Value of: 1 for 1 offer: Brent Seabrook

[SEALBound]

This is the pain and suffer or "the hangover" if you will, from those cups and all the sweatheart deals that helped.

Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, and Hossa are going no where.

 

[Jay haller]

But being able to buy your way out of bad decisions only keeps the big markets competitive (which is also probably what the NHL wants). The league should reward smart decision making, not creating loop holes and get out of jail free cards. Who was the last team that won without at least one cap circumvented contract or contract that is now considered illegal because it "artificially" lowers cap hits?

But the cap stifles good teams by breaking them up creating false parity as badly run teams get an asset on the cheap.

 

[Jay haller]

This is the pain and suffer or "the hangover" if you will, from those cups and all the sweatheart deals that helped.

Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, and Hossa are going no where.

Hossa is going somewhere probably Ottawa or Phoenix “especially if they move OEL in rebuild 3.0”

 

[LamorielloAndSon]

But being able to buy your way out of bad decisions only keeps the big markets competitive (which is also probably what the NHL wants). The league should reward smart decision making, not creating loop holes and get out of jail free cards. Who was the last team that won without at least one cap circumvented contract or contract that is now considered illegal because it "artificially" lowers cap hits?

I think players would also support it, they still get paid but have a chance to try with another team

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

As a Hawks fan, I'm hoping there's no new CBA buyouts so this talk of " just wait" stops.

Seabrook isn't the problem. The system is.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Nah that's not fair for the teams that can't afford to spend that $$$. Defeats the purpose of the salary cap.
If you reduce the NHL to 28ish teams I'm sure it could be done with few complaints, though.

Shouldn't the richer teams that are propping up these welfare cases get a bit of an advantage?

 

[Jay haller]

I think players would also support it, they still get paid but have a chance to try with another team

Meh, I don’t like it I do like relative cap/floor model as i think some form of parity is good. I’d just like to see a soft cap system with a luxury tax. (80 mill) every cap dollar over 80 mill to 90 mill is 50% luxury tax while 90-100 mill is 100% rate

So if say toronto or chicago wants to spend 100 mill they are actually paying something like 115 mill if my math is right

 

[lwvs84]

But the cap stifles good teams by breaking them up creating false parity as badly run teams get an asset on the cheap.

There hasn't been a badly run team that has challenged for the Cup, it's been a few teams that can have budgets over the cap that keep winning. They sacrifice long term assets for short-term chances at Cups. That's fine, but they need to pay price for it. You can't have a few teams that sign all the good players then just buy them out after they start declining a little. I'd be fine with it if teams got a discount against the cap on home grown talent (like only a certain percentage of the player's cap hit counted toward the cap). The league has already been dominated by big market teams for the last decade. There may be parity in the second and third tier of playoff teams, but there really isn't in the top tier (outside of this year).

 

[GaryPoppins]

half of a warm gatorade?

 

[klassic]

half of a warm gatorade?

Sold!

 

[CodeE]

Andrew Ladd, does he waive?

I wouldn't trade Ladd for Seabrook. Rather continue to let Ladd be an overpaid 3rd liner than deal with Seabrook's contract.

 

[Jay haller]

Lucic for Seabrook + your first this year. Lol, thats the only way I'm taking that contract.

Here’s the thing Lucic is nothing more than a rich man’s Ryan Reaves at this point. Seabrook has flaws but’s not a 6 million 4th line goon.

 

[DaveG]

1 for 1? Scott Darling, no retention

 

[stempniaksen]

One of the only guys in the league I wouldn't move Bobby Ryan for, which should tell you exactly how toxic that contract is.

 

[seroes]

I would not take that contract for 3 broken sticks and a used water bottle. Just ouch. Any team would have to get serious assets in return.

 

[Spazkat]

Here’s the thing Lucic is nothing more than a rich man’s Ryan Reaves at this point. Seabrook has flaws but’s not a 6 million 4th line goon.

Saying that about Lucic when Seabrook is a 33 year old 6/7 D who is going to be paid 9 MILLION dollars this year (and has a 6.8 cap hit for 6 more years) is a bit disingenuous no?

 

[ManofSteel55]

Just convince him that he's allergic to his equipment.

 

[tgo0]

Only player that might make sense is Parise although he's a better player so not sure how Minny fans would feel.

 

[goldenbladz1]

I think it should be the opposite, teams should have to pay for the deals they make. For example, all of the cap circumvented contracts and lifetime contracts should count until the end no matter what the player does. The teams benefited from them, they should face the consequences too.

True on the Seabrook contract but the Keith and Hossa contracts were signed in 2009 so I beleive they technically shouldn't be any cap recapture and trying to punish a team for something that wasn't a rule at the time is ridiculous.

 

[StuckOutHere]

Hold out for that extra amnesty buyout after the next lockout. Otherwise, literally everyone saw this coming.

 

[showtime8]

I know I'll be in the minority of Leaf fans, but I'd be interested in Seabrook with a large portion of his salary retained.

If you average out the buy-out cap hit over the length of a buy-out this off-season, it works out to be just less than 3mill (2.97M) on the cap for the 12 years.

So, does it make sense for the Hawks to retain close to that amount instead of dead weight on the cap?

I'd do a deal like Martin & Carrick for Seabrook with 2.875mill retained. That makes Seabrook a 4million dollar defenseman and makes that later years easier to stomach if you want to buy out or put in the AHL.

 

[ThatSaid]

Lucic for Seabrook + your first this year. Lol, thats the only way I'm taking that contract.

I wouldn't do Lucic for Seabrook straight-up. Both have awful contracts, comparably bad. Seabs might be a little worse, but no thanks. At least Seabrook has done something in his career to warrant his salary. Don't feel like trading Seabrook for Lucic does anything to help us so I think we'll stick with the guy who helped us win 3 Cups if all things are equal.

 

[ThatSaid]

I know I'll be in the minority of Leaf fans, but I'd be interested in Seabrook with a large portion of his salary retained.

If you average out the buy-out cap hit over the length of a buy-out this off-season, it works out to be just less than 3mill (2.97M) on the cap for the 12 years.

So, does it make sense for the Hawks to retain close to that amount instead of dead weight on the cap?

I'd do a deal like Martin & Carrick for Seabrook with 2.875mill retained. That makes Seabrook a 4million dollar defenseman and makes that later years easier to stomach if you want to buy out or put in the AHL.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. We buy Seabrook out with the next compliance buyout, or he sits on this roster while we rebuild. In no world would we retain salary on Seabrook for six years. Come on now. This isn't NHL18.

Also, FYI, it doesn't make sense for you to want the traffic cone that is Brent Seabrook at this point. That would be a monumental step in the wrong direction for an organization that has been building smart these last few seasons.

 

[member 157595]

I know I'll be in the minority of Leaf fans, but I'd be interested in Seabrook with a large portion of his salary retained.

If you average out the buy-out cap hit over the length of a buy-out this off-season, it works out to be just less than 3mill (2.97M) on the cap for the 12 years.

So, does it make sense for the Hawks to retain close to that amount instead of dead weight on the cap?

I'd do a deal like Martin & Carrick for Seabrook with 2.875mill retained. That makes Seabrook a 4million dollar defenseman and makes that later years easier to stomach if you want to buy out or put in the AHL.

Yeah, I'm not a fan. The best I'd even consider (probably still a no) would be Seabrook at 50% retained for Martin straight up (no retention) and Chicago has no reason to do that. Come to think of it, I don't like that deal either.

 

[showtime8]

No, it doesn't make sense at all. We buy Seabrook out with the next compliance buyout, or he sits on this roster while we rebuild. In no world would we retain salary on Seabrook for six years. Come on now. This isn't NHL18.

Also, FYI, it doesn't make sense for you to want the traffic cone that is Brent Seabrook at this point. That would be a monumental step in the wrong direction for an organization that has been building smart these last few seasons.

There is no guarantee of another compliance buyout window. Very likely, but not guaranteed.

So with most people admitting that there is some sort of buyout a possibility, why not get something for him instead of just buying him out. Retaining for 6 years vs. paying him for 12 years is the difference. Yes, his cap hit won't be on the books if traded or during compliance, but 1 way you're still paying him and the other you're paying at a reduced rate.

And Seabrook is the type of player that the Leafs should be looking for. They have drafted a lot of young defensemen that can skate, but can't defend or play physical. He'd pair perfectly with a Travis Dermott going forward.