Hey i like that....its Docs signature move version 2.0Island Nucklehead wrote: If we're going to move Edler, trade him for someone that can actually help us in 5-7 years.
Try to focus on 5-7 years from now
Moderator: Referees
Hey i like that....its Docs signature move version 2.0Island Nucklehead wrote: If we're going to move Edler, trade him for someone that can actually help us in 5-7 years.
Well, Seabrook had 39 points to Edler's 24 this season.Mëds wrote:Seabrook without Keith is barely more than a more physical, right-shooting Edler.
RoyalDude wrote:Stick a fire hydrant with Keith and Chicago's PP and it would get 39 points. Seabrook doesn't make Keith Kane and Toews look good, they make him look good
'What kind of impact do you think he'll have here?'Island Nucklehead wrote:What kind of impact do you think he'll have here? Even if he kept up his pace, and became our 4th-highest scoring player, what does that do for our team? Going Edler-Seabrook gets us what, maybe an extra 5-8 points in the standings? Great, so we miss the playoffs by 17 points instead of 25 lol.SKYO wrote: Acquiring Seabrook at his lowest value is just a smart, smart pickup for this rebuilding team, he's been a key dman at every level, vocal leader, captain material, local guy to boot.
This team needs so much more than a Brent Seabrook until he's 39. If we're going to move Edler, trade him for someone that can actually help us in 5-7 years.
Yup Duncan Keith is elite, he helped up his stats for sure, but Seabrook is still a good hockey player, and he can help his team win if he is in the proper role, like being in a more offensive focused D-pairing usage, like being paired with Hutton who if he stays healthy and properly used by the new coach, that pairing could help each other out big time, Huts should be a 30+point dman next season.RoyalDude wrote:Stick a fire hydrant with Keith and Chicago's PP and it would get 39 points.
Back to the veteran mentorship / winning culture circle jerk. How much veteran mentorship did the Blackhawks have when Brent won his first cup? Brian Campbell, John Madden and Brent Sopel? We don't need to pay $7M for veteran mentorship. We need a couple $7M+-calibre players, and in about 5 years we might actually have some. That would be right around the time we'd be doing our best to dump the aged and massively declining Seabrook and his albatross deal.SKYO wrote: 'What kind of impact do you think he'll have here?'
It's more than player points and team points in the standings, it's more about having a dman that knows how to win, instilling confidence in the young guys, & unlike the chill low-key Hank the tank Seabrook is a vocal leader, he'll go after guys to up their play, all while leading by example on the ice and in the locker room.
I'd deal Guds and/or Tanev to get prospects/picks or young players to help the team for the future.
The thing about veteran mentorship / winning culture is that's what Seabrook is all about PLUS scoring points, he's not just a great leader but can also score more points than any of our current VETS on defense, do you even see that correlation?Island Nucklehead wrote:Back to the veteran mentorship / winning culture circle jerk.SKYO wrote: 'What kind of impact do you think he'll have here?'
It's more than player points and team points in the standings, it's more about having a dman that knows how to win, instilling confidence in the young guys, & unlike the chill low-key Hank the tank Seabrook is a vocal leader, he'll go after guys to up their play, all while leading by example on the ice and in the locker room.
I'd deal Guds and/or Tanev to get prospects/picks or young players to help the team for the future.
How much veteran mentorship did the Blackhawks have when Brent won his first cup?
Brian Campbell, John Madden and Brent Sopel?
We don't need to pay $7M for veteran mentorship.
We need a couple $7M+-calibre players, and in about 5 years we might actually have some.
That would be right around the time we'd be doing our best to dump the aged and massively declining Seabrook and his albatross deal.
Btw, Brian Campbell is a UFA again. Offer him $2.5M and I'm sure he'll veteran mentor the fuck out of our team for a year or two.
We've gone over how Seabrook's point totals would likely drop in Vancouver, just as Edler's would likely go up in Chicago. Remember when the Canucks were a high-skill, high-scoring team, and Edler was putting up 40+ points? If we knocked off 20% of Seabrooks offence (seems reasonable), suddenly he's a $6.8M, 32 year old, 30 point d-man.SKYO wrote: The thing about veteran mentorship / winning culture is that's what Seabrook is all about PLUS scoring points, he's not just a great leader but can also score more points than any of our current VETS on defense, do you even see that correlation?
Is Seabrook going to play the whole game? We'd still to replace the roster spots. Given how often our d-men go down, I'd spread the wealth. And before you start in about how durable Seabrook has been, remember they said similar things about Brandon Sutter when he became foundational.Edler $5M, Gudbranson probably looking at around $4.5M, Tanev basically $4.5M per, almost $14M dollars on these three and Seabrook can probably outscore all three of them combined PLUS adding that winning leadership this team is severely lacking.
Oh man. After watching the games of some of our popular Canucks quickly deteriorate (ie: Higgy, Burr, Ehrhoff, Edler, Sedins) after they got into their early 30s, I think I'd pass on Seabrook and hang on to Gudz. Gudz is entering his prime now and his best hockey is ahead of him, whereas Seabrook's is on the decline and his best years are behind him. In general, I say do not trade a guy entering his prime years cuz that's the mostly likely time they'll explode for a career year and it'll come back to haunt ya and make u look bad.SKYO wrote:
I'd rather overpay Seabrook who can play big minutes top pairing still, rather than overpay Gudbranson who'll likely command 4m- 5m per, I'd rather spend a few extra bucks on Seabrook.
Oh my. Where was my brain?! What was I thinking?!?!?! I am SO STUPID! Yes, let's keep those guys. We are already a powerhouse team. Canucks finished 29th. Let's keep, primarily, the same team and push for 28. Hell, let's shoot for the moon and aim for 20th! Yes, the future would also look bright with all those young, high end players coming up from the farm and our awesome Sedin succession plan. What was I thinking?! Silly me!Blob Mckenzie wrote:Shattenkirk would have zero interest in coming to Vancouver
Trade two or three of Tanev, Edler and Hutton. Why exactly? I guess Gudbranson ,Biega, Stecher and Sbisa is a great top 4 defence . Subban and Pedan can play on the bottom pairing and Mcaneny and Sautner can round out the top 8. Should be good.
If I recall, Shattenkirk's interest in playing for a Canadian team does not extend beyond Toronto and Montreal.....Iceman2014 wrote:Oh my. Where was my brain?! What was I thinking?!?!?! I am SO STUPID! Yes, let's keep those guys. We are already a powerhouse team. Canucks finished 29th. Let's keep, primarily, the same team and push for 28. Hell, let's shoot for the moon and aim for 20th! Yes, the future would also look bright with all those young, high end players coming up from the farm and our awesome Sedin succession plan. What was I thinking?! Silly me!Blob Mckenzie wrote:Shattenkirk would have zero interest in coming to Vancouver
Trade two or three of Tanev, Edler and Hutton. Why exactly? I guess Gudbranson ,Biega, Stecher and Sbisa is a great top 4 defence . Subban and Pedan can play on the bottom pairing and Mcaneny and Sautner can round out the top 8. Should be good.
It's nice to see you and the Shatt are so tight where you could definitively answer for him. Also, there aren't a ton of teams with the cap space to take on a big contract. Canucks will lose Miller and deal some more contracts away in my hypothesis. Canucks will have room!
So now you are recommending we give up a significant asset (because that's what it would take as Chicago would have NO SHORTAGE of suitors for Seabrook if he hit the market), to get a $6.8M 2nd or 3rd defenseman and then sell him as our stud blueliner? We've been overselling a guy at that spot for years.SKYO wrote:He can continue to produce here, he'll get top pairing minutes and #1 powerplay time, he's clutch and when Keith is injured he's been a iron curtain defensively.
Seabrook scored 32 & 24 points before Kane, Toews, Panarin, Hossa arrived.
A lot of the top tier dmen in the league can play well into their late 30's, this should hold true to this beast, plus being around a lot of hungry young guys could spark him too.
[/b]
32 and 24 points from a youthful player is a far cry from the 40+ you say we could count on from an aging defenseman.
Jan.2016
[about Seabrook]
"Quietly the best two/three D-man in the game," Kings coach Darryl Sutter said via text message this week. "Plays every situation, whichever type of game it is. Great playoff stats and big goals. Three Cups, Olympic gold, world junior gold. All-Star Game last year. Power play, penalty kill and leadership."
Let's just state the obvious here: Sutter isn't one for hyperbole. But it very much captures the feeling of many opposing coaches, players and hockey executives around the league when it comes to the level of respect that's out there for the playoff warrior Seabrook.