because people think you're talking out of your ass doesn't mean they're all stupid.

You say I'm talking out my ass because I'm saying that Seabrook won't be able to keep up his level of play?

Yet in your earlier response you said "Nobody would think that he is likely to be as good overall at 34 as 30". Are you changing your stance or are you talking out of your ass too?

2. Yeah and almost every other player in any sport ever.

and then once again you agree... is this the twilight zone?

3.I base it on having half a brain. You see his cap hit as he ages will obviously stay the same. However chances are the percentage that he takes up will go down because history dictates the cap keeps going up.

It all makes sense now....What happened to the other half?

4. JUST own it. After that leave it alone. I mean hell you even brought it up again in this response.

I showed you the 2 times I owned it cause you obviously missed it.

5. You conveniently didn't comment about Adam Foote. Why's that? Here let me do it for you. When Adam Foote was 30 he played on the Colorado Avalanche; A team that finished that year in 3rd place league wide. 4 years later he played on the Columbus Bluejackets who finished 23rd in the league. Your example; along with being a dishonest representation of your point, leaves out the context of the situation. 4 years isn't that much and most players don't become decrepit by the time they hit 34.

You conveniently didn't comment about the other 2 examples? Whys that? Didn't fit your argument?

That's fine we can talk about Foote...

when he was 30 he did play well for the aves (.49 points per game +7)

when he was 34 his numbers dropped playing for the Blue jackets (.20 points per game -17)

the next season he was traded back to the aves and in 54 games put up .15 points per game and was -13

notice a trend?

[Mongrel]

1Oh wow, where to begin...

You say I'm talking out my ass because I'm saying that Seabrook won't be able to keep up his level of play?

Yet in your earlier response you said "Nobody would think that he is likely to be as good overall at 34 as 30". Are you changing your stance or are you talking out of your ass too?

and then once again you agree... is this the twilight zone?

It all makes sense now....What happened to the other half?

2.I showed you the 2 times I owned it cause you obviously missed it.

3.You conveniently didn't comment about the other 2 examples? Whys that? Didn't fit your argument?

That's fine we can talk about Foote...

when he was 30 he did play well for the aves (.49 points per game +7)

when he was 34 his numbers dropped playing for the Blue jackets (.20 points per game -17)

the next season he was traded back to the aves and in 54 games put up .15 points per game and was -13

4. notice a trend?

1.Genius I said Seabrook wouldn't keep up his level of play and I said it's because most players don't. I didn't change my stance you just failed to grasp what I had said. I also was very clear though that his contract (which I feel the need to spell this out for you) would still probably look good because as his play degrades the percentage of his cap hit will go down do to a raising of the salary cap.

2. Dude just stop. You owned it and you haven't shut up about it since you owned it.

3.I don't even remember the other ones. Wade Reddon and someone else right. Gosh gee I wonder why you picked Wade Reddon almost as much as I wonder why you picked points and +/- to try to describe a d-mans play. Yeah lets talk about Foote. The season he was traded back to the avalanche he was traded at the end of February for a 1st round pick and a 4th round pick. Yeah that useless 36 year old plug could only command a first round pick.

So a 36 year old gets traded 2/3rd the way through a season and gets a first rounder. Notice how that might make what you're saying seem foolish?

4.Yeah players get worse as they age and we can make that look however we want by cherry picking what stats to use. Didn't I already agree to that? What part of this are you having trouble grasping? Maybe you've just had so many people point out the stupidity of your argument that you're getting posters mixed up?

Want to take a look at Rob Blake next?

[Kazmanian Devil]

coryberg dropping some serious knowledge here guys

who knew that players tend to decline with age

[coryberg]

I also was very clear though that his contract (which I feel the need to spell this out for you) would still probably look good because as his play degrades the percentage of his cap hit will go down do to a raising of the salary cap.

The cap is at 71.4m this year, you expect it to be 110M in 5 years? maybe 140M in 9?

The cap went up 2.1 million and was even predicted to be lower due to the dropping Canadian dollar. Even if it continued at 2 mil a year that's only 89 million in 9 years.

Right now his cap would be at 9.5% of the teams....

In 9 years at 89 mil he would be at 7.7%.

so by simple percentages his contract will look 19% better. Do you think he will be 81% of the player he is right now?

2. Dude just stop. You owned it and you haven't shut up about it since you owned it.

you ask me to own it, i show you i did then you ask me to own it again, now you tell me to shut up about owning it.

3.I don't even remember the other ones. Wade Reddon and someone else right. Gosh gee I wonder why you picked Wade Reddon almost as much as I wonder why you picked points and +/- to try to describe a d-mans play.

I wonder why...maybe its because they were team canada dmen as well. As far as just showing points and +/-? Sorry....couldn't find a hero chart what is your preferred way of judging a player? When did scoring and not getting scored on stop mattering in the game of hockey?I used the stats that were readily available to show the downward trend. funny that you whine about it seeing as you agree with me anyways....or do you? all this flip flopping is getting confusing.

Yeah lets talk about Foote. The season he was traded back to the avalanche he was traded at the end of February for a 1st round pick and a 4th round pick. Yeah that useless 36 year old plug could only command a first round pick.

So a 36 year old gets traded 2/3rd the way through a season and gets a first rounder. Notice how that might make what you're saying seem foolish?

The same Adam foote who was a team canada dman at 30, the best shutdown dman in the league... only fetched a late first in a weak draft? Id call that depreciation at its finest, still cant tell if you are arguing or agreeing here.

Want to take a look at Rob Blake next?

The Norris trophy winning, 6 time all star, 3 time olympic player who scored 19 points in 23 games during his stanley cup win Rob Blake?

for you? why not?

At age 30 he put up .88 points per game in the regular season and .82 in the playoffs

at age 34 he didnt play (lockout) but for your sake we will look at 33 and 35 to be fair.

at age 33 he put up .62 points per game in the regular season and .55 in the playoffs

at age 35 he put up .62 points per game in the regular season and .44 in the playoffs

I'm fairly certain you are trolling me. all this agreeing then disagreeing, the apparent lack of mathematical comprehension, asking me to do something and then asking me not to do it. even with your already admitted half a brain you cant have done all this by mistake.

Truth is nobody will know how it plays out. But mathematics, history, physics, biology and economy all point in a downward direction. That's what you call an educated guess.

I'm done on this subject.

Cue kane the tard...

I

I

I

V