..

Well my thought was that VAN doesn’t have a 2020 1st and this would give them one in addition to a very good D prospect. I agree that this allows for Dzingel or Pavelski, but I don’t know who I would subtract from the forward core.

Gee, the Leaf had to trade one first rounder for one year of Marleau, maybe the Hawks have to pay the equivalent of five first rounders for five years of Seabrook

But I don't think Canucks do it. More important to have 6.875m X 5 in free cap space.

Could maybe do something with Loui Eriksson, could be a good change to motivate him

Haha I feel you on that. Luckily the Hawks aren’t in as dire of a position as the Leafs were with Marleau. Either way, it will cost them a lot to even have the chance of moving Seabrook’s contract

I think VAN has to at least consider it. Eriksson, Beagle, Schaller, and Roussel all come of the books within 3 years. They have the space for Hughes, Pettersson extensions. They get a 1st and a real good LD prospect.

That would give the Hawks about $1M in cap savings and the potential for a solid top-9 forward. Additionally, Eriksson would only be on the books for 3 years compared to Seabrook’s 5 years. I wouldn’t be opposed to that.

The reason the Canucks would do it if they knew there was a compliance buyout in two years before the expansion draft...The buyout would cost the Canucks 8m in actually cash and then they would cap free. Maybe that would make it worth it. But I think the Hawks are thinking the same thing....Two years of Seabrook.

The JT Miller trade shows me that Benning believes his team can make the postseason. Hopefully he would see this as another veteran boost to their team while also helping the future by recouping some nice assets.

The leafs were in cap hell, teams are probably much less willing to help them than the Hawks, but yeah, it's still going to be super expensive to get rid of Seabrook

Fair, I don't see why they wouldn't make this deal, all their bad contracts expire within 3 years. Why not take the additional assets? I personally think it's overpay by the hawks.

I think you’re right that Hawks are thinking the same vis a vis a buyout for Seabrook. My hope is that Bowman is aggressive to move Seabrook and improve the forward core while leaving plenty of room for next summer’s RFAs.

I 100% agree with you on all your statements.

It definitely is an overpay, but it will it take an overpay to get rid of Seabrook.

Did I miss something? Why is everyone willing to over pay to get Puljujärvi? This one isn't that bad I've seen a couple that give away more than the Rangers gave to get Trouba.

??? We wouldn't any team want to "help" the Leafs, especially if helps their own team also? Leafs were able to trade Marleau to Eastern Conference team, who may in competition with the Leafs for a playoff spot. The Leafs weren't exactly in cap hell, they did have assets they could have traded to get cap compliant. Their choice was to trade Marleau with sweetener instead of trading Nylander and get return back.

In fairness, I don’t think this is an overpay. Puljujärvi is very talented and I see Perlini at best being a 25 goal-55 point scorer and Quenneville at best being a 3rd liner. I think Puljujärvi has the potential to be a 70-80 point winger.

Realistically, the hawks are better off trying to trade Keith and say a 3rd to the panthers for Hoffman. Logic being he is still serviceable, he could be the mentor ekblad badly needs, and it opens up the spot for Panarin. While I know it wouldn’t change their cap situation, I think the panthers might go it with Q down there.

You are correct and that is much more realistic than my proposal. I would love that for the Hawks, but I think they would have to give up more than a 3rd to get Hoffman. Maybe a 2nd a mid tier forward prospect.

As I said in my first post this one isn't that bad. At this point I think it's he had the potential to be a 70-80 point winger. He's been bouncing back and forth between the AHL and NHL for 3 seasons now and he still looks like a bottom 6 player at best.

Two issues with this rebuild version...

1) I'm of the opinion that you don't think you need to trade Seabrook. It'll take a 1st and probably a 2nd to unload his contract and why do that to your future? If Seabrook starts out the season as a 3rd-line D player or even a 7th D-man on the roster and struggles early, why couldn't the Hawks just decide to buy him out? That seems like a reasonable solution for everybody AND what's to say Seabrook doesn't pull a Phil Kessel and refuse any trade anyway? Why set yourself up for such a PR disaster at that point?

2) Bowman says he wants to keep Perlini so I'd add him to the forwards for next year. Plus I'm not in the camp that believes the Hawks will try to rush Dach to NHL roster by the season opener. If he has to start in Rockford, why not?

I wouldn’t look at this as a rebuild and more of a retool. With the de Haan trade today, the Hawks have vastly improved their D core in the last two weeks. Dealing Seabrook gives them financial flexibility, which in my opinion justifies paying the price to deal him. I would be fine keeping Perlini, but I think the Hawks should see how much Puljujärvi would as cost as he’s very talented and has been misused in EDM.

But again...with Seabrook's no-move clause, you can't assume he'll agree to be traded anywhere. What if he refuses? Nobody is trading for Seabrook. Every team is just waiting for him to be bought out.

In this scenario, I assume that he waives to be traded. Obviously, it’s a pipe dream, but a dream that could conceivably come true.

Devil’s advocate: if the hawks didn’t trade him and he would just be a healthy scratch on the regular, would he just retire out of spite and give us the cap penalty? Cuz clearly he doesn’t wanna leave Chicago.