Forums/Armchair-GM

PIT trade value

Created by: jdhbike94
Initial Creation Date: Nov 18, 2019
Published: Nov 18 at 6:19 am
Team: 2019-20 Chicago Blackhawks
Team Explanation
What does the value look like here and are we even interested because we have what could be two good prospects down in Rockford

The Habs trade is only in because I’m a huge believer in trading Gus this year

The last trade is something I see in here a lot but would you consider trading Murphy for a top six winger with scoring ability and speed. Maybe something roughly built out like I have below

My last two questions are;
1. Is Seabrook actually tradable?
2. Do the hawks even think about someone like Tyson Barrie?
Trades
CHI
  1. Jarry, Tristan
PIT
  1. Fortin, Alexandre
  2. 2021 4th round pick (CHI)
CHI
  1. Bracco, Jeremy
  2. Ceci, Cody
TOR
  1. Murphy, Connor
CHI
  1. 2020 2nd round pick (CHI)
  2. 2020 3rd round pick (MTL)
MTL
  1. Smith, Zack
  2. Gustafsson, Erik
DRAFT YEARROUND 1ROUND 2ROUND 3ROUND 4ROUND 5ROUND 6ROUND 7
2020
CHI
CHI
CHI
MTL
CHI
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$78,638,461$0$7,640,000$2,861,539
Left WingCenterRight Wing
CHI
Kubalik, Dominik
$925,000
LW
RFA - 1
CHI
Toews, Jonathan
$10,500,000
C
NMC
UFA - 4
CHI
Saad, Brandon
$6,000,000
RW, LW
UFA - 2
CHI
DeBrincat, Alex
$778,333
LW, RW
RFA - 1
CHI
Strome, Dylan
$863,333
C
RFA - 1
CHI
Kane, Patrick
$10,500,000
RW, C
NMC
UFA - 4
CHI
Nylander, Alexander
$863,333
RW, LW
RFA - 2
CHI
Dach, Kirby
$925,000
C
RFA - 3
CHI
Shaw, Andrew
$3,900,000
C, RW
UFA - 3
CHI
Caggiula, Drake
$1,500,000
LW, C, RW
RFA - 1
CHI
Carpenter, Ryan
$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 3
CHI
Kämpf, David
$1,000,000
C, RW
RFA - 2
TOR
Bracco, Jeremy
$842,500
RW
RFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
CHI
De Haan, Calvin
$4,550,000
LD
UFA - 3
CHI
Boqvist, Adam
$894,167
RD
RFA - 3
CHI
Crawford, Corey
$6,000,000
G
NMC NTC
UFA - 1
CHI
Keith, Duncan
$5,538,462
LD
NMC
UFA - 4
TOR
Ceci, Cody
$4,500,000
RD
UFA - 1
CHI
Lehner, Robin
$5,000,000
G
UFA - 1
CHI
Määttä, Olli
$4,083,333
LD
UFA - 3
CHI
Seabrook, Brent
$6,875,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 5
PIT
Jarry, Tristan
$675,000
G
RFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
CHI
Koekkoek, Slater
$925,000
LD
RFA - 1

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 18 at 6:46
#1
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 2,023
Likes: 611
A. Jarry has been PIT's best goalie this year soooo... And B. Seabs is likely completely untradeable, somewhat bc if you do find a trade for him he's just gonna block it with his full NMC
Nov 18 at 7:12
#2
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 203
Likes: 89
Seabrook is definitely untradeable. His contract is absolutely terrible and it's not aging well at all. Also, the contract is basically buy-out proof. No contender is going to trade for him because of multiple reasons: his cap hit is as high as a quality middle 6 player or like a #2 defenseman. Teams rather spend that money on quality players. Seabrook isn't going to help any contender and because of the length of his contract is just too long.

Rebuilding teams might be willing to trade for Seabrook because it will basically be a trade like: a lottery pick, a 2nd or a decent prospect, Seabrook for a 7th round pick. Ottawa would be the best option since they're struggling to reach the cap floor. But Seabrook won't waive his NMC to go to a rebuilding team.

I think the trades are pretty decent. Jarry had a great start but he won't keep playing like this, so anything more than a 3rd is too much IMO. Especially with the rumors that Casey is still valued higher by the Pens
Nov 18 at 7:13
#3
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 1,479
I'm sure Seabrook could be moved to seattle after next year.
It's not the play that's bad, it's the contract. He would be fine as a bottom pairing guy but not at almost 7 million.
It's a painful cap hit to send, it will probably cost you a 1st but it will be worth it as long as you aren't picking top 10.
I would say buy him out, but there isn't really all that much cap savings and at 4 years at that cap hit, you might as well just play him.

As for the penguins trade. I don't see the penguins moving Jarry. I think DeSmith is the guy they would move and keep the younger guy who they have invested into. They spent a 2nd round pick on him. I think they want to keep that investment. DeSmith though, they would move that contract to the highest bidder.
Nov 18 at 7:29
#4
Burgers and Hockey
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 8,057
Likes: 3,399
Quoting: pharrow
I'm sure Seabrook could be moved to seattle after next year.
It's not the play that's bad, it's the contract. He would be fine as a bottom pairing guy but not at almost 7 million.
It's a painful cap hit to send, it will probably cost you a 1st but it will be worth it as long as you aren't picking top 10.


Seabrook needs to be protected since he has NMC. Also it cost 1st to move Marleau, and his contract was 6 times better since it was 6 years shorter. Shouldn't moving that horrible contract cost around the range of 6 firsts? Obviously not, but it's gonna be way more expensive you seem to think...
Nov 18 at 7:44
#5
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 116
Likes: 30
While the trades may seem pretty even I don't think as said above that PIT do that trade. I also wouldn't like to see the hawks lose Murphy for that. I feel he can be really good with Mitchell next year. I also think if Gus can continue the recent form we have seen lately which isn't impossible seeing what happened last year, I think he may be able to fetch a first, failing that your trade with the Habs is reasonable though I don't think they would do it.
ChiHawk liked this.
Nov 18 at 9:01
#6
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 406
Likes: 26
Unfortunately Jarry has been a shining star as a back up this year. I don't know anything about that prospect other than his AHL points but I doubt Pit does this. From what I've seen GMRJ love goalie depth too much to not swindle someone on a deal for Jarry or Desmith. It also seems like Pit has their goalies signed such that they'll have one available for the expansion draft per the requirements. That being said I would see GMJR looking for a second round pick instead of the 4th plus the prospect.
Nov 18 at 11:24
#7
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 1,301
That murphy trade is just bad for the Hawks. Murphy is a solid 2nd pairing (a first pairing on a bad defensive team like TOR). Ceci is a cap dump. Bracco is not nearly enough. Murphy for Kap would be a fair trade.
Nov 18 at 2:54
#8
Hawks and Isles Fan
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 478
To answer your questions, no and no.

As for the trades, really no reason to get Jarry when we have Delia in the minors and both Lehner and Crawford playing so well. Murphy is an essential part of our blueline, so I’d rather not move him either. The Gustafsson trade is fine, but the way he’s played lately, we may be able to get back more for him at the deadline imo.
Nov 18 at 5:58
#9
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 1,479
Quoting: BurgerBoss
Seabrook needs to be protected since he has NMC. Also it cost 1st to move Marleau, and his contract was 6 times better since it was 6 years shorter. Shouldn't moving that horrible contract cost around the range of 6 firsts? Obviously not, but it's gonna be way more expensive you seem to think...


this is a false narrative.
FIrst, Seabrook would obviously have to waive his NMC to enter the draft. That's a given. But it's not like players don't waive them. MAF did in Pittsburgh to become the guy again, even though he loved being a penguin. Seabrook will make a choice of either getting a chance to play or sitting. He'd rather play.
Second, the cost of moving Seabrook and Marleau is not equivalent. Everyone on here keeps going, it cost a 1st to move Marleau it takes the moon to move (Insert name here.)
None of that is true. These same people said it would take a 1st to move Gudbranson, or that it takes a 1st to move Jack Johnson. And both of those are facilities too. One already seriously proven wrong.
Third, Seattle has other issues, like reaching the cap floor.
Building a team for which they need talent quickly. You aren't going to build a star team without it and the odds they land it like Vegas did are low. Will teams be looking to dump a starting level goal tender for cap reasons to start? Will they find a diamond in the rough like Karlsson. You can begin to see the issues here. Odds are that isn't going to happen. I'm not saying they won't find any talent there, but if the expectation is they are vegas after the draft most people would say you are reaching. Most expansion teams suck.
There are always deals to move guys in expansion trades. They usually revolve around a 1st for this very reason. They take the cap while they have space, to draft guys for later down the road. The Cap hit ends by the time the talent enters into the league. It works for both teams.
Given they will have their pick of cap dumps to take. But some of them are more valuable than others. Cap dumps who can suit up and fill a role are better than those who can't or are simply IR guys.
I see Seattle picking and choosing. It's better to take a Seabrook instead of a Lucic.
Truth is Seattle will pick up a bunch of guys who can still play but have high contracts. You might see a Hornqvist, Webber, Oshie. Guys in their upper 30s but have talent.
They will add it with some younger prospect types and draft picks.
So to think Seabrook is going to cost more than a 1st is unrealistic. He's given up a total of 7 goals this year in 5v5 play. That isn't bad. There is still talent there. If he plays that well next year, he'll find a home in Seattle.
Aussie_Blackhawk liked this.
Nov 18 at 6:52
#10
Burgers and Hockey
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 8,057
Likes: 3,399
Quoting: pharrow
this is a false narrative.
FIrst, Seabrook would obviously have to waive his NMC to enter the draft. That's a given. But it's not like players don't waive them. MAF did in Pittsburgh to become the guy again, even though he loved being a penguin. Seabrook will make a choice of either getting a chance to play or sitting. He'd rather play.
Second, the cost of moving Seabrook and Marleau is not equivalent. Everyone on here keeps going, it cost a 1st to move Marleau it takes the moon to move (Insert name here.)
None of that is true. These same people said it would take a 1st to move Gudbranson, or that it takes a 1st to move Jack Johnson. And both of those are facilities too. One already seriously proven wrong.
Third, Seattle has other issues, like reaching the cap floor.
Building a team for which they need talent quickly. You aren't going to build a star team without it and the odds they land it like Vegas did are low. Will teams be looking to dump a starting level goal tender for cap reasons to start? Will they find a diamond in the rough like Karlsson. You can begin to see the issues here. Odds are that isn't going to happen. I'm not saying they won't find any talent there, but if the expectation is they are vegas after the draft most people would say you are reaching. Most expansion teams suck.
There are always deals to move guys in expansion trades. They usually revolve around a 1st for this very reason. They take the cap while they have space, to draft guys for later down the road. The Cap hit ends by the time the talent enters into the league. It works for both teams.
Given they will have their pick of cap dumps to take. But some of them are more valuable than others. Cap dumps who can suit up and fill a role are better than those who can't or are simply IR guys.
I see Seattle picking and choosing. It's better to take a Seabrook instead of a Lucic.
Truth is Seattle will pick up a bunch of guys who can still play but have high contracts. You might see a Hornqvist, Webber, Oshie. Guys in their upper 30s but have talent.
They will add it with some younger prospect types and draft picks.
So to think Seabrook is going to cost more than a 1st is unrealistic. He's given up a total of 7 goals this year in 5v5 play. That isn't bad. There is still talent there. If he plays that well next year, he'll find a home in Seattle.


False narrative my butt. Seabrook will be 36 years old with 3 years left during the expansion draft, and he's already declining. There's no telling how bad he can get in two years, even though his start of this year is acceptable for a 3rd pair D. However, with his NMC, Seattle is unable to pick Seabrook straight, meaning that CHI would have to pay them quite a lot to pick someone else and take him in the process. As VGK was the most recent team in the expansion draft, I'm taking them as examples with what they did with acquiring bad contracts...

They took at least two bad contracts in David Clarkson (from CBJ) and Mikhail Grabovski (from NYI). Grabovski had one year left, and it cost them Berube (their pick), Bischoff, a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick. That big of a cost for a one year of player and the ask of picking someone not substantial from their team. Seabrook's contract is far worse than that. CBJ asked them to pick up William Karlsson and to take Clarkson's contract, presumably because they had plans with other assets, and it cost them 1st and 2nd round picks... That much for players that weren't even fit to play...

There were also examples of d-men that were fit to play but had no role in their former teams, for instance Stoner in ANA (although he had suffered a load of injuries in the past) and Garrison in TB. For ANA it cost Theodore to dump Stoner, and for TB it cost Gusev to dump Garrison. This was done to save the cap by their former teams.

With Seabrook's situation is far worse than theirs as he has several years left (so did Clarkson but he was on LTIR and thus they got relief in salary cap). I get the idea of reaching the cap floor, that suffices as a reason to consider acquiring Seabrook. But it's extremely naive to think that moving Seabrook will cost them just a first. Think it will be at least two firsts due to the amount of term, probably a good roster player to be picked from the team (see what CBJ had to do to dump Clarkson) or possibly a good prospect if CHI wants to clarify their options more accurately for Seattle...
Nov 18 at 7:07
#11
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 1,479
Quoting: BurgerBoss
False narrative my butt. Seabrook will be 36 years old with 3 years left during the expansion draft, and he's already declining. There's no telling how bad he can get in two years, even though his start of this year is acceptable for a 3rd pair D. However, with his NMC, Seattle is unable to pick Seabrook straight, meaning that CHI would have to pay them quite a lot to pick someone else and take him in the process. As VGK was the most recent team in the expansion draft, I'm taking them as examples with what they did with acquiring bad contracts...

They took at least two bad contracts in David Clarkson (from CBJ) and Mikhail Grabovski (from NYI). Grabovski had one year left, and it cost them Berube (their pick), Bischoff, a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick. That big of a cost for a one year of player and the ask of picking someone not substantial from their team. Seabrook's contract is far worse than that. CBJ asked them to pick up William Karlsson and to take Clarkson's contract, presumably because they had plans with other assets, and it cost them 1st and 2nd round picks... That much for players that weren't even fit to play...

There were also examples of d-men that were fit to play but had no role in their former teams, for instance Stoner in ANA (although he had suffered a load of injuries in the past) and Garrison in TB. For ANA it cost Theodore to dump Stoner, and for TB it cost Gusev to dump Garrison. This was done to save the cap by their former teams.

With Seabrook's situation is far worse than theirs as he has several years left (so did Clarkson but he was on LTIR and thus they got relief in salary cap). I get the idea of reaching the cap floor, that suffices as a reason to consider acquiring Seabrook. But it's extremely naive to think that moving Seabrook will cost them just a first. Think it will be at least two firsts due to the amount of term, probably a good roster player to be picked from the team (see what CBJ had to do to dump Clarkson) or possibly a good prospect if CHI wants to clarify their options more accurately for Seattle...


if i wasn't lazy I would flag this post to come back to in 2 years during the expansion draft. Because it's not costing 2 firsts a good roster player/prospect to move him to seattle.
The cbj situation was way different to being with. They had some of their young core exposed. Chicago doesn't really have that problem.
Nov 18 at 7:11
#12
Burgers and Hockey
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 8,057
Likes: 3,399
Quoting: pharrow
if i wasn't lazy I would flag this post to come back to in 2 years during the expansion draft. Because it's not costing 2 firsts a good roster player/prospect to move him to seattle.
The cbj situation was way different to being with. They had some of their young core exposed. Chicago doesn't really have that problem.


True, it's impossible to know what kind of roster CHI has in two years, I dunno how to build a time machine. But mark my words, if CHI were to dump probably the worst contract in the entire NHL to Seattle, the cost will be far higher than you seem to think, and there's already examples about it in the previous expansion draft, as explained before...
Nov 18 at 7:13
#13
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 1,479
Quoting: BurgerBoss
True, it's impossible to know what kind of roster CHI has in two years, I dunno how to build a time machine. But mark my words, if CHI were to dump probably the worst contract in the entire NHL to Seattle, the cost will be far higher than you seem to think, and there's already examples about it in the previous expansion draft, as explained before...


ok first, he's not Lucic.
and I'll just end this there.
Nov 18 at 7:16
#14
Burgers and Hockey
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 8,057
Likes: 3,399
Quoting: pharrow
ok first, he's not Lucic.
and I'll just end this there.


Lucic's contract is shorter... He's also 3 years younger... I think they're pretty equal.
Nov 18 at 7:17
#15
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 7,328
Likes: 1,479
Quoting: BurgerBoss
Lucic's contract is shorter... He's also 3 years younger... I think they're pretty equal.


one can still be useful on the ice, the other should have retired by now.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll