50% of Cap for 5 players?
How is that sustainable?

... Are you trolling, or...?
- Blackstrom2

Absolutely. Because I didn't say "right on buddy, great post, you're a genius" or something similar, and agree with you 100%, it's a troll.
Ok fine. You suggest his contract isn't for what he is "going to do". Very true. No one can see into the future. When you say not for what he is going to do, are you suggesting he won't be able to perform at a top level until the end of his contract?

50% of Cap for 5 players?
How is that sustainable?
- StargateSG1

Hjalmarsson and Kruger have been willing to take pay cuts to stay?

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Hawks wash their hands of Kane as soon as it's convenient so they'll be able to handle Seabrook's cap hit a little easier. They still have to put a team around the five guys taking up half of their cap.

Hjalmarsson and Kruger have been willing to take pay cuts to stay?
- 333inthe3rd

So, 60% for 7 players next season then?

So, 60% for 7 players next season then?
- StargateSG1

I guess it depends on who the 7 players are, and the value they can get with the rest of the roster.

It's a lot of money for a guy who falls asleep on the job. Check him out at 1:16 of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8vhXmCwt5w

Hence why it say 3 cups in 5 years, not seasons. Thank you for pointing out the common sense of statement in such exquisite detail.
- leonkennedy

LOL! This response makes it sound like you didn't know it was actually 6 seasons.

Yeah i never said he did. Glad you are keeping up bub. You're failure to understand the context, suggests the arrogance that can be expected from a Habs fan from Que.
- leonkennedy

You acknowledging the fact that he didn't personally have anything bad to say about Crawford just makes you look like more of a turd for jabbing at the Flyers then.

Failing to understand context also doesn't do anything to suggest arrogance. Ignorance maybe, but not arrogance. Arrogance could be assumed if I chose to be condescending and point out your improper use of the conjunction "you're".

Hence why it say 3 cups in 5 years, not seasons. Thank you for pointing out the common sense of statement in such exquisite detail.
- leonkennedy

So a 'leap' year is not theoretically a 'year', so it's even less - 3 in 4! Now that's a dynasty!!

(frank) the wings, and (frank) the ducks.

Crawford will be dealt in a year or two, especially if Darling keeps showing well.
- hawks2010

Not sure he can be moved.

Poor cap management, which seems to be the going thing with teams

Poor cap management, which seems to be the going thing with teams
- twpguy

In fairness, this occurs whenever teams have success.

Ask Saad? Haha. Good chance Chicago still wins that trade with Dano and Anisimov. But you're a Flyer fan so have no idea what good hockey business is.
- acmidd28

Hence why it say 3 cups in 5 years, not seasons. Thank you for pointing out the common sense of statement in such exquisite detail.
- leonkennedy

Silly. When they win two cups in a row, would most people say:
1. "They won two cups in the same year", or
2. "They won two cups in two years".

50% of Cap for 5 players?
How is that sustainable?
- StargateSG1

If you're a Wings fan, you hope it isn't. If you're a hawks fan, you point to two more cups while living in really tough cap hell since 2010 purge.

Poor cap management, which seems to be the going thing with teams
- twpguy

You're so right. If Stan Bowman didn't screw up his cap management so badly since 2010, the hawks might have been able to win a 2nd Stanley Cup instead of just the one in 2010. (Red font)

If Seabrook hits the market, a team like the Oilers would jump at the chance to give him 8-9 million to try and sign him.

As for the Hawks, more term, less cap hit per year, and yes, maybe at the end of the contract, it becomes an albatross for them, but right now, it is a very good deal for both sides. Seabrook is one of the main leaders for this team, and if he left, it would have been devastating for the Hawks. Kane being dealt would not be as bad as losing Seabrook...you do not easily replace guys like that on defence.

The Blackhawks have 63% of the cap space tied up in six players next year. Trade time?

Why is Crawford trash? Because Seabrook got a long term deal? Or because they bounced the flyers in 2010, then won again a couple years later with a different tender?
- leonkennedy

Oh your too effin funny, Crawford's a good goalie, that was the point, not a pi$$ing match which all Blackhawk fans want to do.

Ask Saad? Haha. Good chance Chicago still wins that trade with Dano and Anisimov. But you're a Flyer fan so have no idea what good hockey business is.
- acmidd28

Another one, (go figure), Ok we give you credit for 3 cups in 6 years.
Out of the woodwork after 40 years of a $hit team, with a $hit owner
congrats

If Seabrook hits the market, a team like the Oilers would jump at the chance to give him 8-9 million to try and sign him.

As for the Hawks, more term, less cap hit per year, and yes, maybe at the end of the contract, it becomes an albatross for them, but right now, it is a very good deal for both sides. Seabrook is one of the main leaders for this team, and if he left, it would have been devastating for the Hawks. Kane being dealt would not be as bad as losing Seabrook...you do not easily replace guys like that on defence.
- plyrs99

Anyone giving him 8-9m per year would regret it in year 1. He should be around 7 now and who knows where in 8 years.

Silly. When they win two cups in a row, would most people say:
1. "They won two cups in the same year", or
2. "They won two cups in two years".
- Cmonalready

This is what you Jabroni's want to argue about? Holy smokes the Hills some people will die on to make themselves seem smarter than another poster on the Internet....

Another one, (go figure), Ok we give you credit for 3 cups in 6 years.
Out of the woodwork after 40 years of a $hit team, with a $hit owner
congrats
- puckhead17

Your favorite team made poor decisions. Therefore, your opinion is less useful than his.