And yet Patrick Sharp was on the 2014 Olympic team and Brent Seabrook was not.
- Sandus

If you recall, Seabrook played in the previous Olympics and was benched 1/2 way through. He wasn't fast enough to keep up and Babcock benched him. And that was on an NHL sized surface. On an olympic sized sheet it would have been worse. Hence, he was left off the roster the last Olympics.

But I agree with the guys who say keep him. Nobody else they have now can fill his shoes. He was always going to be a plodder but has made a lot of progress with his balance getting his weight back on his heels most of the time (not up on his toes which leads to stumbling and falling like his early days in the NHL). And everything else is top notch. I think he will be a positive influence going forward with the young D men they are eventually going to have.

He lived in the Chicago area for quite awhile after his career was over. By all accounts I have heard, he was a nice guy.
- Elbows15

He is, met him in 2009. At that time, he looked like he could still play. Guy had a gigantic heart on the ice.

If you recall, Seabrook played in the previous Olympics and was benched 1/2 way through. He wasn't fast enough to keep up and Babcock benched him. And that was on an NHL sized surface. On an olympic sized sheet it would have been worse. Hence, he was left off the roster the last Olympics.

But I agree with the guys who say keep him. Nobody else they have now can fill his shoes. He was always going to be a plodder but has made a lot of progress with his balance getting his weight back on his heels most of the time (not up on his toes which leads to stumbling and falling like his early days in the NHL). And everything else is top notch. I think he will be a positive influence going forward with the young D men they are eventually going to have.
- 6628

It's all conjecture: where they set the cap, Seabrook's contract demands, Oduya's.

I will tell you this, the Hawks, themselves, are VERY worried I'm told (by the same source who tipped me on the Winter Classic) about the cap.

So I will also say this, this whole conversation will be moot if the cap is really low. Because then it will not be about who you want to trade but who CAN you trade. And who is relatively replaceable.

Bickell, Sharp, Crawford, Seabrook.

Personally, I think the order of priority is just what I listed above. The forwards are most replaceable, followed by the goalie, followed by a premier NHL defenseman.

But who knows.

Sandus I heard the real hockey experts in Canada prior to the Olympics feel that there was need of another a strong defender over another offensive mailman.

(and 6626, it was more a matter of him not seeing minutes because they needed to kickstart Team canada and overplayed that top five as i recall...it had little to do with the continuing perpuation that he is slow. He adjusts as well as any big guy after he gets turned....I can take ANY NHL deeman and watch their three last games and find where a forward or three made them look "that type of slow.")

Maybe you didn't understand my rebuttal-it was that overall top defenders have high value.

Of course, every team WANTS (and wants to develop) "mailmen" who are quality attackers and offensive generators and will pay them even as younger players because the game now runs through the backline passing and carrying.

So many of those teams you mnetions HAVE mailmen, but it hasn't helped jell those teams inot dominat threats and strong protectors of their zones.

My point is you can't pull a plauyer like Seabrook and try and plug n replace especially when the guys he is replacing are left handed, or fit well with partners, but to think Seabrook is NOT a REALLY good partner on any FIRST PAIRING is a little downplaying his ability.

I refuse to make a prediction on Seabrook turning UFA, or getting traded, but I do know there will be little hesitation by lots of NHL clubs IF this guy hits the market.
If traded there will be REAL return.

Let's just say, I have a friend who is a good friend of Seas vacations at his Ontario house, etc
, and this man loves Chicago and leaving is not anything he is thinking about now....

Let's not forget Seabs impact on Duncs play. I contend Duncs has two Norris cuz Seabs is his D-partner. I'd approach a Seabs/Crow question the same way SB did in July 2010 with the Hammer/Nemo question; different circumstances of course.

Nothing again Crow, but him, Bucks and Sharp will be the first three (guys under a 15-16 contract) the 'Hawks will consider moving should the cap stagnates.
Just hope the Canook dollar gets back up over US $0.92 by April.
- blackhawk24

Disagree about a billion percent. Seabrook puts up the numbers he does because Keith can cover a disgusting amount of ice and make up for a lot of his brain farts.

When push has come to shove and they need to lean on a defensive pairing it is Hammer and Keith not Keith and Seabs.

It's all conjecture: where they set the cap, Seabrook's contract demands, Oduya's.

I will tell you this, the Hawks, themselves, are VERY worried I'm told (by the same source who tipped me on the Winter Classic) about the cap.

So I will also say this, this whole conversation will be moot if the cap is really low. Because then it will not be about who you want to trade but who CAN you trade. And who is relatively replaceable.

Bickell, Sharp, Crawford, Seabrook.

Personally, I think the order of priority is just what I listed above. The forwards are most replaceable, followed by the goalie, followed by a premier NHL defenseman.

But who knows.
- John Jaeckel

yeah lots can happen...what if a guy like Carolina's Andrej Sekera decided he doesn't need a giant payday but an excellent chance at silver?
Then maybe you see the hawks rethinking breaking up the top four.

Bickell first but Sharp is close only because he has value past Bick's/

Disagree about a billion percent. Seabrook puts up the numbers he does because Keith can cover a disgusting amount of ice and make up for a lot of his mistakes.
- fattybeef

Without a doubt great pairing and world class speed as a partner gives Seabrook options...but he'd be on a top pairing with another quick offensive-minded partner if he was elsewhere.

My understanding is the cap will be 75 -76 despite the loonies drop...the franchise's are making their concern know to the bossman because 30 GMs are frightened they could mess this thing up and backslide.

As a team, FO% is 52.4%, Kruger is even better than last year, say what you want about Richards, that deal is looking really good right now, as the Hawks added a legit C who, slow as he is, is light years faster than Handzus—and healthier and more productive.

So far sacrificing Leddy for the cap and filling in with youngsters has come up 7's for Stanley.
- John Jaeckel

Meh. Oduya is going to be expensive. Someone will offer him 8 million over two years and there is something to be said about that last pay day. Saad is going to cost a bunch of dollars, Kooga is going to want a raise. Luckily the two young guys are RFA's so you get some kind of bridge but I'm assuming 6 million for the pair or so.

Puts them at 71 mildo with 11 forwards and 4 defenders (includes TVR).

If the cap goes up to 76 then that makes life easier. If it is closer to 72 then they have an issue. If it stays at 69 then yikes.

Seabrook is going to get close to whatever Boychuk gets even though he isn't quite at that level so that is something to keep an eye on.

They're not going to be bad by any means but there will probably need to be some retooling and a handful of new faces which is going to mean a bumpy fall.

Not that I want to see Crawford moved but if it comes down to keeping the D in tact or moving Crawford I move Crawford.
- jhawk159

Why because you saw a giant make myself big and handle the puck well in three NHL games?
Because you saw Raanta's quickness and coolness?

Let's revisit this after the shootout is eliminated, because I don't think anyone is gonna like Raanta or Darling in them for that importnat point over Crow.

I totally get the reasoning on letting CC go and it is the $, but guess what : whomever gets that Chiacgo job eventually gets paid that also.

It is not like I am completely ignorant of the reasoning with the Cap stagnating, but I think there are still many persons in many organizations who still think it will withinn two seasons take a HUGE jump upward.
This was told to me as the Sportsnet deal was made and for as many owners want to pocket that sum there are as many who want to spend to build as their teams are starting to turn the corners.
and even the Oiler like teams ...these kids have big on the job training salaries where GMS are not giving up on them until they are h,mmm 26 yr.s old....and they need CAP space to overpay to plug holes and keep re-upping the "nucleus."

I say the CAP takes a jump in two years time and big one...

Meh. Oduya is going to be expensive. Someone will offer him 8 million over two years and there is something to be said about that last pay day. Saad is going to cost a bunch of dollars, Kooga is going to want a raise. Luckily the two young guys are RFA's so you get some kind of bridge but I'm assuming 6 million for the pair or so.

Puts them at 71 mildo with 11 forwards and 4 defenders (includes TVR).

If the cap goes up to 76 then that makes life easier. If it is closer to 72 then they have an issue. If it stays at 69 then yikes.

Seabrook is going to get close to whatever Boychuk gets even though he isn't quite at that level so that is something to keep an eye on.

They're not going to be bad by any means but there will probably need to be some retooling and a handful of new faces which is going to mean a bumpy fall.
- fattybeef

You're probably very close to the truth here

Why because you saw a giant make myself big and handle the puck well in three nHL games?
Because you saw Raanta's quickness and coolness?

Let's revisit this after the shootout is eliminated, because I don't think anyone is gonna like Raanta or Darling in them for that importnat point over Crow.

I totally get the reasoning on letting CC go and it is the $, but guess what : whomever gets that Chiacgo job eventually gets paid that also.
- wiz1901

Yes, but if it buys you 2-3 years, you might just have to do it. Again, all conjecture, right now.

Sandus I heard the real hockey experts in Canada prior to the Olympics feel that there was need of another a strong defender over another offensive mailman.

(and 6626, it was more a matter of him not seeing minutes because they needed to kickstart Team canada and overplayed that top five as i recall...it had little to do with the continuing perpuation that he is slow. He adjusts as well as any big guy after he gets turned....I can take ANY NHL deeman and watch their three last games and find where a forward or three made them look "that type of slow.")

Maybe you didn't understand my rebuttal-it was that overall top defenders have high value.

Of course, every team WANTS (and wants to develop) "mailmen" who are quality attackers and offensive generators and will pay them even as younger players because the game now runs through the backline passing and carrying.

So many of those teams you mnetions HAVE mailmen, but it hasn't helped jell those teams inot dominat threats and strong protectors of their zones.

My point is you can't pull a plauyer like Seabrook and try and plug n replace especially when the guys he is replacing are left handed, or fit well with partners, but to think Seabrook is NOT a REALLY good partner on any FIRST PAIRING is a little downplaying his ability.

I refuse to make a prediction on Seabrook turning UFA, or getting traded, but I do know there will be little hesitation by lots of NHL clubs IF this guy hits the market.
If traded there will be REAL return.

Let's just say, I have a friend who is a good friend of Seas vacations at his Ontario house, etc
, and this man loves Chicago and leaving is not anything he is thinking about now....
- wiz1901

I"ll give you 5 hockey men that would spend big to get Seabrook onto their blue line. Mike Babcock would give the Hawks 3 of the stiff defenceman he puts out there every night. Barry Trotz would forget he knew or saw Brooks Orpik and Niskanen ever play. And Jim Knill, Patrick Roy and Pete Chiarelli would be all over getting Seabs for their teams. Add Doug Wilson, Craig McTavish and many others to the list too.

Therein lies the problem for Stanbo - the NHL market is now overpaying so many relatively average defenceman it's ridiculous. Guys like Phaneuf, Girardi, Letang, Karlsson, Orpik, Niskanen, Subban, Greene. Comapratively, Seabs is worth as much or more than all of them.

Do you ever wonder if the other fan boards are having these type discussions?

Or are they akin to that Facebook Blackhawk fans page where the bandwagon has canonized each player from Darling on up and you get to see the jewelry, tattoos and brand new expensive jerseys the "true" fans have bought for themselves and their pets...
why does that guy keep deleting my posts????????

Therein lies the problem for Stanbo - the NHL market is now overpaying so many relatively average defenceman it's ridiculous. Guys like Phaneuf, Girardi, Letang, Karlsson, Orpik, Niskanen, Subban, Greene. Comapratively, Seabs is worth as much or more than all of them.
- RickJ

Yup...this is the very problem and even if the Cap expands those crazy GMs would just offer more.

It's all conjecture: where they set the cap, Seabrook's contract demands, Oduya's.

I will tell you this, the Hawks, themselves, are VERY worried I'm told (by the same source who tipped me on the Winter Classic) about the cap.

So I will also say this, this whole conversation will be moot if the cap is really low. Because then it will not be about who you want to trade but who CAN you trade. And who is relatively replaceable.

Bickell, Sharp, Crawford, Seabrook.

Personally, I think the order of priority is just what I listed above. The forwards are most replaceable, followed by the goalie, followed by a premier NHL defenseman.

But who knows.
- John Jaeckel

You also have to factor in what they can get. Seabrook would get the best picks \ most talent \ whatever to try to reload again in 2 or at the worst 3 years. So in terms of long term planning that makes sense.

In terms of winning today obviously it means keeping him but there has to be some balance there.

Pretty interesting dilemma

Meh. Oduya is going to be expensive. Someone will offer him 8 million over two years and there is something to be said about that last pay day. Saad is going to cost a bunch of dollars, Kooga is going to want a raise. Luckily the two young guys are RFA's so you get some kind of bridge but I'm assuming 6 million for the pair or so.

Puts them at 71 mildo with 11 forwards and 4 defenders (includes TVR).

If the cap goes up to 76 then that makes life easier. If it is closer to 72 then they have an issue. If it stays at 69 then yikes.

Seabrook is going to get close to whatever Boychuk gets even though he isn't quite at that level so that is something to keep an eye on.

They're not going to be bad by any means but there will probably need to be some retooling and a handful of new faces which is going to mean a bumpy fall.
- fattybeef

Seabrook is not at Johnny Boychuk's level? Was that a typo?

Without a doubt great pairing and world class speed as a partner gives Seabrook options...but he'd be on a top pairing with another quick offensive-minded partner if he was elsewhere.
- wiz1901

Don't disagree but how much and for how long? Does he decline at 32 or 36?

If he can be kept for 6.5 per 5 years I think you do that deal. Over 7s and I think not.

As a Pens fan, I sadly have to agree. We have no forward depth on our farm team and even 2 or 3 guys on our regular roster could probably clear waivers.

Hawks were smart and loaded up on prospects last time the cap forced them to tear their teqm apart. Still, you have to admit that their cap situation next year is going to seriously test them and they likely won't be in as good a spot as they are now.
- Tojo.

Loaded up on prospects is true, but I think you get a big step forward on when you draft like they did in 2011.

How does the org depth look without that draft

Seabrook is not at Johnny Boychuk's level? Was that a typo?
- RickJ

No. Boychuk is a tremendous defender at about the same age and does it without Keith.

I also think that Hammer is a better defender than Seabrook.

Just like my opinion man.

And like at least one other poster here I've been saying Sharp is expendable for the last 3 or 4 years. Being right about something, even if it is only one thing, is pretty much the best feeling ever.

No. Boychuk is a tremendous defender at about the same age and does it without Keith.

I also think that Hammer is a better defender than Seabrook.

Just like my opinion man.

And like at least one other poster here I've been saying Sharp is expendable for the last 3 or 4 years. Being right about something, even if it is only one thing, is pretty much the best feeling ever.
- fattybeef

Sharp has nothing to do with Seabrook except they have similar salaries. The Hawks would move #10 in a heartbeat if it came down to a choice between him or Seabrook.

Interesting about Boychuk, I know the Bruins had a cap problem but if Boychuk was that special I would have thought Seidenberg would have been moved out ahead of him.

On the contrary, I think comparing any two players as examples when it comes to age is valid. For every Nik Lidstrom or Teemu Selanne there is a Dany Heatley or Martin Havlat. The fact is, once a player hits 30 years old, there is no telling how long his career will continue at a high level. Could Seabrook be Chris Chelios and play for another 7-8 years at top line caliber and then another 2-3 at Top 4 level? Absolutely. But he could also go the Wade Redden route and take a sharp downturn.

I know I'm talking in extremes here and reality is likely to be somewhere between the two, but the fact remains that the only real certainty you have about Brent Seabrook is his present day value and capabilities. If I'm being practical, giving Johnny Oduya 4 years $16 million works out better and is easier to stomach if Oduya turns to garbage (plus any assets you could acquire from a Seabrook deal prior to next season) than 7 years $49M does if Seabrook starts to decline in 2-3 years.

So if you're sure that Seabs has lots left in the tank, then give him 6-7 more. If you're not, I'm in favor of Oduya for the next couple years and trading Seabrook at the peak of his value.
- Sandus

Thought JJ has contended all along that the reason Johnny O was kept instead of Leddy is that he and his agent have let the Hawks know that they'd resign for a cheap cap hit.

Oh yes , Bob Pulford....the dark days!!
- HawkfaninBC

Try and remember those days............it helps keep perspective on what's going on now!

Thought JJ has contended all along that the reason Johnny O was kept instead of Leddy is that he and his agent have let the Hawks know that they'd resign for a cheap cap hit.

- vabeachbear

Pretty sure the fact that he's a much better D-man at this point may have factored into that decision as well.

Disagree about a billion percent. Seabrook puts up the numbers he does because Keith can cover a disgusting amount of ice and make up for a lot of his brain farts.

When push has come to shove and they need to lean on a defensive pairing it is Hammer and Keith not Keith and Seabs.
- fattybeef

I look at it from the opposite view. Keith has the luxury of wandering over a disgusting amount of ice, at times playing a high risk/high reward style because he knows that if he gambles and loses, Seabs will be where he is supposed to be.

Hammer can do it too, but Seabrook should be retained if at all possible IMO. I'd part with anyone not named Toews, Kane, Keith, Hjalmarsson before I'd ship Seabs.