Seabrook

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I don't remember reading anything anywhere about trading Seabrook, other than that silly-ass thread at Stuy's boards.[/quote]





Nor did I, which is why I asked. Guess that's not allowed here.

 

[Pez68]

Not even one REMOTELY CLOSE, and the closest, Ohlson, is no where near ready.

WHO? :lol:



Trading Seabrook certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, but I just don't see it happening. Unless, of course, his contract demands are insane. He's just not as good as Keith, and giving him a Keith-like contract, I feel, would be a mistake. The Hawks need to start being smart with the salary cap, and if Seabrook wants too much, you have to move him. It's really just that simple. I guess at that point Hammer becomes our #2.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Pez68"]



WHO? :lol:



Trading Seabrook certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, but I just don't see it happening. Unless, of course, his contract demands are insane. He's just not as good as Keith, and giving him a Keith-like contract, I feel, would be a mistake. The Hawks need to start being smart with the salary cap, and if Seabrook wants too much, you have to move him. It's really just that simple. I guess at that point Hammer becomes our #2.[/quote]



Dylan Olson.... :lol:





Keith is no where near as good without seabrook. Remind me how many hits Keith was credited for last season?



Seabrook will get 4.5 - 5 mil from some team, and is worth it. YOu ask Duncan he'd tell you no Norris without Seabrook.

 

[whalerhawk]

[quote name="R K"]





Nor did I, which is why I asked. Guess that's not allowed here.[/quote]

I'm not saying its not allowed, nor am I saying its an unreasonable request. I already said to you that a quick search revealed little. I think I read it on Whyshinski's blog, "Puck Daddy".



If I find my source, I'll post it. But I wasn't making it up. And I doubt its false. I never said the Hawks were looking to trade him, I merely said they would entertain trade offers, as any reasonable front office should do. You never know what teams would be willing to give up.

 

[whalerhawk]

[quote name="R K"]





Keith is no where near as good without seabrook. Remind me how many hits Keith was credited for last season?



Seabrook will get 4.5 - 5 mil from some team, and is worth it. YOu ask Duncan he'd tell you no Norris without Seabrook.[/quote]

If I am Seabrook, why am I settling for $4.5 when that's what Dan Hamhuis makes? If Hamhuis is making that (and Campbell is making $7.1), and I made the team Canada olympic team and neither of them did, aren't I worth $5.5 or thereabouts? If Keith and Seabrook really are a tandem duo, shouldn't they get equal money?



That's the issue. The market says Seabrook should be worth $5.5, but because Keith signed for over a decade at a below market rate, what price do you put on Seabrook's services?

 

[Guest]

[quote name="whalerhawk"]

I'm not saying its not allowed, nor am I saying its an unreasonable request. I already said to you that a quick search revealed little. I think I read it on Whyshinski's blog, "Puck Daddy".



If I find my source, I'll post it. But I wasn't making it up. And I doubt its false. I never said the Hawks were looking to trade him, I merely said they were entertaining trade offers, as any reasonable front office should do. You never know what teams would be willing to give up.[/quote]





Evan, one source of speculation is not "widely speculated". Not one of the key media people following the Hawks have ever mentioned it. Kuc, Sassone, Jahns, any of them.



Sure anything is possible but you don't break up the best D PAIR in the entire NHL unless you have too. With all the money available they will have NO PROBLEM affording another MIL for Seabrook per year.



From my conversations I seriously doubt that they'll do anything other than listen.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="whalerhawk"]

If I am Seabrook, why am I settling for $4.5 when that's what Dan Hamhuis makes? If Hamhuis is making that (and Campbell is making $7.1), and I made the team Canada olympic team and neither of them did, aren't I worth $5.5 or thereabouts? If Keith and Seabrook really are a tandem duo, shouldn't they get equal money?



That's the issue. The market says Seabrook should be worth $5.5, but because Keith signed for over a decade at a below market rate, what price do you put on Seabrook's services?[/quote]



You'd have to ask Seabrook that. Again it's not always about the money. I guess for those that don't have money it might be.



I could give you a few reasons but I wouldn't want to throw my lost step child under the bus for why he might want to stay.

 

[Pez68]

[quote name="R K"]





Keith is no where near as good without seabrook. Remind me how many hits Keith was credited for last season?



Seabrook will get 4.5 - 5 mil from some team, and is worth it. YOu ask Duncan he'd tell you no Norris without Seabrook.[/quote]



How many hits does Lidstrom average per season? About the same as Dunc. Doesn't hurt him at all does it? You don't have to hit, in order to play good defense. Most of the top pairing defensemen in the NHL, aren't overly physical..



Sure, Seabrook is worth around 4-4.5 mil per season. I agree, but I'm talking about giving him a Keith-like contract, that is paying him 5+ mil a season basically for the rest of his career. I don't see it happening. You also act like Keith is going to fall off and suddenly become a bad defenseman without Seabrook. Dunc is going to be an all-star with, or without Seabrook. Nowhere near as good? Give me a break. He held his own just fine on Team Canada, and he didn't play with Seabrook. You put a defenseman with him that is good defensively, that he doesn't have to cover for, and he doesn't miss a beat...

I guess for those that don't have money it might be.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Pez68"]



How many hits does Lidstrom average per season? About the same as Dunc. Doesn't hurt him at all does it? You don't have to hit, in order to play good defense. Most of the top pairing defensemen in the NHL, aren't overly physical..



Sure, Seabrook is worth around 4-4.5 mil per season. I agree, but I'm talking about giving him a Keith-like contract, that is paying him 5+ mil a season basically for the rest of his career. I don't see it happening. You also act like Keith is going to fall off and suddenly become a bad defenseman without Seabrook. Dunc is going to be an all-star with, or without Seabrook. Nowhere near as good? Give me a break. He held his own just fine on Team Canada, and he didn't play with Seabrook. You put a defenseman with him that is good defensively, that he doesn't have to cover for, and he doesn't miss a beat...







What is this supposed to mean?[/quote]





You have to have SOMEONE on this team that can play and is physical.



Duncan does not win the Norris without Seabrook.



And as far as covering, I think Seabrook covers for Duncan just as much as Duncan does for Seabrook.



I completely disagree.



What do you mean what does that mean. It's pretty self explanitory.



Keith is not making much more than 4.5 mil per year and for the last 3 years Seabrook has been making twice, and THREE times what keith was.



As far as giving you a break Pez? LOL!

 

[puckjim]

Seabrook would be a bargain at $5mil/yr for the rest of his career.

 

[Pez68]

[quote name="R K"]





You have to have SOMEONE on this team that can play and is physical.



Duncan does not win the Norris without Seabrook.



And as far as covering, I think Seabrook covers for Duncan just as much as Duncan does for Seabrook.



I completely disagree.[/quote]



You can disagree if you like, but the Olympics say otherwise. I absolutely love the Seabs/Keith pairing, and they ARE the best pairing in the NHL, but I think you give Seabs way too much credit for Keith's success as a defenseman. EVERY great defensive pairing has one partner covering for the other. That's not specific to Keith/Seabs at all, it's just how hockey works. As I said, he's going to be an all-star and a Norris contender with or without Seabrook. It's not like the Hawks would be replacing Seabrook with someone like Boynton... They would get another top pairing defenseman, possibly elevating Hammer into that spot, and Dunc wouldn't miss a beat. Would they be as good as Seabs/Keith? Not likely, but Dunc wouldn't suddenly suck.

What do you mean what does that mean. It's pretty self explanitory.

Just curious what the point of your statement was. There's no such thing as an NHL hockey player that doesn't have money, so what's the relevance?

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Pez68"]



You can disagree if you like, but the Olympics say otherwise. I absolutely love the Seabs/Keith pairing, and they ARE the best pairing in the NHL, but I think you give Seabs way too much credit for Keith's success as a defenseman. EVERY great defensive pairing has one partner covering for the other. That's not specific to Keith/Seabs at all, it's just how hockey works. As I said, he's going to be an all-star and a Norris contender with or without Seabrook. It's not like the Hawks would be replacing Seabrook with someone like Boynton... They would get another top pairing defenseman, possibly elevating Hammer into that spot, and Dunc wouldn't miss a beat. Would they be as good as Seabs/Keith? Not likely, but Dunc wouldn't suddenly suck.







Just curious what the point of your statement was. There's no such thing as an NHL hockey player that doesn't have money, so what's the relevance?[/quote]





oi vey. When you have millions already you think of Money in a different light than you would if you didn't. Especially when the other tangible, or why you might not get as much, is something you desire.



It's extremely relevant there buddy.



I don't think I give Seabrook to much credit, rather you give Keith too much. How's that. And your Olympics doesn't say SHIT. It's a tournament where the players try everything they can to NOT get hurt for their REAL job. Pronger looked like complete shit and Babcock kept him out there. Why, because his name was Pronger. Canada almost LOST because the coach was playing, players by last name and not talent. Once he changed that, they won gold. Amazing how that works. Funny even towards the end of the tourney Babcock had Seabrook and Keith paired. Go figure.



Neither would suck, nor would either be as good as they are now.



Funny Q split them up just before the season ended with Campbell out. How long did that last Pez? It lasted just until the PLAYOFFS STARTED.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]Seabrook would be a bargain at $5mil/yr for the rest of his career.[/quote]



Isnt that about what Keith is making?

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="R K"]



Dylan Olson.... :lol:





Keith is no where near as good without seabrook. Remind me how many hits Keith was credited for last season?



Seabrook will get 4.5 - 5 mil from some team, and is worth it. YOu ask Duncan he'd tell you no Norris without Seabrook.[/quote]

Ugh, still with the hits!? How many hits did Lidstrom get credited with?



EDIT:WTF happened to the strike through?? Anyways never mind, Pez already brought it up.

 

[roshinaya]

Having Seabs earning 5m a year would be really pushing it when it comes to smart cap management. Sure, on the open market he is surely worth it. Hopefully Seabs will settle for something in the ballpark of 4.5. That's a mil raise on what he is making now.



Keith is making 5.5.

 

[Pez68]

oi vey. When you have millions already you think of Money in a different light than you would if you didn't. Especially when the other tangible, or why you might not get as much, is something you desire.

So because we don't have millions, we think of money in a different light than, say, Seabrook? :lol: :lol:



There's a lot of evidence to back that up when looking at contract signings in hockey, right? Lots of guys taking hometown discounts...(lol)That's pretty much false for all sports, actually. You can say what you want, but VERY, VERY FEW players give up millions of dollars to stay somewhere because they like the team or the city. It just doesn't happen, and it doesn't matter if they have millions already or not.

Funny Q split them up just before the season ended with Campbell out. How long did that last Pez? It lasted just until the PLAYOFFS STARTED.

Yeah, I give Keith too much credit because he couldn't shutdown the other team's top line when paired with BRENT FUCKING SOPEL. :lol:

Ugh, still with the hits!? How many hits did Lidstrom get credited with?

Already beat you to it!

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Pez68"]



So because we don't have millions, we think of money in a different light than, say, Seabrook? :lol: :lol:



There's a lot of evidence to back that up when looking at contract signings in hockey, right? Lots of guys taking hometown discounts...(lol)That's pretty much false for all sports, actually. You can say what you want, but VERY, VERY FEW players give up millions of dollars to stay somewhere because they like the team or the city. It just doesn't happen, and it doesn't matter if they have millions already or not.







Yeah, I give Keith too much credit because he couldn't shutdown the other team's top line when paired with BRENT FUCKING SOPEL. :lol:[/quote]





Toews, Kane, Keith, and Turco. Turco just took a 4 million dollar pay cut to Play here. Kane and Toews, over a Mil and Keith, who knows with all the crazy contracts that were going on. Keep on going Pez you are amuzing. There's four just from this team off the top of my head. Try try again Pez. When you have Millions you can tell me how much Money means to you, verses what you desire.



As for the last comment, bullshit.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Ah trade his ass, maybe everyone will go back to being nice around here.........

 

[Guest]

[quote name="bubbleheadchief"]Ah trade his ass, maybe everyone will go back to being nice around here.........[/quote]





**** the Nice.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

[quote name="R K"]





**** the Nice.[/quote]

............my opinio too....yes I am trolling on this one.......



Is Seabrook tradeable, yes. Will they trade him, god I hope not...it's not often you see a defensive pairing this damn good. I am thinking 4.5 range for about 4 or 5 years.