rekker Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Both players are struggling. Both players would help fill some holes with their new teams. Seabrook has one fugly contract, worse than Loui's. Seabrook would mean more to this team than Loui though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Yes both are struggling,but Loui's contract is far significantly better to manage, as after this season he would only have 4 years remaining on his deal and by salary would decrease from 7 mil, 5 mil, and 4 mil the final two years of his contract. Most importantly, he has a NTC and modified NTC at the final 4 years. Thus even if he isn't able to be traded, we could still waive him, and considering that he is still a useful penalty killer atm, I can live with that. It is easier to find a forward position to bury him. Taking on Brent Seabrook's contract would be detrimental especially with a handful of young players we would have to sign in the next 3-4 years like Boeser, Pettersson, Dahlen, Juolevi after their ELC expires... Seabrook has had way too many hard miles put on his body and the reason why he is struggling so mightily this season is that he is physically slow in a fast game. Gets beat wide all the time, and doesn't have the same shutdown capabilities 4 years ago. The game is shifting to more skill and speed from the backend, Seabrook would hamper the development of our own system of how we would want to play because of his lack of foot speed. We would be married to him for another 6 years after this season, to which 4 of the seasons are with a NMC (no movement clause). After this seasin his seasonal salary for the next 6 years looks like (9 mil, 7.5mil, 5mil, 6mil, 5mil, 4.5mil). No matter how you slice it, Loui is a better option and just let his contract ride out unless you can find a poor sap that is willing to take it on for very little in return. Its a dud contract and signing, and we are paying the consequences for it, but lets not take on another bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 what hole does Loui fill for CHI? their PK and GA are pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 TBH I don't like this deal for either team. I think both players are better fits in their current situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Seabrook's contract is pretty terrible. No thank you. Eriksson is a good safety net for the kids and his contract isn't as bad as many make it seem. Sure his offence is damn near non-existent but watching him on the ice isn't too bad. It's not like he is hurting the team. The young guys will be on ELCs/Bridge contracts until his deal ends. His cap isn't needed and when it is his deal will be up anyway. Ride it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 No thanks. Both contracts are terrible, but at least there's some light at the end of the tunnel for Eriksson. Man, Bowman sure screwed the pooch with that contract. Had he sold Seabrook as a rental, he could have set the team up with young assets for another run or two. Instead, he has to deal with that anchor going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Both contracts are awful. There’s no argument (or shouldn’t be) there. However, this deal doesn’t make Chicago better. It makes them worse. And considering Vancouver’s direction (rebuilding), it doesn’t make the Canucks better in that rebuild, or make sense when it comes to extending their players. Now, with the salary cap increasing year over year, and the amount of cap space the Canucks are sure to have, the deal makes a “little” more sense on Vancouver’s end. But, as a whole, none for either side. Seabrook, along with every other bad contract, has Arizona written all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Both are garbage contracts.. rather ride out louis uselessness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Ahh the Seabrook contract.... This is a fun read. Lots of posters thinking he was superman and wouldn't slow down over the 9 years remaining... let alone 4. @Patrick Kane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, coryberg said: Ahh the Seabrook contract.... This is a fun read. Lots of posters thinking he was superman and wouldn't slow down over the 9 years remaining... let alone 4. So true. We don't want anything to do with Seabrook, and that terrible contract! Why the heck would we help out the Hawks anyway? Let them suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I remember Morrissex95 made a proposal that had Biega traded to hawks for Hartman and Seabrook. He was heavily critized and one other poster called it the worst proposal he'd ever seen. I thought value wise it was fairly close as I figured Seabrook had a terrible contract Question, how many people take that deal now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBH1926 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Seabrook is a healthy scratch tonight vs Ottawa. One of the worst contracts in the league right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoeserSnipe Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said: Yes both are struggling,but Loui's contract is far significantly better to manage, as after this season he would only have 4 years remaining on his deal and by salary would decrease from 7 mil, 5 mil, and 4 mil the final two years of his contract. Most importantly, he has a NTC and modified NTC at the final 4 years. Thus even if he isn't able to be traded, we could still waive him, and considering that he is still a useful penalty killer atm, I can live with that. It is easier to find a forward position to bury him. Taking on Brent Seabrook's contract would be detrimental especially with a handful of young players we would have to sign in the next 3-4 years like Boeser, Pettersson, Dahlen, Juolevi after their ELC expires... Seabrook has had way too many hard miles put on his body and the reason why he is struggling so mightily this season is that he is physically slow in a fast game. Gets beat wide all the time, and doesn't have the same shutdown capabilities 4 years ago. The game is shifting to more skill and speed from the backend, Seabrook would hamper the development of our own system of how we would want to play because of his lack of foot speed. We would be married to him for another 6 years after this season, to which 4 of the seasons are with a NMC (no movement clause). After this seasin his seasonal salary for the next 6 years looks like (9 mil, 7.5mil, 5mil, 6mil, 5mil, 4.5mil). No matter how you slice it, Loui is a better option and just let his contract ride out unless you can find a poor sap that is willing to take it on for very little in return. Its a dud contract and signing, and we are paying the consequences for it, but lets not take on another bad one. I haven't watched Seabrooke this year but your logic certainly makes sense. I would also suggest that there are always 'cap floor' teams every year in the NHL, so finding a suitor for Loui in 2 years when his salary is lower and he can still add value as a PK shouldn't be that hard. That being said, I am not sold on the fact he will not find his hands again. He was playing well with Granny and Sutter and when Sutter went down and that line was split, he disappeared offensively. When Sutter is back and that line back together, I wouldn't be surprised to see him find the offensive part of his game again. He seems to be a 'complimentary' v 'offensive driver' type player so his linemates matter. And I think we can look to move him after next year correct? or is it the year after? (based on ntc/nmc?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 As the Master Yoda would say, "If it is bad Hawks contract you are looking to dump, it is one Dale Tallon you need seek." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Obviously that’s an automatic match for a bad contract swap but 6 more years is till 2024 that’s a loooonnngggg time to have him under contract chi would have to sweeten the pot and eat some of his salary to make considerable like wow did I just say that?! Someone has to SWEETEN the pot for us trade eriksson away that’s how bad seabrooks contract is...never thought I’d say that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 As the Master Yoda would say, "If it is bad Hawks contract you are looking to dump, it is one Dale Tallon you need seek." Whew, some freaky quote issue. ^ This is @skolozsy2 quote above. Just responding here. Are you referring to Campbell way back when? At the time Flo was the Arizona of the day. Needed to hit the cap floor. Believe they have had two owners since? Even on the last owner, they looked to move any & every contract that had dollars owing. See Ballard, Booth, etc. The current one tried to use analytics as a way to source money ball success as its start. My point is I don't believe Florida will be taking on Seabrook's dollars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Monty said: Both contracts are awful. There’s no argument (or shouldn’t be) there. However, this deal doesn’t make Chicago better. It makes them worse. And considering Vancouver’s direction (rebuilding), it doesn’t make the Canucks better in that rebuild, or make sense when it comes to extending their players. Now, with the salary cap increasing year over year, and the amount of cap space the Canucks are sure to have, the deal makes a “little” more sense on Vancouver’s end. But, as a whole, none for either side. Seabrook, along with every other bad contract, has Arizona written all over it. LOL What Seabrook A RHD might do here is allow us to trade Guddy or Tanev for futures. I am not really an advocate of moving either. But it has been a discussion point. To help our rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 I’d do it if they took Eriksson and gave us their 1rst rounder along with Seabrook. Then I’d look into trading both Gudbranson and Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 5 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: I remember Morrissex95 made a proposal that had Biega traded to hawks for Hartman and Seabrook. He was heavily critized and one other poster called it the worst proposal he'd ever seen. I thought value wise it was fairly close as I figured Seabrook had a terrible contract Question, how many people take that deal now? Not the Blackhawks. Even if they want to dump Seabrook, Biega doesn't bring any value, and even with the offset of Seabrook's contract, he wouldn't warrant Hartman in the deal. But yeah, I don't see Eriksson for Seabrook working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.