Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Old_Hawk

Seabrook

Recommended Posts

hsbob said on 9 minutes ago:

You have no better idea what the future holds than the rest of us so I agree with the bolded  part. Seabs could easily be a very good D-man for several more years and then a floor team might very well have interest. 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

Agree with that too 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
irmaks said on 2 hours ago:

I'm not toying with any ideas, I'm just saying that in a couple years we all wish that contract never happened. 

Again, I think of Joe Thornton who was discussed here recently.  He has signed 4 consecutive three year contracts, starting the year he was traded by Boston.  I understand why very long term front end loaded contracts were the rave in the first CBA.  This was addressed with the 7/8 year term limits in the 2013 agreement.  Yet in Jumbo Joe's case, I imagine he has been able to settle down in San Jose inspite of shorter term deals.  It seems to me nowadays when guys are given the security of max term, it really can be detrimental to their team in regard to flexibility.  I am not necessarily suggesting anything against Seabrook and the Blackhawks but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yooper496 said on 2 hours ago:

Again, I think of Joe Thornton who was discussed here recently.  He has signed 4 consecutive three year contracts, starting the year he was traded by Boston.  I understand why very long term front end loaded contracts were the rave in the first CBA.  This was addressed with the 7/8 year term limits in the 2013 agreement.  Yet in Jumbo Joe's case, I imagine he has been able to settle down in San Jose inspite of shorter term deals.  It seems to me nowadays when guys are given the security of max term, it really can be detrimental to their team in regard to flexibility.  I am not necessarily suggesting anything against Seabrook and the Blackhawks but it is what it is.

Unlike Joe Thornton,Brent Seabrook has been one of the best post season players in the league and the organization decided to wrap him up long term,it is what it is.

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yooper496 said on 3 hours ago:

Again, I think of Joe Thornton who was discussed here recently.  He has signed 4 consecutive three year contracts, starting the year he was traded by Boston.  I understand why very long term front end loaded contracts were the rave in the first CBA.  This was addressed with the 7/8 year term limits in the 2013 agreement.  Yet in Jumbo Joe's case, I imagine he has been able to settle down in San Jose inspite of shorter term deals.  It seems to me nowadays when guys are given the security of max term, it really can be detrimental to their team in regard to flexibility.  I am not necessarily suggesting anything against Seabrook and the Blackhawks but it is what it is.

The only reason why Joe signed shorter deals, is because he never won. If he won a Cup there, he would a got the max deal. However, he was given a full NMC. And they could never move him, and they tried to move him a couple times and it failed. He and Doug Wilson were at odds over that. I do believe his last deal was 4 years though. Anyways, Seabs has won 3 times, and it's tough not to see the logic in locking him up!!!

Edited by Big-T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big-T said on 11 minutes ago:

The only reason why Joe signed shorter deals, is because he never won. If he won a Cup there, he would a got the max deal. However, he was given a full NMC. And they could never move him, and they tried to move him a couple times and it failed. He and Doug Wilson were at odds over that. I do believe his last deal was 4 years though. Anyways, Seabs has won 3 times, and it's tough not to see the logic in locking him up!!!

I don't think it is the way to build a team by giving enormous contracts based on a previous achievements. 

Let's pretend that Seabs never played for Hawks. Would you be ok by giving that contract to 32 years old player whose best days are behind him even though he won cup multiple times before? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
irmaks said on 1 hour ago:

I don't think it is the way to build a team by giving enormous contracts based on a previous achievements. 

Let's pretend that Seabs never played for Hawks. Would you be ok by giving that contract to 32 years old player whose best days are behind him even though he won cup multiple times before? 

I'd give him the max 7 year deal. I mean, if you've never won a Cup, you want your team to win at all costs. He'd probably get 8+ million on the open market, so I guess for a Dman who constantly gets 40 plus points and wins when it counts, that's a guy you wanna pay. Whether we like it or not, the regular season is just a tune up for the playoffs. The team has nothing to prove in the regular season. They probably could win 62-65 games a year and bow out in the 1st round, but it's better to just stay the course and win when it matters!!!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hsbob said on 9 hours ago:

Unlike Joe Thornton,Brent Seabrook has been one of the best post season players in the league and the organization decided to wrap him up long term,it is what it is.

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

You like to throw my words back at me in your replies.  Nice.  Original.  Oh well.  

My point was flexibility or lack thereof which you seemed to miss.  Thornton, in this instance, has basically put the Sharks ahead of himself.  Kinda refreshing for a professional athlete to do, wouldn't you agree?!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big-T said on 8 hours ago:

The only reason why Joe signed shorter deals, is because he never won. If he won a Cup there, he would a got the max deal. However, he was given a full NMC. And they could never move him, and they tried to move him a couple times and it failed. He and Doug Wilson were at odds over that. I do believe his last deal was 4 years though. Anyways, Seabs has won 3 times, and it's tough not to see the logic in locking him up!!!

Chicago won three times with Seabrook.  

Ovechkin got a monster deal, Weber got a offer sheet for a monster deal.  Have they won?  Or more specifically, have their teams won?  For anyone to say "the only reason why" is actually hard to believe.  I think Thornton signed all of those 3 year deals along with almost the same amount for 12 years is an honor to him.  He seemed to put the team and his teammates ahead of himself.  He could have commanded outrageous contracts for his own security but hasn't as far as I can tell.  And that is refreshing!  Also, remember teams pay players during the regular season.  They may sign them because of post season productivity but that is no garrentee of winning Cups.  And like the other poster said, rewarding guys based on past accomplishments might turn out to be folly as well.

You and hsbob seem to say because teams win championships, therefore all the star players deserve every penny they can get.  (And screw the others who might also be worthy of retaining.).  I was totally against the contracts Toews and Kane signed.  I was even more against the contract Seabrook signed.  And yet I am not upset one iota Chicago re-signed all three; I just don't like the residuals.  To me, the TEAM has to come first.  Paying a select few for dollars, term and security without concern for the future is a huge risk.  Spreading the wealth more would seem to make more sense to me if the real goal is to win more Cups.

BTW, I do not mind when we here are in disagreement.  I will still value each fellow poster and their opinions.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoop, if I have time I will find Wilsons comments on why Joe signed those deals. Wilson clearly stated many times that his teams that his teams window was closing and he didn't want to be married to his players. His last two deals Wilson tried to trade him at least 3 times, and Joe used his NMC. He and Wilson feuded a couple years ago over it. Wilson expressed that he wanted to rebuild on many occasions, but he couldn't cuz his hands were tied. Marleau and Joe shouldn't have been re-signed their last deals, but Wilson chased the dream once more, he came close, but he's gonna have to tear it down soon. That's the only reason he was signed to shorter term deals!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yooper496 said on 4 hours ago:

Chicago won three times with Seabrook.  

Ovechkin got a monster deal, Weber got a offer sheet for a monster deal.  Have they won?  Or more specifically, have their teams won?  For anyone to say "the only reason why" is actually hard to believe.  I think Thornton signed all of those 3 year deals along with almost the same amount for 12 years is an honor to him.  He seemed to put the team and his teammates ahead of himself.  He could have commanded outrageous contracts for his own security but hasn't as far as I can tell.  And that is refreshing!  Also, remember teams pay players during the regular season.  They may sign them because of post season productivity but that is no garrentee of winning Cups.  And like the other poster said, rewarding guys based on past accomplishments might turn out to be folly as well.

You and hsbob seem to say because teams win championships, therefore all the star players deserve every penny they can get.  (And screw the others who might also be worthy of retaining.).  I was totally against the contracts Toews and Kane signed.  I was even more against the contract Seabrook signed.  And yet I am not upset one iota Chicago re-signed all three; I just don't like the residuals.  To me, the TEAM has to come first.  Paying a select few for dollars, term and security without concern for the future is a huge risk.  Spreading the wealth more would seem to make more sense to me if the real goal is to win more Cups.

BTW, I do not mind when we here are in disagreement.  I will still value each fellow poster and their opinions.

 

Well Yoop....the thing is....

Another GM/team would gladly pay any of these players the same or more to make their team better

Just imagine waking up some day and reading Toews /Kane/Seabs  have been traded off.

Any one of them goes away....The Chicago Blackhawks are no longer the Chicago Blackhawks  

It's easier to be a fan than it is to be a GM.....JMO                          /

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icaddiedforstosh said on 17 minutes ago:

Well Yoop....the thing is....

Another GM/team would gladly pay any of these players the same or more to make their team better

Just imagine waking up some day and reading Toews /Kane/Seabs  have been traded off.

Any one of them goes away....The Chicago Blackhawks are no longer the Chicago Blackhawks  

It's easier to be a fan than it is to be a GM.....JMO                          /

As it was previously mentioned would they go to another team? Maybe be yes maybe no, no one knows, but don't they have a lot of commercial endorsements because they are where they are now, in Chicago ?

As one smart person mentioned before, 'you can't make all the money in the world' 

Edited by irmaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yooper496 said on 8 hours ago:

You like to throw my words back at me in your replies.  Nice.  Original.  Oh well.  

My point was flexibility or lack thereof which you seemed to miss.  Thornton, in this instance, has basically put the Sharks ahead of himself.  Kinda refreshing for a professional athlete to do, wouldn't you agree?!

I happen to end my post with the same five words you ended yours with and you perceive that as some type of personal insult or slight?  Nice? Original?

I don't miss your point as far as flexibility either.....I miss little. An organization isn't looking for flexibility with a long term signing,they're looking for sta-bility. Teams obviously value players who continuously UP their play when games matter most,players who can lead teams and score game winners in close out games. Those are the highest pressure situations and many great players succumb to that pressure and Jumbo Joe has always been one. 

The Hawks were able to lock it down against Boston,Detroit and Tampa when it mattered most,the Bolts were on fire coming into the 15 SCF and the Hawks won four 2-1 games and Brent Seabrook had a lot to do with all of that great stuff........great for me anyway.

The grass is always greener on the other side,every other GM signs players more efficiently and that's why Princess Phaneuf makes more than Seabs and why guys like Mike Green and Brooks Orpik aren't that far behind. He was a big part of winning three cups and he received a 1M AAV raise for it because many other teams also value cup winning experience and woulda paid more for it than the Hawks did IMO.

The Habs traded one of the best,young D-men in the game for an older D-man who's the same age as Seabs,makes 1M more and is signed for two more years because they see the need now and figure they can deal with the later, later.   

 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hsbob said on 14 minutes ago:

I happen to end my post with the same five words you ended yours with and you perceive that as some type of personal insult or slight?  Nice? Original?

I don't miss your point as far as flexibility either.....I miss little. An organization isn't looking for flexibility with a long term signing,they're looking for sta-bility. Teams obviously value players who continuously UP their play when games matter most,players who can lead teams and score game winners in close out games. Those are the highest pressure situations and many great players succumb to that pressure and Jumbo Joe has always been one. 

The Hawks were able to lock it down against Boston,Detroit and Tampa when it mattered most,the Bolts were on fire coming into the 15 SCF and the Hawks won four 2-1 games and Brent Seabrook had a lot to do with all of that great stuff........great for me anyway.

The grass is always greener on the other side,every other GM signs players more efficiently and that's why Princess Phaneuf makes more than Seabs and why guys like Mike Green and Brooks Orpik aren't that far behind. He was a big part of winning three cups and he received a 1M AAV raise for it because many other teams also value cup winning experience and woulda paid more for it than the Hawks did IMO.

The Habs traded one of the best,young D-men in the game for an older D-man who's the same age as Seabs,makes 1M more and is signed for two more years because they see the need now and figure they can deal with the later, later.   

 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Seabrook is a great player, no one is arguing that managers that gave those contracts to players you just mentioned made huge mistakes.

We are saying that giving that contract (money and length) for previous achievements not the right way to build that team for the future. But again it is just our opinion.

As you mentioned yourself Weber is signed for 2 more years, which is great because at 34 he should be paid much less, but it is not necessarily is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
irmaks said on 6 minutes ago:

I don't think anyone is arguing that Seabrook is a great player, no one is arguing that managers that gave those contracts to players you just mentioned made huge mistakes.

We are saying that giving that contract (money and length) for previous achievements not the right way to build that team for the future. But again it is just our opinion.

As you mentioned yourself Weber is signed for 2 more years, which is great because at 34 he should be paid much less, but it is not necessarily is going to happen.

Part of a Seab's deal IS for past achievements but not as a reward,the past only inters into it as far as the team's realization that this player is able to up his play when games matter most and expect him to do so for several more years at 31. If he continues to be a solid 40+ point D-man for the next few years,the team will have that consistency they require and will somehow deal with the last few years of the contract.......maybe he doesn't mind spendin' a few winters in a nice warm desert climate at the end.

I understand future concerns but the future is usually now for great teams,I know it is for old hockey fans!LOL!  Many GM's do indeed build for the future and many of them aren't around to see it.

 

GO HAWKS!!!!!   

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Dale Tallon way overpaid for free agent mercenaries such as Khabibulin, Havlat, Campbell and Cullimore (among others), I strongly objected to this approach.   What had these players done for this team to justify these salaries?  

But taking offence to the contracts for any of the homegrown players now - Seabrook, Toews or Kane - is wrongheaded to my mind.  These guys have earned every penny for what they have accomplished here.  Not one of them is overpaid (if valued as a UFA on the open market).   

Bobby Hull was pushed out of Chicago because of money.   So was Steve Larmer, Chris Chelios and countless others.  

This cycle, thankfully, has finally ended, and the results speak.

If the team does not earn another championship in my lifetime, at this stage - so what?   They already have three of them.   I believe more will come if the core is kept whole.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MVR I agree with everything except the signing of Campbell and maybe even Khabi. The team was terrible, and they needed some quality guys to protect our kids for a year or so. Campbell especially was an awesome signing due to his ability to teach the younger guys. And he's proven it time and time again. When he was with Keith, Seabs, and Hammer, all of them took the next step, when he was with Garrison, he took the next step, when he was with Ekblad he took the next step. Campbell is a great addition to any team. And he was useful at the time. As far as Khabi, he was overpaid, but at least served a purpose. We needed a vet winning goalie back there to help out our young D at the time, they tried Craig Anderson a local guy, and it failed miserably, although Anderson has gone on to have a successful career, he didn't fit what was needed at the time. This team is better for having them guys, and better for lettering them go. Just like the team will be better from the next cap casualty, why? Simply because we have the core of a champion in place!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mvr said on 1 hour ago:

When Dale Tallon way overpaid for free agent mercenaries such as Khabibulin, Havlat, Campbell and Cullimore (among others), I strongly objected to this approach.   What had these players done for this team to justify these salaries?  

But taking offence to the contracts for any of the homegrown players now - Seabrook, Toews or Kane - is wrongheaded to my mind.  These guys have earned every penny for what they have accomplished here.  Not one of them is overpaid (if valued as a UFA on the open market).   

Bobby Hull was pushed out of Chicago because of money.   So was Steve Larmer, Chris Chelios and countless others.  

This cycle, thankfully, has finally ended, and the results speak.

If the team does not earn another championship in my lifetime, at this stage - so what?   They already have three of them.   I believe more will come if the core is kept whole.

That's where we disagree which is totally fine. 

In a cap world manager should use his head not his heart to reward players. And definitely not to reward them for past.

Because of that management other homegrown talent like Shaw or Saad is not with Hawks anymore. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook and Crawford all would be making more money right now if they chose (like Khabibulin, Havlat etc) to explore their options in Unrestricted Free Agency.

Each in effect took a "home town" discount to stay.  

The big change in the UFA market occurred post Keith/Hossa but before Toews, Kane and Seabrook when teams could no longer hide salary in legacy contracts.   Now players have to be paid actual value which is reflected in the higher cap price for most recent signings of star players.  

Brian Campbell was paid $7.1 M/year for his services almost a decade ago when the cap was just over half what it is now.   Seabrook (with three cups) does not make this much money today.

Edited by mvr
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
irmaks said on 2 hours ago:

That's where we disagree which is totally fine. 

In a cap world manager should use his head not his heart to reward players. And definitely not to reward them for past.

Because of that management other homegrown talent like Shaw or Saad is not with Hawks anymore. 

Saad chose - as was his right - to pursue his options.

He now makes $ 6 M/year which is fair value for his present production (but which was too much at the time for this team).  

I was sad to see him go.   Perhaps if he was slightly more flexible at the time, he might have stayed.  It would have been preferable from the team's perspective (though I am happy with Anisimov).   

Re Shaw -   I do not believe smart managers pay for checkers and grinders.   They can be replaced.  Hartman is already adequately handling Shaw's role at 1/4 the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worst contract in Hawks system actually......... to sign 8 years with the player who is couple of years after his prime and who is already in 1st year of contract on decline and which expires after eight years when he's 39 ...

Edited by Modry-Jazyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modry-Jazyk said on 16 minutes ago:

worst contract in Hawks system actually......... to sign 8 years with the player who is couple of years after his prime and who is already in 1st year of contract on decline and which expires after eight years when he's 39 ...

Thanks MJ, I thought I'm the only one who thought that 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course Seabs horrid contract doesn't mean he is bad player nor that I dont like him.

well Hossa, it's what it expected to be, big advantage in first couple of years when Hawks saved 3~ millions on cap hit (what helped them with depth and to win three Cups)  but for a price - they have to pay for prior advantage in last 2-3 years, when he will be not top 6 player.... But overall this contract is big success for the Hawks and for Hossa alone too.There is good reason why these exploit contract were banned.As bonus, he already should have played in 3L now but he's still one of three Hawks MVP's this season.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Hawks hadn't capitalized on the loophole with Hossa, they would have been paying him close to $9 M/year when the cap was just over half of what it is now.

Seabrook is paid what he is worth (and actually slightly less, given fair comparisons).  He is a solid top pairing defenceman on any team in the league.  

Should he decline in later years, so be it.   There is no guarantee Hossa will still be useful in two years either (yet his cap hit be still there).

 

Edited by mvr
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hossa's contract is similar to Keit's but not to Seabs contract, which is bad right in 1st year and doesn't offer any early years advantage.

Regarding those two years, you have to take it as whole, those advantages and disadvantages,You can't first eat the cake and then refuse pay for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×