I think Sharp will eventually get dealt but I'm sticking to my guns and saying Seabrook goes first and it happens this offseason. I don't see the Hawks signing him to a long term deal and I'm not even sure with all the cap rumors for next year that they could even if they wanted to. Also I'm not sure it'd be a wise move either because you're looking a 7-8 year deal for around $8 mil for Seabrook.
- dan9189

I don't think Seabrook is going to get $8 mil from the Hawks. If he stays, he will have to sign a deal fairly close to what he already is making.

Great tweet from Mark Lazerus...

"Today is Patrick Kane's 26th birthday. He's got two Cups, a Conn Smythe, a Calder and a massive contract.

When I was 26, I had a cat."
- ArlingtonRob

Yeah, but he probably didn't beat up a cabbie. Maybe.

So he likely has that on him.

The question that has been bugging me is the following:

Why would anyone take a cap/team-friendly deal when they know Toews and Kane "got theirs?" Knowing those guys are on tap to make $10.5M each, if Seabrook can fetch $7M or more on the market, why would any fans expect him to agree to a discounted deal? If I were that player, I would be pissed off if someone expected me to give up "mine" simply because the guy calling the shots with the purse-strings to the bank gave over 1/3 of the cap to 2 guys.

Wonder how Hjalmarsson feels now? Eating pucks every game and probably underpaid by about $2M a season.
- savvyone-1

Unfortunately, Kane also became untradeable when that deal was signed.

Unfortunately, Kane also became untradeable when that deal was signed.
- 67hawks

False, teams would be lining up around the block to trade for Kane if he became "available". But why the (frank) would you wanna trade Kane in the first place?

False, teams would be lining up around the block to trade for Kane if he became "available". But why the (frank) would you wanna trade Kane in the first place?
- BlazinMike

Isn't that what they said about the great Gretzky?

Isn't that what they said about the great Gretzky?
- savvyone-1

Probably, did Gretzky get traded when he was 26? I dont remember. Just saying, whats the point of trading Kane right now?

I'm also saying, that (hypothetically) IF Kane were to become available on the trade market, I'm very sure that teams would be trying to swing a deal for him. Him and his contract are not untradeable

Isn't that what they said about the great Gretzky?
- savvyone-1

That was in the un-capped era, even so, there are very few if any players that are untradeable, especially with teams able to eat some of the contract now.

Probably, did Gretzky get traded when he was 26? I dont remember. Just saying, whats the point of trading Kane right now?

I'm also saying, that (hypothetically) IF Kane were to become available on the trade market, I'm very sure that teams would be trying to swing a deal for him. Him and his contract are not untradeable
- BlazinMike

Spot on, he was 26.
Agree with you on the rest -- no way Kane is untradeable and no reason to think the Hawks WANT to trade him at this point. Maybe some day? Who knows, never say never, right?

The question that has been bugging me is the following:

Why would anyone take a cap/team-friendly deal when they know Toews and Kane "got theirs?" Knowing those guys are on tap to make $10.5M each, if Seabrook can fetch $7M or more on the market, why would any fans expect him to agree to a discounted deal? If I were that player, I would be pissed off if someone expected me to give up "mine" simply because the guy calling the shots with the purse-strings to the bank gave over 1/3 of the cap to 2 guys.

Wonder how Hjalmarsson feels now? Eating pucks every game and probably underpaid by about $2M a season.
- savvyone-1

Who is expecting him to take a discounted deal - probably us fans, probably NOT management of the Hawks or any other team. They will try to get him to sign for less - that's their job - but probably won't expect him to.

Seabrook won't be pissed off - he'll just go to the market that can / will give him $7-$8MM.

If such a market exists, depending on where the cap winds up.

The question that has been bugging me is the following:

Why would anyone take a cap/team-friendly deal when they know Toews and Kane "got theirs?" Knowing those guys are on tap to make $10.5M each, if Seabrook can fetch $7M or more on the market, why would any fans expect him to agree to a discounted deal? If I were that player, I would be pissed off if someone expected me to give up "mine" simply because the guy calling the shots with the purse-strings to the bank gave over 1/3 of the cap to 2 guys.

Wonder how Hjalmarsson feels now? Eating pucks every game and probably underpaid by about $2M a season.
- savvyone-1

A couple of reasons. To some guys it really is NOT just about the money. Some value winning more than $'s, some like the city they happen to be playing in and/or don't want to up-root their families, some like the team/coach/players they are playing with and want to continue. There are many reasons why players take a cap-friendly deal.

At the money they are making, if a player takes $1million more per year to jump to another team and says it wasn't about the money, he is lying. Is it about pride, ego, jealousy, of course it is.

Hjalmarsson knew exactly what he was doing. Yes, comparatively speaking, he is underpaid, but I would bet he is the type of guy who doesn't think about it much. He signed that contract knowing that he wanted to stay here and that out-weighed the option to play for a little more money on most likely a worse team.

One other thing to consider, and your kidding yourself if you don't think it matters, Toews and Kane are the face of the organization. They are going to be compensated as such. Seabrook, no matter how you spin it is just not.

Isn't that what they said about the great Gretzky?
- savvyone-1

Didn't Gretzky force a trade into a major market (and potential Hollywood stardom for Janet)?

I think Sharp will eventually get dealt but I'm sticking to my guns and saying Seabrook goes first and it happens this offseason. I don't see the Hawks signing him to a long term deal and I'm not even sure with all the cap rumors for next year that they could even if they wanted to. Also I'm not sure it'd be a wise move either because you're looking a 7-8 year deal for around $8 mil for Seabrook.
- dan9189

Yeah and it would be a colossal mistake to get rid of Seabrook. Wingers are much easier to find that world class top pairing D-men. Ask Edmonton or Philly fans about that.

Didn't Gretzky force a trade into a major market (and potential Hollywood stardom for Janet)?
- StLBravesFan

Gretzky didn't force the trade. Pocklington needed cash. Fast. That was what that trade was all about.


He received 15 mil. for Gretzky.

If I were a betting man, broken/fracture Tibia/fibia...Good call...
- TrueGrit

Good thing you're not.

Yeah and it would be a colossal mistake to get rid of Seabrook. Wingers are much easier to find that world class top pairing D-men. Ask Edmonton or Philly fans about that.
- Elbows15

Agreed. You move almost anyone else before you let Seabrook go.

Who is expecting him to take a discounted deal - probably us fans, probably NOT management of the Hawks or any other team. They will try to get him to sign for less - that's their job - but probably won't expect him to.

Seabrook won't be pissed off - he'll just go to the market that can / will give him $7-$8MM.

If such a market exists, depending on where the cap winds up.
- StLBravesFan

I think there are a lot of fans (and maybe even many here?) that would expect it (a discounted deal). Sure, Stan & co will try to get players to sign for the least amount possible to have $$ left for other needs.

The question that has been bugging me is the following:

Why would anyone take a cap/team-friendly deal when they know Toews and Kane "got theirs?" Knowing those guys are on tap to make $10.5M each, if Seabrook can fetch $7M or more on the market, why would any fans expect him to agree to a discounted deal? If I were that player, I would be pissed off if someone expected me to give up "mine" simply because the guy calling the shots with the purse-strings to the bank gave over 1/3 of the cap to 2 guys.

Wonder how Hjalmarsson feels now? Eating pucks every game and probably underpaid by about $2M a season.
- savvyone-1

Each person has their own wants and needs. Hjalmarsson was well aware he left money on the table and even stated that at the time.

Agreed. You move almost anyone else before you let Seabrook go.
- Bjm84

Especially when you look at it this way:

Even if Seabs signs for 8mil, its still only costing the Hawks 17 mil for their top 3. That is less than 6 mil for each. Its still very much doable.

Agreed. You move almost anyone else before you let Seabrook go.
- Bjm84

I think that really will depend on Seab's $$$ and term demands.
While they might WANT to keep him, they may not be able to make the contract demands fit within their overall plan.

You sure don't want to lose Seabrook's combo of size/skill. It will likely be a while before Johns is at Seabrook's level of play/skating (if ever).

Each person has their own wants and needs. Hjalmarsson was well aware he left money on the table and even stated that at the time.
- Elbows15

Agreed. But when he signed, T&K were at $6.5M -- what, a $2M or $2.5M gap.
Now the gap will be over $6M and he'll likely see guys that can't hold a candle to what he brings getting old T&K $$ ($6M or more).

Of course, one could also look at Keith and wonder what he thinks as well, he'll be about $5M under the wonder twins. Am assuming in his case the LT nature and security of his deal is what he was after.

False, teams would be lining up around the block to trade for Kane if he became "available". But why the (frank) would you wanna trade Kane in the first place?
- BlazinMike

Because reasons.

Because reasons.
- Elbows15

Agreed. But when he signed, T&K were at $6.5M -- what, a $2M or $2.5M gap.
Now the gap will be over $6M and he'll likely see guys that can't hold a candle to what he brings getting old T&K $$ ($6M or more).

Of course, one could also look at Keith and wonder what he thinks as well, he'll be about $5M under the wonder twins. Am assuming in his case the LT nature and security of his deal is what he was after.
- savvyone-1

Hjalmarsson doesn't strike me as a dumb guy. Even if that were the case, don't you think his agent was pretty informed as to what the market would be? Agents may be a scourge on society but by and large, the are pretty sharp guys.

Anyone with half a brain knows that when you sign a 12 year deal, the market is going to change drastically over the course of that deal. Well, not counting Scottie Pippen. Its the choice HE made to take long term security and just as equally, to a certain degree insure he is playing in a place HE wants to play.

Again, even if the players aren't the brightest, I would bet a lot of money that both were advised by the agents of all the factors to consider before making their decisions.

Agreed. But when he signed, T&K were at $6.5M -- what, a $2M or $2.5M gap.
Now the gap will be over $6M and he'll likely see guys that can't hold a candle to what he brings getting old T&K $$ ($6M or more).

Of course, one could also look at Keith and wonder what he thinks as well, he'll be about $5M under the wonder twins. Am assuming in his case the LT nature and security of his deal is what he was after.
- savvyone-1

These assumptions are based on the assumption that the Cap will go up by, say, 7% per year - certainly, given the trend of the Canadian dollar, not a sure thing any more.

If the Looney stays at the current $.88, weren't people projecting no increase (or minimal) in the cap next year? I would guess that teams wouldn't get much relief from the players in the NHLPA with signed contracts in artificially (or temporarily) adding to a low cap.

I think that really will depend on Seab's $$$ and term demands.
While they might WANT to keep him, they may not be able to make the contract demands fit within their overall plan.

You sure don't want to lose Seabrook's combo of size/skill. It will likely be a while before Johns is at Seabrook's level of play/skating (if ever).
- savvyone-1

There are not many Seabrooks in the league. You have one. You find a way to keep him. IMO.