Wont be expected to be an instant star or play major minutes. He’s got a lot of talent ahead of him at forward that we can rely on for production, so I doubt he’ll have too much on his shoulders or feel too much pressure.
- SimpleJack

Exactly.

Toews has four years left on his deal - he won’t be 35 until the end of its last season (April, 2023).

I would guess he would be an effective to excellent player for all four years.
- StLBravesFan

yes ...agreed...great point. also, there were guys on here who thought Toews was done. Not me. are you kidding me. J. Toews done with being a bad ass hockey player?

Personally, I question alot of these moves. Yes the players brought in this off-season are quality NHLers, but it is terrible given the roster congestion. Maata is a great offensive D, but how will he get his fair share of TOI when he is behind De Haan and Keith? And Gustafson was playing very well, and is suddenly is out of a spot? There is 16+M on LD, and a MASSIVE hole on RD. That is a concern. Goaltending as well, yes you have 2 starting goalies, but you can only play 1, and paying 11M for the duo won't make you better than Price/Bobrovski/Vas...... While the acquisitions were quality players, you still need another top 6 winger, and a true #2C. Maybe these assets will be flipped yet again to address those need, but until then I am a skeptic.
- bikeguy99

I question the timing of these moves.

I question the timing of these moves.
- DarthKane

Always.

Tyler your blogs are always incitefull , educational, and fun.

I believe Stan did his job this summer and the moves he made would be what any fan, or team would expect to fix the issues.

Although he couldn't move Seabrook, it wasn't for lack of trying , just merely his biggest mistake was the amount , term and clauses he attached along with his age make Seabrook toxic.

I agree Chicago's big fish signing was Lehner , and when you break it down Stan was brilliant.


Looking at Chicago's potential lineup looks good , and lots of line combination options and defensive pairing as well.

Tyler your blogs are always incitefull , educational, and fun.

I believe Stan did his job this summer and the moves he made would be what any fan, or team would expect to fix the issues.

Although he couldn't move Seabrook, it wasn't for lack of trying , just merely his biggest mistake was the amount , term and clauses he attached along with his age make Seabrook toxic.

I agree Chicago's big fish signing was Lehner , and when you break it down Stan was brilliant.


Looking at Chicago's potential lineup looks good , and lots of line combination options and defensive pairing as well.
- Taylorst1

get a hold of yourself bro, just kidding, dont!...we have top tier team problems now sir. i'm certainly not holding back. Golden age of Hawks baby

Tyler your blogs are always incitefull , educational, and fun.

I believe Stan did his job this summer and the moves he made would be what any fan, or team would expect to fix the issues.

Although he couldn't move Seabrook, it wasn't for lack of trying , just merely his biggest mistake was the amount , term and clauses he attached along with his age make Seabrook toxic.

I agree Chicago's big fish signing was Lehner , and when you break it down Stan was brilliant.


Looking at Chicago's potential lineup looks good , and lots of line combination options and defensive pairing as well.
- Taylorst1

Stop with the hyperbole already, Seabrook isn't and has never been "toxic". Seabrook was no worse than the team's third best defender last season, I have him number 2 after Keith. Yes his contract is an albatross for the Hawks to carry given his age, his deteriorating level of play and was Bowman's worst decision as the Hawk's GM. Seabrook was a warrior and was instrumental in the success of the Blackhawks during their cup runs. I personally believe Seabrook's leadership during the 2013 series against Detroit was the sole reason the Hawks escaped from that series when Toews was driven to distraction by Zetterberg and was losing his poop shift by shift. Ideally the Hawks never signed him to that terrible contract but they did and have to honour it.

Stop with the hyperbole already, Seabrook isn't and has never been "toxic". Seabrook was no worse than the team's third best defender last season, I have him number 2 after Keith. Yes his contract is an albatross for the Hawks to carry given his age, his deteriorating level of play and was Bowman's worst decision as the Hawk's GM. Seabrook was a warrior and was instrumental in the success of the Blackhawks during their cup runs. I personally believe Seabrook's leadership during the 2013 series against Detroit was the sole reason the Hawks escaped from that series when Toews was driven to distraction by Zetterberg and was losing his poop shift by shift. Ideally the Hawks never signed him to that terrible contract but they did and have to honour it.
- paulr

Yep, describing Seabs as toxic is idiotic. But.....

When you think about his age and his trajectory and the hockey era in which he has done this...

Stop with the hyperbole already, Seabrook isn't and has never been "toxic". Seabrook was no worse than the team's third best defender last season, I have him number 2 after Keith. Yes his contract is an albatross for the Hawks to carry given his age, his deteriorating level of play and was Bowman's worst decision as the Hawk's GM. Seabrook was a warrior and was instrumental in the success of the Blackhawks during their cup runs. I personally believe Seabrook's leadership during the 2013 series against Detroit was the sole reason the Hawks escaped from that series when Toews was driven to distraction by Zetterberg and was losing his poop shift by shift. Ideally the Hawks never signed him to that terrible contract but they did and have to honour it.
- paulr

Ok let's not live in the past , if we plan on going that route we might as well bring out Bobby orr, or Wayne gretzky.

Seabrook is not the same player he once was that's a fact we all agree upon. Most teams don't pay a 3rd pairing defenseman almost 7 million, that's what Seabrook is relegated to 3rd pairing.
Leadership is great, but having the cap space to fill the the roster with players who can elevate and contribute and keep this team young , fast and tough to beat and become the future core players is what Chicago needs.

Yep, describing Seabs as toxic is idiotic. But.....
- mohel

What would you describe a 35 year old , declining 7million dollar player , whom no team wants ? Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn't trade Seabrook.

His contract is toxic , which makes him toxic. I'm sorry if you don't like those words to describe facts , but I'm not about to play pc with my words to appease people's feelings.

Ok let's not live in the past , if we plan on going that route we might as well bring out Bobby orr, or Wayne gretzky.

Seabrook is not the same player he once was that's a fact we all agree upon. Most teams don't pay a 3rd pairing defenseman almost 7 million, that's what Seabrook is relegated to 3rd pairing.
Leadership is great, but having the cap space to fill the the roster with players who can elevate and contribute and keep this team young , fast and tough to beat and become the future core players is what Chicago needs.
- Taylorst1

Your term was, Seabrook was toxic, he wasn't, isn't and never will be, period, end of story!

What would you describe a 35 year old , declining 7million dollar player , whom no team wants ? Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn't trade Seabrook.

His contract is toxic , which makes him toxic. I'm sorry if you don't like those words to describe facts , but I'm not about to play pc with my words to appease people's feelings.
- Taylorst1

You have written some posts that are toxic, does that make you toxic? I too have written toxic posts, does that make me toxic? Again stop with the hyperbole, there are very few rational Blackhawk fans who will extend that term to Seabrook.

When you think about his age and his trajectory and the hockey era in which he has done this...




- pdx2ord

Assuming a point per game, Kane should have his 1000th career point about 62 games into the season, around mid to late February.

What would you describe a 35 year old , declining 7million dollar player , whom no team wants ? Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn't trade Seabrook.

His contract is toxic , which makes him toxic. I'm sorry if you don't like those words to describe facts , but I'm not about to play pc with my words to appease people's feelings.
- Taylorst1

Where are you getting the “Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn’t trade Seabrook” stuff? Have never seen that reported anywhere.

Also, I think you’re unclear on the definition of toxic. Is the contract a poison pill in terms of it being tough to swallow for fans and possibly even Hawk management?

Sure, but I’ve also never read anywhere that Seab’s is some sort of clubhouse cancer due to the contract and declining level of play, which, and feel free to correct me, which is how you’re describing the situation. It’s just not the case.

What would you describe a 35 year old , declining 7million dollar player , whom no team wants ? Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn't trade Seabrook.

His contract is toxic , which makes him toxic. I'm sorry if you don't like those words to describe facts , but I'm not about to play pc with my words to appease people's feelings.
- Taylorst1

I don't think that toxic is being used correctly. That means the player is a disruption, or worse, to the team inside the locker room, off the ice, that he isn't a role model for all players, not a class act or vocal guy, humble, or committed to team success. Seabs is that +++. I will be beyond happy to watch him retire a hawk! Same with the other core. It's definitely not fair to post hoc ergo propter hoc Seab's toxic contract to Seabs being toxic, that just doesn't make sense. Blame Bowman, not the player. I don't like the contract either, but it's our team's reality, so I'll enjoy the ride. The term is the only thing I have a problem with, but I can accept it.

I'd rather a contract be paid in hindsight, like Paul mentioned, than a contract paid off of trajectory. Seabs is just one instrumental cog in 3 cups, that deserves money. Panarin, who I'll call now won't ever hoist the cup, is worth more than Toews or Kane? Granted, that's Free Agency Day, but contract renewal nonetheless.

I'm not going to buy that Bowman tried to sweeten the pot to dump Seabs either. A 3rd overall pick ... I don't think he was smiling because he saw an opportunity to dump a contract, I'm sure he saw an opportunity at a franchise player & was going to hold onto, which he did. Sure, I'm using hindsight, but I don't believe Seabs was asked to waive or anything.

When not babysitting, the same can be said for Keith, they show why they are still our team's best dmen. Just saw I was beaten to these, more succinctly, I might add.

You have written some posts that are toxic, does that make you toxic? I too have written toxic posts, does that make me toxic? Again stop with the hyperbole, there are very few rational Blackhawk fans who will extend that term to Seabrook.
- paulr

I'm not about to bend to the pc speech . Its not hyperbole, seabrook is well past his prime. Thats a fact , his contract is toxic .
So what part of my statement is false?
Just because you don't like the words I used doesn't make you the pc police.

Come out of your bubble and realize that Brent Seabrook isn't the same player he once was and his contract, salary , age , decline in play make him toxic to any team regarding a trade.

I don't think that toxic is being used correctly. That means the player is a disruption, o






r worse, to the team inside the locker room, off the ice, that he isn't a role model for all players, not a class act or vocal guy, humble, or committed to team success. Seabs is that +++. I will be beyond happy to watch him retire a hawk! Same with the other core. It's definitely not fair to post hoc ergo propter hoc Seab's toxic contract to Seabs being toxic, that just doesn't make sense. Blame Bowman, not the player. I don't like the contract either, but it's our team's reality, so I'll enjoy the ride. The term is the only thing I have a problem with, but I can accept it.

I'd rather a contract be paid in hindsight, like Paul mentioned, than a contract paid off of trajectory. Seabs is just one instrumental cog in 3 cups, that deserves money. Panarin, who I'll call now won't ever hoist the cup, is worth more than Toews or Kane? Granted, that's Free Agency Day, but contract renewal nonetheless.

I'm not going to buy that Bowman tried to sweeten the pot to dump Seabs either. A 3rd overall pick ... I don't think he was smiling because he saw an opportunity to dump a contract, I'm sure he saw an opportunity at a franchise player & was going to hold onto, which he did. Sure, I'm using foresight, but I don't believe Seabs was asked to waive or anything.

When not babysitting, the same can be said for Keith, they show why they are still our team's best dmen. Just saw I was beaten to these, more succinctly, I might add.
- I Am The Breadman

I get what your saying , but let's be honest here people overthink and over analyze every single word and moan and complain .
That's where the problem lies is when people don't conform to a mob rule.

Not one single person here is ecstatic about seabrooks decline in play or contract , salary, term ? But his contract and he represents his contract which makes him toxic to any team regarding a trade.
I never said anything about him personally , everything I said was in regards to his age, contract, decline in play theirs the difference that people seem to overlook and always assume the worst .

I'm not about to bend to the pc speech . Its not hyperbole, seabrook is well past his prime. Thats a fact , his contract is toxic .
So what part of my statement is false?
Just because you don't like the words I used doesn't make you the pc police.

Come out of your bubble and realize that Brent Seabrook isn't the same player he once was and his contract, salary , age , decline in play make him toxic to any team regarding a trade.
- Taylorst1

Moving the goalposts are we? I agree his contract is bad, toxic perhaps but Brent Seabrook is not toxic.

I get what your saying , but let's be honest here people overthink and over analyze every single word and moan and complain .
That's where the problem lies is when people don't conform to a mob rule.

Not one single person here is ecstatic about seabrooks decline in play or contract , salary, term ? But his contract and he represents his contract which makes him toxic to any team regarding a trade.
I never said anything about him personally , everything I said was in regards to his age, contract, decline in play theirs the difference that people seem to overlook and always assume the worst .
- Taylorst1

You said he was toxic. That's about as personal as it gets.

If anyone is interested, here's a link to the schedule for next months Prospect tournament in Traverse City.

https://www.centreice.org...6-nhl-prospect-tournament

Anyone seen a Hawks roster for this tourney? Also, I would appreciate if anyone knows a streaming site for the games.

Where are you getting the “Stan offered a 3rd overall pick and couldn’t trade Seabrook” stuff? Have never seen that reported anywhere.

Also, I think you’re unclear on the definition of toxic. Is the contract a poison pill in terms of it being tough to swallow for fans and possibly even Hawk management?

Sure, but I’ve also never read anywhere that Seab’s is some sort of clubhouse cancer due to the contract and declining level of play, which, and feel free to correct me, which is how you’re describing the situation. It’s just not the case.
- HawkintheD

It was well reported regarding Chicago and Vancouver, 3rd overall pick , seabrook was willing to waive his NMC for Vancouver and only Vancouver.

I never said Seabrook personally was toxic , I was crystal clear his play, age , term ,salary make him toxic to any team regarding a trade, nothing about his character .

People around here pick and chose speech they disagree with and over think and analyze words or try to put words into other people's mouths .

I don't care what you what you want to call his contract , salary , decline in play etc but let's be honest here , don't read into or over think and analyze my words.

It was well reported regarding Chicago and Vancouver, 3rd overall pick , seabrook was willing to waive his NMC for Vancouver and only Vancouver.

I never said Seabrook personally was toxic , I was crystal clear his play, age , term ,salary make him toxic to any team regarding a trade, nothing about his character .

People around here pick and chose speech they disagree with and over think and analyze words or try to put words into other people's mouths .

I don't care what you what you want to call his contract , salary , decline in play etc but let's be honest here , don't read into or over think and analyze my words.
- Taylorst1

Your exact words "term and clauses he attached along with his age make Seabrook toxic."

You said he was toxic. That's about as personal as it gets.
- paulr

No what your doing is making it personal , because your trying to control my speech and over think and analyze things. Seabrook represents his contract , it's not about his character so please don't put words into my mouth or tell me I have to think or speak a certain way.

No what your doing is making it personal , because your trying to control my speech and over think and analyze things. Seabrook represents his contract , it's not about his character so please don't put words into my mouth or tell me I have to think or speak a certain way.
- Taylorst1