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

Its impossible to compare players that signed across years, let alone across different CBA's. Keith makes $7.6 mil this year in a 13 year contract that he signed in 2010. Just 2 years later Shea Weber signed a deal pays him $14mil this season in a 14 year deal. Ryan Suter pays him $11mil. Webers cap hit if 7.8. Suters 7.5 Keiths 5.5. Both are significant gaps. Heck Dion Phaneauf, who is signed under the new CBA make $8mil with a 7 mil cap hit, and he cant hold the jock of any of the above 3.

Comparables to Seabrook who signed recently? Letang 7.25 cap hit, Phaneuf 7.0 cap hit, Pietrangelo 6.5 cap hit. All of them younger than Seabrook. Not sure Seabrook can command $8mil. At $6 - $6.5 the Hawks retain him, maybe even up to $7, but I'm not sure he commands that anymore.

There are not many Seabrooks in the league. You have one. You find a way to keep him. IMO.
- Elbows15

Plus, he's got the most experience (and success) in breaking up 2 on 1's.
His partner has given him plenty of practice at that!

Plus, he's got the most experience (and success) in breaking up 2 on 1's.
His partner has given him plenty of practice at that!

- savvyone-1

He does. He is pretty good at it. Its no secret he is the guy I like the most on the team.

He is so under rated in many aspects. As I have said before, if he were to be made available, 29 teams are picking up the phone to see what it would take.

It comes down to trust and comfort with Keith and Seabrook. Keith rarely takes those chances when he is partnered with anyone else. Even Hammer.

Seabrook has the best offensive instincts of any of the Dmen. IMO.

Wasn't someone like Ladd unhappy about the preferential babying that Kane got when he was shipped out of town.

Im sure there are others on the team that are aware of Kanes antics at times and arent the most thrilled with it as is. Let alone bowman sitting down telling them they need to take less to cater to the rest of the players on the payroll like you said
- FourFeathers773

This was when Kane was a rookie. According to other non bar bouncing people he has matured since 2010.

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

I agree that moving Kane would be rather easy...unless his production drops and stays down.

It all comes down to economics...if Kane's production slips to 60-70 pts. per, he's not worth the 10.5M per. The intangibles, if you can find any, don't make up for the lose in production.

Unless you can't do without those Chevy commercials.

And if Kane's production drops, his value as a commodity will also drop.

Now, if Kane can reach the 100 point plateau...and stay there...roll out the red carpet...oh, I guess they already have.

I agree that moving Kane would be rather easy...unless his production drops and stays down.

It all comes down to economics...if Kane's production slips to 60-70 pts. per, he's not worth the 10.5M per. The intangibles, if you can find any, don't make up for the lose in production.

Unless you can't do without those Chevy commercials.

And if Kane's production drops, his value as a commodity will also drop.

Now, if Kane can reach the 100 point plateau...and stay there...roll out the red carpet...oh, I guess they already have.
- ArlingtonRob

For sure. I'd move Kane before I moved Seabrook.

There are not many Seabrooks in the league. You have one. You find a way to keep him. IMO.
- Elbows15

Yup, him and Keith play almost half the night, you have Hammer and probably Oduya (on a new deal) at bargains. That's about 48-50 minutes of quality D a night, all of whom fit the Hawks' system coming and going. I think the Hawks would need to think long and hard about ways to keep #7.

There are not many Seabrooks in the league. You have one. You find a way to keep him. IMO.
- Elbows15

100% agreed.

But it will ultimately depend on the term Seabs is looking for. At 32, it gets risky inking a guy for huge money for more than 3 years. But if they are fairly close on the $, Bowman will find it by dumping a couple of his mistakes (like Bickell in particular). And Oduya isn't going to be overpaid either, in fact may not even be re-signed. Replacing him will come from cheaper, younger down on the farm.

I don't see the Hawks moving Kane. Those deals were made betting on long-term cap growth, even if next year looks flat.

That said, if you start to hear a lot of bad juju scuttlebutt "leaking out" a la Sammy Sosa with the Cubs, look out . . .

Still, barring a significant change to the direction of the organization, ie, rebuild (or retool), or Kane basically asking for a trade either verbally or through his actions, I would not bet on him going anywhere.

100% agreed.

But it will ultimately depend on the term Seabs is looking for. At 32, it gets risky inking a guy for huge money for more than 3 years. But if they are fairly close on the $, Bowman will find it by dumping a couple of his mistakes (like Bickell in particular). And Oduya isn't going to be overpaid either, in fact may not even be re-signed. Replacing him will come from cheaper, younger down on the farm.
- RickJ

Gonna disagree Rick.

The Devil is in the Details, but I think the reason Leddy got moved and not Oduya is because the Hawks feel they can ink Oduya on a sweetheart deal.

As much as we like to poke holes in the Pizza man, I think Q loves him and it was a successful trade for Stanley. Further, we really don't know for sure if ANY Hawk D prospect will be better than he is, or even as good.

Gonna disagree Rick.

The Devil is in the Details, but I think the reason Leddy got moved and not Oduya is because the Hawks feel they can ink Oduya on a sweetheart deal.

As much as we like to poke holes in the Pizza man, I think Q loves him and it was a successful trade for Stanley. Further, we really don't know for sure if ANY Hawk D prospect will be better than he is, or even as good.
- John Jaeckel

Not advocating letting him move on by any means JJ. But JO is 33 and his deal probably needs to be short and not for much more than he currently makes.

My concern is letting the team's D all get old at once - having 3 guys on the backend in their 30's at the same time is risky.

100% agreed.

But it will ultimately depend on the term Seabs is looking for. At 32, it gets risky inking a guy for huge money for more than 3 years. But if they are fairly close on the $, Bowman will find it by dumping a couple of his mistakes (like Bickell in particular). And Oduya isn't going to be overpaid either, in fact may not even be re-signed. Replacing him will come from cheaper, younger down on the farm.
- RickJ

As much of a fan of Seabrook I am, 5 years is the absolute max on term I would offer. Preferably 4.

Gonna disagree Rick.

The Devil is in the Details, but I think the reason Leddy got moved and not Oduya is because the Hawks feel they can ink Oduya on a sweetheart deal.

As much as we like to poke holes in the Pizza man, I think Q loves him and it was a successful trade for Stanley. Further, we really don't know for sure if ANY Hawk D prospect will be better than he is, or even as good.
- John Jaeckel

Of the top 4, Oduya is probably the easiest to replace from the system. Doesn't mean it will be easy but Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson are special players in their own ways.

Not advocating letting him move on by any means JJ. But JO is 33 and his deal probably needs to be short and not for much more than he currently makes.

My concern is letting the team's D all get old at once - having 3 guys on the backend in their 30's at the same time is risky.
- RickJ

Keith will be effective late into his 30's. IMO.

Gonna disagree Rick.

The Devil is in the Details, but I think the reason Leddy got moved and not Oduya is because the Hawks feel they can ink Oduya on a sweetheart deal.

As much as we like to poke holes in the Pizza man, I think Q loves him and it was a successful trade for Stanley. Further, we really don't know for sure if ANY Hawk D prospect will be better than he is, or even as good.
- John Jaeckel

This could be why it was Clendening, the most similar Dman to Oduya, was recalled.

This could be why it was Clendening, the most similar Dman to Oduya, was recalled.
- KingB

Adam Clendening and Johnny Oduya are not similar hockey players. Clendening is a one-dimensional, offensive, power play specialist. Oduya is a defensive defenseman (alebit with a good first pass) and a shot blocking machine.

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?
- savvyone-1

One point that is overlooked when talking about #99 getting dealt is....He wanted the trade made to LA if not he would have stayed Edm.

100% agreed.

But it will ultimately depend on the term Seabs is looking for. At 32, it gets risky inking a guy for huge money for more than 3 years. But if they are fairly close on the $, Bowman will find it by dumping a couple of his mistakes (like Bickell in particular). And Oduya isn't going to be overpaid either, in fact may not even be re-signed. Replacing him will come from cheaper, younger down on the farm.
- RickJ

Seabrook is one of the best dmen in the NHL and seldom gets hurt. When out he comes back quickly.

As of today there isn't a physical dman in the system with the offensive ability of Seabrook. Seabrook has the best first pass and best point shot on the team. He would be difficult to replace and should be a priority to resign.

Seabrook is one of the best dmen in the NHL and seldom gets hurt. When out he comes back quickly.

As of today there isn't a physical dman in the system with the offensive ability of Seabrook. Seabrook has the best first pass and best point shot on the team. He would be difficult to replace and should be a priority to resign.
- Al

Seabrook may be the best overall passer among all NHL defenceman, period. And although Q needs to show him the hot motivational poker every so often, he can be pretty mean physically when he wants to be. Just ask Ryan Johnson of the Lightning how his ribs felt after the game last week. And David Backes.

Seabrook may be the best overall passer among all NHL defenceman, period. And although Q needs to show him the hot motivational poker every so often, he can be pretty mean physically when he wants to be. Just ask Ryan Johnson of the Lightning how his ribs felt after the game last week. And David Backes.
- RickJ

I think he is the best and most who watch closely would say at least top 5.
It is tough to find two...maybe one pair better than Keith/Seabrook.
People here are spoiled...To have 2 young guys come up and spend little time in the AHL and have a baptism of fire when brought up on very bad teams and they still flourished....
That doesn't happen very often.

Plus, he's got the most experience (and success) in breaking up 2 on 1's.
His partner has given him plenty of practice at that!

- savvyone-1

I ran this up the flag pole a while ago when it was still believed that the cap was going up. Got roasted like i expected. But what would the haul be for Duncan Keith. A 2C, slug(not Bollig) bot 6 with an attitude who can go, and a high pick? That's their needs as I see it. Now with the cap not going up Keith's salary is not high enough to clear enough space. And I don't know if he has a NTC either. Agree that Keith will last longer than Seabrook, but also agree they can't replace Seabrook right now. Just spitballing.

I ran this up the flag pole a while ago when it was still believed that the cap was going up. Got roasted like i expected. But what would the haul be for Duncan Keith. A 2C, slug(not Bollig) bot 6 with an attitude who can go, and a high pick? That's their needs as I see it. Now with the cap not going up Keith's salary is not high enough to clear enough space. And I don't know if he has a NTC either. Agree that Keith will last longer than Seabrook, but also agree they can't replace Seabrook right now. Just spitballing.
- 6628

Usually in any trade the team that acquires the best player wins the trade. And since the real strength of the team flows from the back end, Bowman wouldn't even entertain the idea unless he could buy a top end Dman on the open market right after making the trade.

Using your example, would you trade Keith to SJ for Logan Couture, their #1 pick and some stiff on the bottom end of their roster? Doug Wilson would, Bowman won't.

Usually in any trade the team that acquires the best player wins the trade. And since the real strength of the team flows from the back end, Bowman wouldn't even entertain the idea unless he could buy a top end Dman on the open market right after making the trade.

Using your example, would you trade Keith to SJ for Logan Couture, their #1 pick and some stiff on the bottom end of their roster? Doug Wilson would, Bowman won't.
- RickJ

Rick, I said this originally when they still had Leddy. Leddy seems to be doing well with Boychuck and I think he would have done so with Seabrook if they paired for a while. Keith trade made more sense then than now. But still, I'll bet there has been trades when a team gave up too much for the best player in the trade. Offhand, thinking Lindross. That trade set up Quebec/Colorado for years. Must be some others.

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 his next contract takes your depth away, and without depth you don't win cups. I see 10mill justified for one guy on the team and to me this guy is the franchise, someone you build a team around, and that guy is Toews. Kane is an amazing players at times but he also can be inconsistent and does not always bring it and has off ice issues. Personally I never liked this contract but hey it's probably what he would of gotten in the open market. So the Hawks were screwed either way. A very very ballsy move would be to trade him, Bickell and TT for Buffalo's 1st and Reinhart. Then you trade Sharp and Just imagine you've freed up 22 million in cap space! Just think of how you could spend that money and how good this team could be with the right signings! Plus having 2 elite young players as well....I know it would never happen but just think how different and better our team would be.