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 contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Nash and Seabrook

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2014, 07:08 PM
  #26
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 7,963
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.
They've been playing together for almost a decade, I don't think trading Seabrook or Keith and breaking up that pairing would make any sense.

IMO, the Hawks don't need to make any big trades - they're about as good as you're going to get. Of course every team could improve but the Hawks don't need to.

The only thing the Hawks need is a star (or legit) #2 center - that's their real need.

Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 08:04 PM
  #27
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post

... creating a roster spot for Clendenning, Rundblad, etc knocking on the door would be enough of a +.

There are 3 RD slots.
Seabrook is the only RD in their top-5 d-men - Keith, Oduya and Leddy are the LDs on the top-3 pairings, but Hjalmarsson is also LD and in fact played LD the first few years of his career. Ideally Hjalmarsson will go back to his natural position at some point.

There is no evidence that either Clendening or Rundblad are ready to take a permnanent shift in the NHL, let alone a top-4 spot on a contending team. Based on some Hawks posters that are season ticket holders in Rockford (AHL where Clendening plays), he is still a disaster on the defensive side of the puck and not close to being ready for more than a couple cups of coffee with the Hawks next year. Who knows what's with Rundblad - he's bounced around on several teams and at this point is still a prospect and not a sure thing. Klas Dahkbeck and maybe Stephen Johns may be more ready but neither one of those guys have even suited up for an NHL game yet so neither one of them can come even close to replacing Seabrook.

But again - it's not just that the Hawks wouldn't want to trade Seabrook for the already mentioned reasons - but they can't afford to spend that size Cap hit on another forward, especially a winger that they have plenty of. If it were a legitimate top-6 center that could play 2C for the Hawks - then it would be a viable discussion. But the last thing the Hawks need is a $5M+ winger when they already have Kane, Hossa and Sharp and other guys like Saad, Bickell and Versteeg all capable of playing in the top-6.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 08:06 PM
  #28
WarriorofTime
Registered User
 
WarriorofTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
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.
Uh no? Trading a defenseman for a winger makes zero sense for the hawks.

WarriorofTime is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 08:58 PM
  #29
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorofTime View Post
Uh no? Trading a defenseman for a winger makes zero sense for the hawks.
Trading a winger for a dmen is equally as absurd from the Rangers pov. Some posters take needs into consideration when creating proposals. Others, not so much.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 09:13 PM
  #30
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,461
vCash: 500
This thread confused me until I saw it was started by bern, who once suggested that Kreider's low-end potential was Dave Keon and his ceiling was Pavel Bure, which is baffling on any number of levels.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 09:43 PM
  #31
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,619
vCash: 500
The Rangers need scoring more than defenders.
The Blackhawks need defenders more than wingers.

Why would either team do this, Bern? I don't want to hear about sacred cows and coke for pepsi and the usual stuff, how does this make ANY sense for either of the teams involved?

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2014, 10:56 PM
  #32
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
The Rangers need scoring more than defenders.
The Blackhawks need defenders more than wingers.

Why would either team do this, Bern? I don't want to hear about sacred cows and coke for pepsi and the usual stuff, how does this make ANY sense for either of the teams involved?
In his head, a few things happened:
-Staal, Girardi, and Hagelin were traded for Hertl.
-We upgraded the 1C position by trading Stepan for a 4th liner and nominating Miller as our 1C. That Miller-Kreider combo is going to wreck hell next year with all that SPEEED.
-Somehow Taylor Hall was added to the team. Still unknown how.
-We're clearly stacked offensively now, therefore we need to trade for a dmen. Hence the Nash/Seabrook chestnut of a proposal.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 05:32 PM
  #33
Rangers_23
Beuke!
 
Rangers_23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Land of Entrapment
Country: United States
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rangers_23 Send a message via MSN to Rangers_23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion* View Post
In his head, a few things happened:
-Staal, Girardi, and Hagelin were traded for Hertl.
-We upgraded the 1C position by trading Stepan for a 4th liner and nominating Miller as our 1C. That Miller-Kreider combo is going to wreck hell next year with all that SPEEED.
-Somehow Taylor Hall was added to the team. Still unknown how.
-We're clearly stacked offensively now, therefore we need to trade for a dmen. Hence the Nash/Seabrook chestnut of a proposal.
Haha so very true. At least he finally got past the "Move Zucc to center" phase...


Rangers_23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:29 PM
  #34
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
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.
Thank you for confirming value seems there.
I understand Hawks fans and hope they understand my premise.
Both are correct, but I see how they come to their different conclusion.

[Part of the premise is Chicago wanted space for its Ds, and was better able to juggle adding another F, Nash, on a discount, then keeping Seabrook. I don't think one can argue that C does need slots for Clendenning, Rundblad, etc, but I totally get how that legit fact is not enough to dislodge the value of Seabrook.]

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:31 PM
  #35
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
They've been playing together for almost a decade, I don't think trading Seabrook or Keith and breaking up that pairing would make any sense.

IMO, the Hawks don't need to make any big trades - they're about as good as you're going to get. Of course every team could improve but the Hawks don't need to.

The only thing the Hawks need is a star (or legit) #2 center - that's their real need.
Unfortunately, we don't see eye to eye about top dollar overpayment for Stepan, for whom I expect there are better offers.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:35 PM
  #36
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
Seabrook is the only RD in their top-5 d-men - Keith, Oduya and Leddy are the LDs on the top-3 pairings, but Hjalmarsson is also LD and in fact played LD the first few years of his career. Ideally Hjalmarsson will go back to his natural position at some point.

There is no evidence that either Clendening or Rundblad are ready to take a permnanent shift in the NHL, let alone a top-4 spot on a contending team. Based on some Hawks posters that are season ticket holders in Rockford (AHL where Clendening plays), he is still a disaster on the defensive side of the puck and not close to being ready for more than a couple cups of coffee with the Hawks next year. Who knows what's with Rundblad - he's bounced around on several teams and at this point is still a prospect and not a sure thing. Klas Dahkbeck and maybe Stephen Johns may be more ready but neither one of those guys have even suited up for an NHL game yet so neither one of them can come even close to replacing Seabrook.

But again - it's not just that the Hawks wouldn't want to trade Seabrook for the already mentioned reasons - but they can't afford to spend that size Cap hit on another forward, especially a winger that they have plenty of. If it were a legitimate top-6 center that could play 2C for the Hawks - then it would be a viable discussion. But the last thing the Hawks need is a $5M+ winger when they already have Kane, Hossa and Sharp and other guys like Saad, Bickell and Versteeg all capable of playing in the top-6.
Thanks, thought Clendening particularly they wanted to make room for, so much so, is the buzz about Rozi going?

This is what was behind my thinking there.
As to the W/C posture, I get it, figured when high enough talent fits usually it can work, but I agree with you.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:38 PM
  #37
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
This thread confused me until I saw it was started by bern, who once suggested that Kreider's low-end potential was Dave Keon and his ceiling was Pavel Bure, which is baffling on any number of levels.
So, you can't handle the truth, or that I called it!

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:52 PM
  #38
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Thanks, thought Clendening particularly they wanted to make room for, so much so, is the buzz about Rozi going?

This is what was behind my thinking there.
As to the W/C posture, I get it, figured when high enough talent fits usually it can work, but I agree with you.
Clendening strong suit is offense. At best he might be able to in the bottom pairing so he could be sheltered from playing against the opponents best lines. If Seabrook were traded, Hjalmarsson would be able to move up to #2, but there isn't anyone to take Hhalmarsson's spot. Rozsival is RD and still OK as a #6, but no way fills Hjalmarsson's skates as the #3/#4. Trading Seabrook would transform the Hawks d-corps from arguably the best in the league to something much much less.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 06:59 PM
  #39
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
The Rangers need scoring more than defenders.
The Blackhawks need defenders more than wingers.

Why would either team do this, Bern? I don't want to hear about sacred cows and coke for pepsi and the usual stuff, how does this make ANY sense for either of the teams involved?
Quote:
The Rangers need scoring more than defenders.
The Blackhawks need defenders more than wingers.
Yes and yes.

But you overlooked the premise I took pains to set up:

Quote:
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.
So right over there at sq1 there is some value to redeploying Nash and his cap for NYR. Just for the sake of cap relief.

Can we directly flip Nash for a better C?
No.
So we have to go in multiple steps.

Quote:
Assume bernmeister wants to dramatically reinvent much of the team. Anticipate Girardi was bundled with Stepan + for an F upgrade.
completing the NY side, moving Girardi made Seabrook even w/his salary acceptable, particularly as it is a shorter deal.
It is assumed we get more scoring in this case bundling Girardi + Stepan.

So Seabrook works as an alternate to Girardi on D, and we were otherwise able to add offense.

Quote:
Assume Rangers prefer not to keep both MSL and Nash, and need to find Nash a home.
MSL and Nash are somewhat duplicative; keeping both is expensive.


Ok, why Chicago, a W?
Didn't view it strictly that way.

Quote:
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 I said basically you can have Nash for the cost of Seabrook for the 2 years you would have Seabrook, then above and beyond that for the balance of Nash, I'd give you an extra $1 mil per. At this point, Nash's NMC turns into a NTC. So any way you cut it, they are getting Nash at a discount. It's assumed as to immediate application, maybe somebody else (Sharp?) slides to C, but for short term, it keeps scoring robust. Also it is a fallback for them if Hossa needs be moved, etc.

I recognized this was not enough.
I said:

Quote:
Given this, it seems for Chicago:
helps create varsity rosters for Clendenning and Rundblad if he breaks out.
I overemphasized the need for them to recover one of 3 RD slots (with Rosi and others prob squeezed out, and I overrated immediate readiness of Clendenning and Rundblad, whiich is legit, just not as immediate as I thought it was.
Conversely, it would be easier to juggle an F when there are more spots.

That was my thinking CM.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 07:01 PM
  #40
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion* View Post
In his head, a few things happened:
-Staal, Girardi, and Hagelin were traded for Hertl.
-We upgraded the 1C position by trading Stepan for a 4th liner and nominating Miller as our 1C. That Miller-Kreider combo is going to wreck hell next year with all that SPEEED.
-Somehow Taylor Hall was added to the team. Still unknown how.
-We're clearly stacked offensively now, therefore we need to trade for a dmen. Hence the Nash/Seabrook chestnut of a proposal.
Taunt all you want.
I will laugh last.

oh, and by the way:

KREIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 07:05 PM
  #41
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
Clendening strong suit is offense. At best he might be able to in the bottom pairing so he could be sheltered from playing against the opponents best lines. If Seabrook were traded, Hjalmarsson would be able to move up to #2, but there isn't anyone to take Hhalmarsson's spot. Rozsival is RD and still OK as a #6, but no way fills Hjalmarsson's skates as the #3/#4. Trading Seabrook would transform the Hawks d-corps from arguably the best in the league to something much much less.
Thank you for the clarifications.
I stand corrected.
I believe we can agree to say you have the blessing of an abundance, but with cap reality, there is pressure to do something, so theoretically, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, recovering a spot is desirable and useful for you guys.
Unfortunately, even if talent was repurposed in Nash for good enough value, the bottom line is loss of Seabrook is too much,
ALL THINGS WOULD NOT BE EQUAL.

Forgive me, I tried, it was an honest effort.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 07:06 PM
  #42
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers_23 View Post
Haha so very true. At least he finally got past the "Move Zucc to center" phase...

Let's not be too hasty.
Keep all our options open.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 07:31 PM
  #43
poes law
Registered User
 
poes law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
At a cap hit of 5.8 million, I'd certainly hope that a forward wouldn't score fewer points over the season than Seabrook, even if said forward missed about 20% of the season. It'd be one thing if Seabrook was in a scoring race with Karlsson scoring around 1PPG, but Seabrook is "only" a .5PPG player. At this point, you'd consider other parts of the game, such as leadership, defense, physicality, etc. Would anyone really consider Nash a better leader, defensive player (relative to position, or in absolute terms), or more physical player than Seabrook to the point where swapping Seabrook for Nash at the same cap hit is somehow palatable for the Hawks? I certainly wouldn't.

Now think about their "clutchness." Nash has 2 goals in 23 career playoff games. Seabrook has 2 goals in his 3 playoff games this year; Seabrook has 2 playoff OT goals. Nash's career PPG is just above .5, Seabrook's just below .5.

Based on all this, Seabrook is the better player, so what about fit for the team?

Trading Seabrook for Nash would be giving up the guy who logs the second most ice time (only behind Norris finalist and former winner) and getting in return someone who would at best be their fourth best winger.

So as far as fit goes, Hawks don't make out all that well there either.

And before someone tries to tell me Nash's production is lower because of injuries (specifically concussions), that really doesn't make Nash look as attractive as you might think it does.

poes law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 09:37 PM
  #44
Machinehead
54★ 74★ 90★ 14★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,390
vCash: 500
So we're shelling out for Seabrook so he can play behind Girardi? Plams.

__________________
Official 2014-15 Dan Girardi Own Goal Tally: 0

"It's Mario Götze!" -Ian Darke
Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2014, 09:48 PM
  #45
Flyerfan52
Registered User
 
Flyerfan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Taunt all you want.
I will laugh last.

:
Your OP was based on 4 assumptions. Did you expect it to be taken seriously?
The posters have shown a lot of restraint.

Flyerfan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2014, 08:28 AM
  #46
H a w k s
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 384
vCash: 500
The hawks will more than likely keep seabrook unless a no.1 high end #2 center is available on a sweetheart deal. I.e (Kesler or Pavelski)

H a w k s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2014, 08:38 AM
  #47
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,702
vCash: 500
Nash is a heavily overpaid player who plays a position the Hawks dont need help at and who's a consistently poor playoff performer.

This makes ZERO sense for Chicago. If theyre moving Seabrook, I would suspect it would be for a 1B/2nd line C.

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2014, 09:19 AM
  #48
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 7,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H a w k s View Post
The hawks will more than likely keep seabrook unless a no.1 high end #2 center is available on a sweetheart deal. I.e (Kesler or Pavelski)
I wouldn't breakup the Keith/Seabrook pairing for Kesler or Pavelski.

IMO, beyond Toews and his leadership that Keith/Seabrook pairing has been the anchor of this team.

Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2014, 09:56 AM
  #49
YourGM*
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Seabrook has more goals and points than Nash so far this postseason. Nash would be playing on the third line in Chicago, if you want Seabrook, it would be Stephan ++

YourGM* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2014, 06:14 PM
  #50
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
So, you can't handle the truth, or that I called it!
Yikes bern, haha.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 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 08:22 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.