Burgers and Hockey
Member Since
Oct 19, 2017
Favourite Team
Dallas Stars
2nd Favourite Team
Tampa Bay Lightning
Feb 11, 1998
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Finnish Burger Enthusiast and an over-zealous Hockey fan.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GM19 hours ago
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>pharrow</b></div><div>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.</div></div>

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...
Forum: Armchair-GMSun at 6:46 pm