Forums/Armchair-GM

Hawks Seabrook trade

Created by: TopLineTom43
Initial Creation Date: Nov 6, 2019
Published: Nov 6 at 2:22 pm
Team: 2019-20 Chicago Blackhawks
Team Explanation
I’m Not a fan but I imagine this would be close to cost to dump him. Just bored and saw some hawks fans are angry and want change. More interested in the capitals trade. Sorry if I made you mad.
Trades
CHI
  1. 2020 4th round pick (OTT)
OTT
  1. Dach, Kirby
  2. Seabrook, Brent
  3. 2021 2nd round pick (CHI)
CHI
  1. Dubé, Dillon
  2. 2020 2nd round pick (CGY)
Additional Details:
2nd becomes a 1st if the flames make the wcf
CGY
  1. Lehner, Robin
CHI
  1. Stephenson, Chandler
  2. Pánik, Richard
WSH
  1. Shaw, Andrew
CHI
  1. Puljujärvi, Jesse [Reserve List]
  2. 2020 2nd round pick (EDM)
Additional Details:
Doesn’t need to be the oilers but a similar return from a different team.
EDM
  1. Gustafsson, Erik
DRAFT YEARROUND 1ROUND 2ROUND 3ROUND 4ROUND 5ROUND 6ROUND 7
2020
CHI
CGY
EDM
CHI
CHI
OTT
CHI
CHI
2021
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
MTL
2022
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES BONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$69,524,294$0$5,240,000$11,975,706
Left WingCenterRight Wing
CHI
Nylander, Alexander
$863,333
RW, LW
RFA - 2
CHI
Toews, Jonathan
$10,500,000
C
NMC
UFA - 4
CHI
Kane, Patrick
$10,500,000
RW, C
NMC
UFA - 4
CHI
DeBrincat, Alex
$778,333
LW, RW
RFA - 1
CHI
Strome, Dylan
$863,333
C
RFA - 1
CHI
Saad, Brandon
$6,000,000
RW, LW
UFA - 2
CHI
Caggiula, Drake
$1,500,000
LW, C, RW
RFA - 1
CHI
Kämpf, David
$1,000,000
C, RW
RFA - 2
WSH
Pánik, Richard
$2,750,000
LW, RW
UFA - 4
CHI
Smith, Zack
$3,250,000
LW, C
NTC
UFA - 2
WSH
Stephenson, Chandler
$1,050,000
LW, C
RFA - 1
CHI
Carpenter, Ryan
$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 3
CHI
Kubalik, Dominik
$925,000
LW
RFA - 1
CGY
Dubé, Dillon
$778,333
C
RFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
CHI
Keith, Duncan
$5,538,462
LD
NMC
UFA - 4
CHI
Murphy, Connor
$3,850,000
RD
UFA - 3
CHI
Crawford, Corey
$6,000,000
G
NMC NTC
UFA - 1
CHI
De Haan, Calvin
$4,550,000
LD
UFA - 3
CHI
Boqvist, Adam
$894,167
RD
RFA - 3
CHI
Delia, Collin
$1,000,000
G
UFA - 3
CHI
Määttä, Olli
$4,083,333
LD
UFA - 3
CHI
Koekkoek, Slater
$925,000
LD
RFA - 1
CHI
Gilbert, Dennis
$925,000
LD
RFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Nov 6 at 2:33
#1
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 764
Better just to hang on and eat Seabrook's contract than trade away Dach & a 2nd.
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 2:36
#2
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: tkecanuck341
Better just to hang on and eat Seabrook's contract than trade away Dach & a 2nd.


Can’t argue that. But then you waste the remaining good years of Toews and Kane for a pretty good player. Idk what dach ceiling is but is it worth missing the playoffs and losing while your superstar are still good ? Just asking I have no real dog in this fight. The core guys won 3 cups so they have achieved greatness.
Nov 6 at 2:43
#3
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 617
Yup, iirc when CHI was entertaining talks of trading down from three, nobody would take pick 3 and the Seabs contract
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 2:47
#4
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 231
Likes: 62
Won’t happen. Seabrook, if he chooses to leave would want to play for club who will compete for the cup. Why would Ottawa take Seabrook’s contract?
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 2:49
#5
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: AFOX10900
Yup, iirc when CHI was entertaining talks of trading down from three, nobody would take pick 3 and the Seabs contract


That contract is pretty rough. You think it would cost more? I haven’t watched him play this year. Is seabrook that bad?
Nov 6 at 2:50
#6
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: Hawksince71
Won’t happen. Seabrook, if he chooses to leave would want to play for club who will compete for the cup. Why would Ottawa take Seabrook’s contract?


They more than likely wouldn’t. Thought offering the #3 overall pick would maybe entice them.
Nov 6 at 2:58
#7
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 764
Quoting: TopLineTom43
Can’t argue that. But then you waste the remaining good years of Toews and Kane for a pretty good player. Idk what dach ceiling is but is it worth missing the playoffs and losing while your superstar are still good ? Just asking I have no real dog in this fight. The core guys won 3 cups so they have achieved greatness.


I hardly think Seabrook is the sole factor in missing the playoffs or being a contender. It's certainly not worth dumping their best prospect since Patrick Kane.
Nov 6 at 3:00
#8
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 203
Likes: 89
Well the value is about right to get rid of Seabrook. Great prospect or a lotterypick and a 2nd at least. And Ottawa could be the only team who is kinda willing to make a trade including Seabrook
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 3:01
#9
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: tkecanuck341
I hardly think Seabrook is the sole factor in missing the playoffs or being a contender. It's certainly not worth dumping their best prospect since Patrick Kane.


DeBrincat And Nylander are very good. And I probably should have worded that better. His cap could be used to upgrade areas of need. They could use his cap to get a few minor tweak players or go for a big fish.
Nov 6 at 3:08
#10
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 764
Quoting: TopLineTom43
DeBrincat And Nylander are very good. And I probably should have worded that better. His cap could be used to upgrade areas of need. They could use his cap to get a few minor tweak players or go for a big fish.


Dach is going to be on a ELC for the next 3 years on a six-figure contract. Trading him away and replacing another "area of need" would require that they spend a significant amount of money to get a player of his caliber to replace him. Just pretend that Dach is on a $6M contract and that Seabrook is a $1.8M defenseman and it all of a sudden doesn't look so bad.
Nov 6 at 3:16
#11
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: tkecanuck341
Dach is going to be on a ELC for the next 3 years on a six-figure contract. Trading him away and replacing another "area of need" would require that they spend a significant amount of money to get a player of his caliber to replace him. Just pretend that Dach is on a $6M contract and that Seabrook is a $1.8M defenseman and it all of a sudden doesn't look so bad.


Does dach have a performance bonus? And I don’t think dach is quiet a 6m player especially for what Cat signed for but I do understand Your point.
Nov 6 at 3:19
#12
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 98
Likes: 34
Quoting: AFOX10900
Yup, iirc when CHI was entertaining talks of trading down from three, nobody would take pick 3 and the Seabs contract


It was Vancouver who wanted the 3rd overall because they hosted the draft, and the trade wouldve been 3rd plus Seabs for the 10th overall, which is why they didnt do it. If it was just the 3rd overall with Seabs for a 4th rounder I think they wouldve accepted that in a heart beat, considering they were actually thinking about doing the trade for the 10th overall but ultimately didnt want to pull the trigger.
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 3:21
#13
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 231
Likes: 62
Quoting: TopLineTom43
That contract is pretty rough. You think it would cost more? I haven’t watched him play this year. Is seabrook that bad?


He has struggled, but with the team playing poorly, he has become the scapegoat. I have stated the Hawk’s problem isn’t defence, but their offence. They are last in goals scored.

A team giving up 51 & 49 shots respectively on this road trip can be thought as playing poorly defensively, but the most part, they are not getting beat on odd man rushes, and in the defensive zone managing the passing lanes effectively. I am comparing to how brutal the club played last season. The high shots on net, I think can be attributed to a lack of puck possession. The Hawks are chasing the puck, not winning the board battles any place on the ice, when they have the puck their passing and offensive attack as a unit have been brutal. There is no sense of urgency.

The glaring positive has been the goaltending. It is being wasted. Yes the Hawks are guilty as a team, of clearing puck out of their zone, but I think more so failing to execute their scoring chances.
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 6 at 3:24
#14
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 78
Quoting: Hawksince71
He has struggled, but with the team playing poorly, he has become the scapegoat. I have stated the Hawk’s problem isn’t defence, but their offence. They are last in goals scored.

A team giving up 51 & 49 shots respectively on this road trip can be thought as playing poorly defensively, but the most part, they are not getting beat on odd man rushes, and in the defensive zone managing the passing lanes effectively. I am comparing to how brutal the club played last season. The high shots on net, I think can be attributed to a lack of puck possession. The Hawks are chasing the puck, not winning the board battles any place on the ice, when they have the puck their passing and offensive attack as a unit have been brutal. There is no sense of urgency.

The glaring positive has been the goaltending. It is being wasted. Yes the Hawks are guilty as a team, of clearing puck out of their zone, but I think more so failing to execute their scoring chances.


Thank you for that explanation. I don’t really get to see too many Chicago games. You think that’s a system issue or talent issue?
Nov 6 at 3:34
#15
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 98
Likes: 34
Quoting: TopLineTom43
Thank you for that explanation. I don’t really get to see too many Chicago games. You think that’s a system issue or talent issue?


I think its a motivational issue. This started on the backend of Q's time with the Hawks, basically started after Panarin and Hammer went, so there wasn't too much roster turnover that led to the fall. Maybe the guys decided there wasn't anything left to play for. Maybe they just suck now. Who knows
TopLineTom43 liked this.
Nov 7 at 11:53
#16
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 231
Likes: 62
Quoting: TopLineTom43
Thank you for that explanation. I don’t really get to see too many Chicago games. You think that’s a system issue or talent issue?


I have watched every game the Hawks played this year. What I think is a liability is team speed.

Team speed can create penalties. Many holding an hooking penalties can associated by faster teams. The Hawks are not drawing these penalties. They are taking them. They are not generating more power play opportunities, and it was what kept in hockey games last season.
What has been most alarming to me, has been their inept passing and shooting (they are missing the net too frequently).

If you can, check out game with the Kings, late in the third period when Toews scored. Their passing and puck possession was supreme. They had the Kings running around in their zone for 20 - 30 seconds. I don’t think it is a lack of talent, but a true desire to win.

For the past decade for the most part, the Hawks had the depth and could score almost at will. I think now if they want to see more W’s, then they must outwork other clubs. Start by winning the board battles. I think they need to play a little more physical.

As I said before, what is positive is their goaltending. Goaltending can steal wins. I don’t think this club is that far away from competing for a playoff spot. I like their defence for the most part. Get the puck out the first time. Limit the shots on net. Puck possession and puck management would do that. They need to find a way to score more.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll