HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Nash and Seabrook

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2014, 12:24 PM
  #1
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Nash and Seabrook

Following this year, Rick Nash (NMC thru nxt yr, limited NTC final 3 years after that) has an 7.8m cap hit for each of those 4 years.

Brent Seabrook has 2 after this, each at $5.8 mil, an even $2mil difference.

The Rangers backed themselves in a corner with how they extended certain players, but didn't get Callahan done, then, rather than lose him for nothing, overpaid to flip him for St. Louis, who still has a + side, but can't be moved and NY is locked into him thru next year.

Assume bernmeister wants to dramatically reinvent much of the team. Anticipate Girardi was bundled with Stepan + for an F upgrade.

Assume Rangers prefer not to keep both MSL and Nash, and need to find Nash a home.

Assume Nash recognizes Chicago is a great alternative to NY, and would offer, in short term anyway, great F group including Toews, Kane, Sharp and Hossa which could help make great lines. So he agrees to waive; Hawks would have some increasing flexibility when NMC converts to NTC if need to move him, esp for increases for Toews, Kane, etc.

Now, assume Rangers will eat $2mil per incl. cap hit on Nash for the next and following years (through 2015-2016). So for those 2 years the $ is a wash.

Then for balance of Nash deal (following 2 years of 2016-17 + 2017-2018) Rangers will not eat cap, but will add $1 mil per ($2m salary) as further partial discount.

So basically, does this work for both teams, with Nash $ discounted/roughly equalized?

Given this, it seems for Chicago:
helps create varsity rosters for Clendenning and Rundblad if he breaks out.
adds to immediate scoring
can be a problem long term but assuming NMC not waived again, can soon enough move Nash if not wanting to move Hossa (as to big tickets, or others if that makes more sense)

to me, could = benefit for Hawks

for Rangers, a lot of variables not here, but Seabrook as short term substitute for Girardi. Improves cap flexibility.

Does that work for both sides?
Is value close enough if Nash discounted as above?

If I get busy will respond to posts on Sat.
Thanks to all in advance....

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 12:26 PM
  #2
Flyerss
Registered User
 
Flyerss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,294
vCash: 50
Hawks have Hossa,Sharp,Kane,Saad the last things they would need is a winger and in exchange they're giving up a Top 20 Dman.

Flyerss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 12:42 PM
  #3
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerss View Post
Hawks have Hossa,Sharp,Kane,Saad the last things they would need is a winger and in exchange they're giving up a Top 20 Dman.
Yes, but you also have surplus at D, and wanted to be sure you would not prefer to move 1D for space but recapture value in a scoring W, then consider other options over the larger portion (12) of roster on Fs.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 12:55 PM
  #4
SLarmer28*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,649
vCash: 500
The Chicago Blackhawks are not trading Brent Seabrook.

SLarmer28* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:01 PM
  #5
Roof Daddy
Registered User
 
Roof Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9,443
vCash: 500
Why would the reigning champs look to move their top pairing D that they've drafted and developed (and won two championships with) for a 6'4 215 lb winger who likes to play on the perimeter and by all accounts is a playoff dud? They already have 3 wingers better than him, and a 4th that isn't that far behind and still on his ELC.

Hell to the no.

If the Rangers were serious about acquiring Seabrook, maybe Stepan+Girardi for Seabrook+Teravainen? Not a fan of either team, but that might make some sense.

Roof Daddy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:01 PM
  #6
HawkinMI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
The Chicago Blackhawks are not trading Brent Seabrook.
Yep. If he prices himself out of town so be it, but Seabs knows how valuable he is to this team and I don't think he'll mind only earning a small raise to keep the core together.

I would love to see Nash in red, but not at the cost of breaking up 2-7.

HawkinMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:05 PM
  #7
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof Daddy View Post
Why would the reigning champs look to move their top pairing D that they've drafted and developed (and won two championships with) for a 6'4 215 lb winger who likes to play on the perimeter and by all accounts is a playoff dud? They already have 3 wingers better than him, and a 4th that isn't that far behind and still on his ELC.

Hell to the no.

If the Rangers were serious about acquiring Seabrook, maybe Stepan+Girardi for Seabrook+Teravainen? Not a fan of either team, but that might make some sense.
No thanks. Not looking at coke for pepsi.
As explained hard to keep Nash and MSL who must be retained.

Thought moving a discounted former #1 overall would be good spark with you guys, but apparently not.

OK, no harm no foul.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:06 PM
  #8
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLarmer28 View Post
The Chicago Blackhawks are not trading Brent Seabrook.
Fair enough and thanks.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:26 PM
  #9
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 26,010
vCash: 500
Hawks don't want or need Nash
Hawks don't want to trade Seabrook

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:31 PM
  #10
SLarmer28*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkinMI View Post
Yep. If he prices himself out of town so be it, but Seabs knows how valuable he is to this team and I don't think he'll mind only earning a small raise to keep the core together.

I would love to see Nash in red, but not at the cost of breaking up 2-7.
Brent Seabrook is under contract for two more years.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/256

Brent Seabrook has scored as many playoff goals during the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs as Rick Nash has during his entire Stanley Cup Playoffs career.


Last edited by SLarmer28*: 05-01-2014 at 02:20 PM.
SLarmer28* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:35 PM
  #11
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,876
vCash: 500
1) Hawks very unlikely to willingly break up 2-7
2) Nash doesn't fill any sort of need
3) Nash's cap hit is a supermegahuge problem for the hawks.

I think if Seabrook ever were to get moved, it would need to be for high-end talents on ELCs- that's the only way it makes at least a little sense for CHI

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 01:44 PM
  #12
alpine4life
Registered User
 
alpine4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 500
No sense what so ever for CHI to do that trade... their top 6 wingers are all signed for next year (IIRC)

alpine4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 02:14 PM
  #13
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,552
vCash: 500
OP doesn't know how to evaluate the Rangers team-needs. How can he be expected to understand the oppositions?



Terrible proposal.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 03:19 PM
  #14
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,829
vCash: 500
Not sure how or why this would happen. NYR doesn't need another top pairing d-man and Chicago doesn't need another top 6 winger.

Also, MSL's contract is done next year. No need to move him or Nash for space IMO.

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 04:07 PM
  #15
ForeverFlameFan
Go Flames Go!
 
ForeverFlameFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Country: Mexico
Posts: 10,873
vCash: 50
You really think Chicago wants to give up their Seabrook-Keith combo? There is a reason why they are a top team year after year - because they keep the players together that have good chemistry.

ForeverFlameFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 04:11 PM
  #16
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
1) Hawks very unlikely to willingly break up 2-7
2) Nash doesn't fill any sort of need
3) Nash's cap hit is a supermegahuge problem for the hawks.

I think if Seabrook ever were to get moved, it would need to be for high-end talents on ELCs- that's the only way it makes at least a little sense for CHI
I accept your conclusion.
For the record, I did more than offset the cap issue.
However, potential upside of moving Seabrook to make room for others and chance of one more scorer creating increased dynamic is not worth potential risk or downside.

Thank you for the input.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 04:15 PM
  #17
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
OP doesn't know how to evaluate the Rangers team-needs. How can he be expected to understand the oppositions?



Terrible proposal.
Not the first time you and I disagree.
What should I expect?
You value Stepan more highly than Kreider.

PS If I remember RangerBoy's post, he said it was thought Kreider broke his hand sticking up for Stepan!

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 04:18 PM
  #18
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan View Post
You really think Chicago wants to give up their Seabrook-Keith combo? There is a reason why they are a top team year after year - because they keep the players together that have good chemistry.
No, of course they don't want to!

But as I correctly noted in the OP, they do have a log jam at D
This was one way of addressing it.
Get some quality for a similar cap hit which could be deployed alternatively on the roster.
Anyway, Just looking for some input.
Thanks for the 2 cents, appreciated it.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 04:20 PM
  #19
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Not sure how or why this would happen. NYR doesn't need another top pairing d-man and Chicago doesn't need another top 6 winger.

Also, MSL's contract is done next year. No need to move him or Nash for space IMO.
Addressed all this in the extensive premise of the OP.

Less about need and more about flexibility in juggling assets.

However, the +s do not apparently outweigh the -s, which is what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 05:00 PM
  #20
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Addressed all this in the extensive premise of the OP.

Less about need and more about flexibility in juggling assets.

However, the +s do not apparently outweigh the -s, which is what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks.
I know you stated the Rangers would keep $2M but that would only make it a $0 cost for the 2 additional years left on Seabrooks contract. Nash's adjusted cap hit ($7.8M - $2M) would still be on the Hawks books for another couple years after that. So - that's one problem with your proposal.

I doubt the Hawks want to move Seabrook, but if they did they would do it for Cap relief and only if they knew they had someone to step into the top pairing role.

Plus winger isn't a need.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 05:27 PM
  #21
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
...
Quote:
I know you stated the Rangers would keep $2M
Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Quote:
but that would only make it a $0 cost for the 2 additional years left on Seabrooks contract.
I intended full offset for length you would have had Seabrook

Quote:
Nash's adjusted cap hit ($7.8M - $2M) would still be on the Hawks books for another couple years after that.
Correct.
However, I was willing to throw $1m per for those next 2 years

Quote:
So - that's one problem with your proposal.
Agreed, the $1m per on the last 2 is apparently not enough.

Quote:
I doubt the Hawks want to move Seabrook,
Agreed other things being = they don't

Quote:
but if they did they would do it for Cap relief and only if they knew they had someone to step into the top pairing role.
I hoped if the quality of Nash as a scorer, discounts adjusting vs that he is overpaid, were enough, then creating a roster spot for Clendenning, Rundblad, etc knocking on the door would be enough of a +.
There are 3 RD slots.
Idea is one of these guys would step up and inherit Seabrook's spot, helping with cap issues.
There are 6 top 6 W slots (Nash is lefty but plays righty.) Thought this was a bit more roster flexibility for Hawks. Not painless or simple. Still have to jump through some hoops. But more flexibility.

Quote:
Plus winger isn't a need.
Agreed not a need, but thought the +s would still make it worthwhile.

Thank you for the constructive analysis and criticism.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 05:30 PM
  #22
ForeverFlameFan
Go Flames Go!
 
ForeverFlameFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Country: Mexico
Posts: 10,873
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
No, of course they don't want to!

But as I correctly noted in the OP, they do have a log jam at D
This was one way of addressing it.
Get some quality for a similar cap hit which could be deployed alternatively on the roster.
Anyway, Just looking for some input.
Thanks for the 2 cents, appreciated it.
I realize that. And I bet they probably wouldn't be that different without Seabrook. However, I think you should trade teams that really need defense if you want to trade defensive prospects, because I feel Seabrook should be valued due to his NHL experience. Keeping Seabrook and Keith is a must.

ForeverFlameFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 05:47 PM
  #23
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,920
vCash: 500
The Hawks have no need for Nash, esp his MIA routine in the playoffs. They also have no reason the trade Seabrook.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 05:49 PM
  #24
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan View Post
I realize that. And I bet they probably wouldn't be that different without Seabrook. However, I think you should trade teams that really need defense if you want to trade defensive prospects, because I feel Seabrook should be valued due to his NHL experience. Keeping Seabrook and Keith is a must.
In looking for a potential match for Nash, and seeing Seabrook, I overlooked the chemistry of he and Keith working together, esp. for so long.

Doesn't negate the points I made which remain accurate, but it is a clear add for not doing the deal ---- which has its own set of no less valid points.
Good observation.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 06:55 PM
  #25
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 10,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Following this year, Rick Nash (NMC thru nxt yr, limited NTC final 3 years after that) has an 7.8m cap hit for each of those 4 years.

Brent Seabrook has 2 after this, each at $5.8 mil, an even $2mil difference.

The Rangers backed themselves in a corner with how they extended certain players, but didn't get Callahan done, then, rather than lose him for nothing, overpaid to flip him for St. Louis, who still has a + side, but can't be moved and NY is locked into him thru next year.

Assume bernmeister wants to dramatically reinvent much of the team. Anticipate Girardi was bundled with Stepan + for an F upgrade.

Assume Rangers prefer not to keep both MSL and Nash, and need to find Nash a home.

Assume Nash recognizes Chicago is a great alternative to NY, and would offer, in short term anyway, great F group including Toews, Kane, Sharp and Hossa which could help make great lines. So he agrees to waive; Hawks would have some increasing flexibility when NMC converts to NTC if need to move him, esp for increases for Toews, Kane, etc.

Now, assume Rangers will eat $2mil per incl. cap hit on Nash for the next and following years (through 2015-2016). So for those 2 years the $ is a wash.

Then for balance of Nash deal (following 2 years of 2016-17 + 2017-2018) Rangers will not eat cap, but will add $1 mil per ($2m salary) as further partial discount.

So basically, does this work for both teams, with Nash $ discounted/roughly equalized?

Given this, it seems for Chicago:
helps create varsity rosters for Clendenning and Rundblad if he breaks out.
adds to immediate scoring
can be a problem long term but assuming NMC not waived again, can soon enough move Nash if not wanting to move Hossa (as to big tickets, or others if that makes more sense)

to me, could = benefit for Hawks

for Rangers, a lot of variables not here, but Seabrook as short term substitute for Girardi. Improves cap flexibility.

Does that work for both sides?
Is value close enough if Nash discounted as above?

If I get busy will respond to posts on Sat.
Thanks to all in advance....
The Hawks don't need Nash, but they need Seabrook.

I wouldn't do it. I suppose the value is there but such a deal would make no sense for the Hawks.

Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.