Quoting: DoctorBreakfast
Just because he was worth his contract value when he signed it doesn't mean he's worth it now. You said so yourself that he's a #4 defenseman. In what world is paying a #4 defenseman almost $7 million for 6 years a good idea? Contracts are to be judged by AAV and how much term they have. The fact that he's got 6 more years left makes it a bad contract right here and now, especially when you can see his decline coming.
If Bowman didn't sign Seabrook you can bet some GM would have given Seabrook the exact same deal - if not more.
Do you really think if Seabrook hit the free market he would have sat there very long? hell no, he would have been the best defenseman to hit the UFA market in years. Teams would have fought one another to reel him in.
People totally forget about supply and demand and competition when it comes to contracts - especially UFA's..
And watch, John Carlson will sign somewhere for 7 years @ (at least) $6,500,000 per and no one will say a damn thing other than "eh, market value"...
And no, I didn't say Seabrook was overpaid now, I said er implied he will be overpaid MAYBE in a few years, but what were the Hawks supposed to do? let Seabrook walk for nothing? then what? I mean if Bowman did that the fans would immediately start comparing Rocky Wirtz with his father Bill - a guy that traded Roenick, Belfour and Chelios over $$$$... I mean the Hawks have spent the last 10 years trying to shed Wirtz's legacy of being cheap and a terrible owner....
So yea, I just don't see how Seabrook doesn't get the contract he did get.
But right now as I type this Seabrook is a legitimate top 4 defenseman getting paid top 4 money.....Top 2 defenseman should get 6.5-9 per and second paring (#3-4) should get 4-6.5 per, so Seabrook isn't overpaid as long as he's playing top 4 minutes and effective doing it..