Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
This is brutal. The value is irrelevant--it creates two holes on the Sharks while filling one. The entire point of adding Seabrook is so that the defense can have at least one puck-mover on every pairing (Seabrook, Boyle, Demers). They're better off standing pat and calling up Braun than making that trade.
Also, if DW is interested in Seabrook he's better off just offer sheeting him in the off-season.
This is brutal. The value is irrelevant--it creates two holes on the Sharks while filling one. The entire point of adding Seabrook is so that the defense can have at least one puck-mover on every pairing (Seabrook, Boyle, Demers). They're better off standing pat and calling up Braun than making that trade.
Also, if DW is interested in Seabrook he's better off just offer sheeting him in the off-season.
I didn't notice Demers was in the deal. Woops. In that case, it makes the deal a whole lot less appealing...
That is severe overpayment for the Sharks. You could potentially have one of Demers or Pavelski but not both. In reality, the Sharks need to keep Jason Demers more than they need to keep Joe Pavelski.
I'd happily do Pavs, Greiss, and a 1st for Seabrook or Demers, Greiss, a 1st, and a 2nd for Seabrook but throwing both of them there will leave the same problem there on the Sharks' blue line...and that's mobility and puck-movement skills throughout the lineup. Demers is very close to breaking into the top four role and the kind of player he is, is the kind of player the Sharks need to add...not swap out.
Moving Vlasic instead of Demers makes a LOT more sense for us, Seabrook would directly replace him.
Honestly, if the Sharks were able to acquire Seabrook I'd keep Vlasic to pair with him. I see Seabrook a lot as a young Rob Blake and MEV had his best seasons paired with Blake. Seabrook would compensate for Vlasic's lack of puck movement as well as physicality.
I'd much rather have Vlasic over Demers, from a Chicago POV. SJ fans seem to be all over Demers, but I've never really liked him when I've seen him.
To Chicago
Pavelski
Coyle
Vlasic
To SJ
Seabrook
Vishnevskiy
2nd 2011
Thoughts?
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.
Moving Vlasic instead of Demers makes a LOT more sense for us, Seabrook would directly replace him.
No, it doesn't. You need four top four d-men. Right now, Boyle and Vlasic are legit top fours. Murray is on the fringe and getting worse. Demers is on the cusp but needs more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuckInTheNet
replace Demers with Vlasic and send us another d prospect in return?
So you basically want to trade Pavelski and Vlasic for Seabrook and another d-man prospect. After this trade, you have to re-sign Seabrook to somewhere in the range of 5 mil. The team saves roughly 2 mil and then still needs to go out and find another top four while getting thinner up front. Not too thin up front but thinner nonetheless. That trade doesn't make sense for the Sharks' lineup next season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss
I'd much rather have Vlasic over Demers, from a Chicago POV. SJ fans seem to be all over Demers, but I've never really liked him when I've seen him.
To Chicago
Pavelski
Coyle
Vlasic
To SJ
Seabrook
Vishnevskiy
2nd 2011
Thoughts?
I'd say no to this deal. Pavelski and Vlasic for Seabrook is overpayment. Vishnevskiy is not going to be anything special and Coyle has more value as a 1st rounder that has done nothing but impress when he's on the ice than Vish and a 2nd.
If the Sharks need to move a d-man but keep Demers, it has to be Murray. Bringing in Seabrook effectively makes Murray obsolete anyway as his minutes and physicality get replaced by a better overall player.
Pavs, Murray, and a 1st for Seabrook and a 3rd would be acceptable to me but this idea that it makes sense to throw Vlasic in is silly.
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.
There's no screwing Chicago over with an offer sheet this off-season. They have plenty of space to match and it won't impact any of their plans much either.
There's no screwing Chicago over with an offer sheet this off-season. They have plenty of space to match and it won't impact any of their plans much either.
If it's 5.5M or more, he'd be wearing a Sharks jersey IMO.
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.
How would they screw us? You sign him to anything more then 5.5 and we'll glady take the picks.
I meant "screwed over" in that it would be a tough decision to make if it was a competitive offer sheet. Losing Seabrook could potentially cripple the Hawks' defense as there's really no one on the UFA market who could replace him despite the freed up cap space.
I meant "screwed over" in that it would be a tough decision to make if it was a competitive offer sheet. Losing Seabrook could potentially cripple the Hawks' defense as there's really no one on the UFA market who could replace him despite the freed up cap space.
No it wouldn't be tough. If it's more then 5.5 you can have him.. we'll take your picks. If not, we sign him and still have lots of space. I don't get where the "screwed" part comes into play.
