Within five seconds of trading Seabrook for Taylor Hall (who you still hope reaches his potential) you have 865,000 saved.

WOW!

You gave up a true first pair defenseman you can't find a replacement for...
to help aid in CAP space?

in fact I can easily argue there are at least twelve teams that don't have ONE as good as him..
- wiz1901

Oh come on Bill youd have to atbleast pause and think about it. Seabrook is losing a step every single day. Love #7 , but that new deal he signed has to be a little regrettable to the front office that misjudged the cap

His duties with the Oilers will be, when they get behind, he will cross check someone...
- wiz1901

Fact... McDavid's bodyguard. If I'm a superstar I fell a heck of a lot better on the ice if Lucic is my teammate

I'm sure Lucic gets way more there than we could give him, which is unfortunate because I would have loved to see him playing w/ Toews but I think it was always a pipe dream at best...

I'm the conductor on the trade Seabrook train, but there's no way I trade him for Taylor Hall. The reason to trade Seabrook isn't that he sucks, because he doesn't. It's that his contract is already a bit of a problem now and will become a much bigger one down the line when you can't trade him and he's old.

But if you trade Seabrook, you need to replace him with, at least, a quality top-4 defenseman. You probably don't acquire that in whatever trade you make to unload Seabrook. That means he's got to come from somewhere else -- a UFA or a trade with a different team. And that means you need cap space for your Seabrook replacement.

Guess what you don't have if you trade Seabrook for Hall?

Bill, you are totally right, just looking at it from an age standpoint, you would be gaining a 26 year old power forward , but losing a 31 year old D man with a bad contract , Edmonton could live with that as they have a plethora of young Forwards, yes SB would have the enormous task of then replacing a Brent Seabrooke, I think Edmonton takes that deal if offered to them for Taylor Hall. I make the trade.
- wonthecup10

Lose Seabs or 1 of our 3 top D-Man, and you may as well blow the whole team up, as you will not be competitive for years. With Seabs on blue line, we at least have 3 more years of competitive hockey in UC.

Bad contract? There is no bad contract as long as you have teams like PHX or Florida, who constantly struggle to reach cap floor (see Datsyuk).

His shot metric possession was 52.34% CF / 52.31 FF% that year, btw, which has been close to his norm (in 2013, he was topping 55%).





The fact that Kruger had middling possession last year is not great, but he also only played half a season during a time when the entire teams' possession was low outside of the Kane line. Kruger has historically been one of the best at his job and I'd wager he'll continue that next season.
- L_B_R

The way I read Kruger's possession numbers must be wrong. As I understand CF% rel it's a stat that measures whether or not the players you play with are better with or without you. A number in minus means they are better without you a number with a + means they are better with you. http://www.anaheimcalling...nced-stats-corsi-relative

Relative Corsi compares a player to his teammates. When you see the number in the rel corsi column it is a representation of how many more shots were directed towards the opponent's net when the player is on the ice. If a player has a rel corsi of -12, that means that 12 more shots are directed towards his team's net per 60 minutes when he is on the ice as compared to when he is off it. In terms of calculation, it would be best to think of corsi as plus/minus but with shots instead of goals.

Kruger's career CF% rel are terrible. http://www.hockey-referen.../players/k/krugema01.html

2011: -7.9
2012: -0.1
2013: +.06
2014: -7.8
2015: -1.8
2016: -3.4

What do I have wrong, LBR?

I'm the conductor on the trade Seabrook train, but there's no way I trade him for Taylor Hall. The reason to trade Seabrook isn't that he sucks, because he doesn't. It's that his contract is already a bit of a problem now and will become a much bigger one down the line when you can't trade him and he's old.

But if you trade Seabrook, you need to replace him with, at least, a quality top-4 defenseman. You probably don't acquire that in whatever trade you make to unload Seabrook. That means he's got to come from somewhere else -- a UFA or a trade with a different team. And that means you need cap space for your Seabrook replacement.

Guess what you don't have if you trade Seabrook for Hall?
- darklighter

I agree that a straight trade would be tough for sure... If a Seabrook for Hall trade were in the works (I don't believe the Hawks will deal #7) I would want something more along the lines of Seabrook + (insert pick/player) for Hall + Nurse

How? Thought they could not discuss money or term before july 1
- ikeane

They can. The teams just aren't allowed to make any commitments, written or oral.

So basically, you can negotiate the contract ahead of time but you can't agree to it until July 1.

Fact... McDavid's bodyguard. If I'm a superstar I fell a heck of a lot better on the ice if Lucic is my teammate

I'm sure Lucic gets way more there than we could give him, which is unfortunate because I would have loved to see him playing w/ Toews but I think it was always a pipe dream at best...
- Frenchy4488

Me too buddy, instead they are lookin at Ben Smith and Jeremy Morin as options to ride shotgun LW for Toews!

Arthur Staple
@StapeNewsday
Hearing DET, TOR, MTL, BOS, LAK, CGY among the teams that have reached out to Matt Martin. #Isles

Staple is the Isles beat reporter for Newsday
- golfbard

Ahhhh what the hell, CHI doesn't need a LW with some snarl.

Lose Seabs or 1 of our 3 top D-Man, and you may as well blow the whole team up, as you will not be competitive for years. With Seabs on blue line, we at least have 3 more years of competitive hockey in UC.

Bad contract? There is no bad contract as long as you have teams like PHX or Florida, who constantly struggle to reach cap floor (see Datsyuk).
- Nerko77

I also said, SB would EEE mediatly have to get busy to find a replacement for Seabrooke.

I also said, SB would EEE mediatly have to get busy to find a replacement for Seabrooke.
- wonthecup10

How will you fit the replacement under cap when you are saving $850k in the deal?

Heck, Rundblad got $1m/y. Please!

What do I have wrong, LBR?
- Mr Ricochet

Kruger is an outlier for a few reasons having to do with his usage.

First, take a look at his zone starts. They're something like 90%/10% d-zone/o-zone. That undoubtedly affects his possession stats, though not as much as you might think. But starting all your shifts in your own zone is going to be an uphill battle when it comes to generating shots.

Second, his quality of competition is obscenely high, frequently above what Toews sees. (That's on purpose. The entire point of Kruger is to get Toews matchups to exploit.) When his teammates play on different lines, they tend to get easier zone starts.

Third, even if he's not generating incredible possession numbers, he is turning the ice. 90% of his shifts may start in the defensive zone, but they don't end there. I don't remember what the number is, but turning a d-zone faceoff into an o-zone faceoff that Toews's or Kane's line can take is a big contribution to the team's overall success.

Kruger is an outlier for a few reasons having to do with his usage.

First, take a look at his zone starts. They're something like 90%/10% d-zone/o-zone. That undoubtedly affects his possession stats, though not as much as you might think. But starting all your shifts in your own zone is going to be an uphill battle when it comes to generating shots.

Second, his quality of competition is obscenely high, frequently above what Toews sees. (That's on purpose. The entire point of Kruger is to get Toews matchups to exploit.) When his teammates play on different lines, they tend to get easier zone starts.

Third, even if he's not generating incredible possession numbers, he is turning the ice. 90% of his shifts may start in the defensive zone, but they don't end there. I don't remember what the number is, but turning a d-zone faceoff into an o-zone faceoff that Toews's or Kane's line can take is a big contribution to the team's overall success.
- darklighter

⬆️THIS⬆️

The way I read Kruger's possession numbers must be wrong. As I understand CF% rel it's a stat that measures whether or not the players you play with are better with or without you. A number in minus means they are better without you a number with a + means they are better with you.

Relative Corsi compares a player to his teammates. When you see the number in the rel corsi column it is a representation of how many more shots were directed towards the opponent's net when the player is on the ice. If a player has a rel corsi of -12, that means that 12 more shots are directed towards his team's net per 60 minutes when he is on the ice as compared to when he is off it. In terms of calculation, it would be best to think of corsi as plus/minus but with shots instead of goals.

Kruger's career CF% rel are terrible.

2011: -7.9
2012: -0.1
2013: +.06
2014: -7.8
2015: -1.8
2016: -3.4

What do I have wrong, LBR?
- Mr Ricochet

Your second/bolded paragraph is correct - it's a comparison of possession to the other players on the same team. It's not really how the other players a are with or without a player - those are WOWY numbers and it's a lot more complicated than relative.

The issue with relative numbers is that they do not consider context. The are comparing players' possession without any weight to zone deployment, quality of linemate, quality of competition, etc. Like, are Kruger's possession numbers as good as Kane's? Nope, which is why his rel numbers are negative in comparison, but there's a 75-80% swing difference in zone starts alone. It's like when people say guys like Rundblad have a good CF% rel compared to say Hjammer - he typically does, but that's because he has sheltered zone starts against the weakest QOC. Per 60 stats have a similar issue, though with the added impact of small sample sizes.

Relative numbers are kind like a curve in a class - other players can screw the curve up. Like in 2014, for example, Sharp-Toews-Hossa were extremely dominant in term of possession, which means all other players were skewed a bit. In 2013, the lines were much more balanced, so the curve isn't severe. Kruger base possession number, outside of last year, have typically been around 52% which is excellent for his DZ% number + QOC.

About as drunk as he was at the Rise Against concert
- EnzoD

I think more like comatose.

Me too buddy, instead they are lookin at Ben Smith and Jeremy Morin as options to ride shotgun LW for Toews!
- wonthecup10

Hard pass on those guys haha. I'd love to see Ladd back (but not holding my breath)... More likely option I'm guessing is splitting up Panarin/Kane and giving one to Toews... Heck, maybe that makes it harder for Panarin to hit all his bonuses again (glass is half full?)

Panik-Toews-Kane. ?
Panarin-AA-Hossa. ?

Not ideal, but I can see Panik having to step in and be the physical presence between our two superstars...

Bill, you are totally right, just looking at it from an age standpoint, you would be gaining a 26 year old power forward , but losing a 31 year old D man with a bad contract , Edmonton could live with that as they have a plethora of young Forwards, yes SB would have the enormous task of then replacing a Brent Seabrooke, I think Edmonton takes that deal if offered to them for Taylor Hall. I make the trade.
- wonthecup10

Agree...The argument can be made there are not 20 true first pairing dmen in the entire NHL...Careful!

Your second/bolded paragraph is correct - it's a comparison of possession to the other players on the same team. It's not how the other players a are with or without a player - those are WOWY numbers and it's a lot more complicated than relative.

The issue with relative numbers is that they do not consider context. The are comparing players' possession without any weight to zone deployment, quality of linemate, quality of competition, etc. Like, are Kruger's possession numbers as good as Kane's? Nope, which is why his rel numbers are negative in comparison, but there's a 75-80% swing difference in zone starts alone. It's like when people say guys like Rundblad have a good CF% rel compared to say Hjammer - he typically does, but that's because he has sheltered zone starts against the weakest QOC. Per 60 stats have a similar issue, though with the added impact of small sample sizes.

Relative numbers are kind like a curve in a class - other players can screw the curve up. Like in 2014, for example, Sharp-Toews-Hossa were extremely dominant in term of possession, which means all other players were skewed a bit. In 2013, the lines were much more balanced, so the curve isn't severe. Kruger base possession number, outside of last year, have typically been around 52% which is excellent for his DZ% number + QOC.
- L_B_R

I was hoping you'd be around to respond. .. I did notice for years his OZ starts were way low, as they should be IMO, and did "ballpark" an overall number for his CF% in relation to zone starts which is nowhere near scientific.... Is there a number, "stat", that gives context to CF% rel to zone starts?

Dome....only for the biz aspect. I get your sentiment.

My first dozen or two Bears games was at Wrigley. Hell, I was at the NU game there and hope they return (of course being able to fully use both endzones).
- blackhawk24

They couldn't with the Bears gridiron running north-south: supposedly they had 8-yard end zones, with the goalposts on the goal-line (as was a he NFL is use at the time).

Of course, that's better than the 80-yard field they had for the league championship game at the Stadium back in the 30s against Portsmouth, I think.

Me too buddy, instead they are lookin at Ben Smith and Jeremy Morin as options to ride shotgun LW for Toews!
- wonthecup10

Who is, Blues fans?

I was hoping you'd be around to respond. .. I did notice for years his OZ starts were way low, as they should be IMO, and did "ballpark" an overall number for his CF% in relation to zone starts which is nowhere near scientific.... Is there a number, "stat", that gives context to CF% rel to zone starts?
- Mr Ricochet

I don't know if there is. I just look at Kruger and I see a guy that starts so many shifts in the D zone that it is actually insane to expect him to have a positive Corsi relative to the team.

Agree...The argument can be made there are not 20 true first pairing dmen in the entire NHL...Careful!
- Al

1st pairing or #1 Dmen?

I don't know if there is. I just look at Kruger and I see a guy that starts so many shifts in the D zone that it is actually insane to expect him to have a positive Corsi relative to the team.
- Hawks_49

Kruger is in so many ways a Shaw type where he thinks nothing of sacrificing his body for his team, and it's a skrawny body.

That his corsi is on the plus side is excellent considering context but IMO 4th line specialists at 3.1 mil per on a team that yearly hemorrhages Saad's, Buff's, Ladd's, Sharp's, Oduya's, Panarins(?) is an unaffordable luxury.

IMO they can be found for less.

Kruger is in so many ways a Shaw type where he thinks nothing of sacrificing his body for his team, and it's a skrawny body.

That his corsi is on the plus side is excellent considering context but IMO 4th line specialists at 3.1 mil per on a team that yearly hemorrhages Saad's, Buff's, Ladd's, Sharp's, Oduya's, Panarins(?) is an unaffordable luxury.

IMO they can be found for less.
- Mr Ricochet

I'm picking up what you're throwing down, Ricochet. I'm just more okay with the cap hit. Not totally okay, just more okay.

Kruger is in so many ways a Shaw type where he thinks nothing of sacrificing his body for his team, and it's a skrawny body.

That his corsi is on the plus side is excellent considering context but IMO 4th line specialists at 3.1 mil per on a team that yearly hemorrhages Saad's, Buff's, Ladd's, Sharp's, Oduya's, Panarins(?) is an unaffordable luxury.

IMO they can be found for less.
- Mr Ricochet

YES. This is all I have been trying to say since the ink dried on that contract extension. Would you rather use that $3.1 mil to sign a Top 6 LW or legitimate 4D? I think most would. Why else would Stan be trying to rid himself of the contract months after finalizing it? If Kruger is the 3C this year, I think the Hawks will have even more trouble with depth scoring. Two of the Hawks best depth scorers have been traded away in Shaw and Tuevo. Where are the goals going to come from? Mark McNeil or Ryan Hartman? Rookie Nick Schmaltz or by some miracle Debrincat makes the team? Who is going to score goals outside of 19, 88, 72, 81 and 15? I'll wait....