JJ I couldn't agree more. Your plus points about Seabs will be on full display if he's injured for any length of time this year.
The Hawks' D is mighty thin in talent equal or better than #7 so dismissing him as done leaves us with Murphy, a PTO or another rookie to fill his RD spot. That will not take the Hawks any closer to the cup or a playoff spot.

I'm not sure that here is anything close to #7 grooming in Rockford either, so replacing him for an equal will cost the Hawks a pick and a player, maybe 2. The cap hit would be equal to what Seabrook makes so there would be no cap relief either.

Bowman over paid, but keeping Seabrook around was not a mistake

Stats don't show anything by themselves and they aren't really in Seabrook's favor at this point. The thing that stands out is when he been burned. Not on the stat sheet, but on the ice in the last 3 games or so. Sure, maybe he had an okay game against one line, but overall against the Leafs his stats weren't so good.

He was only one of 5 players on the ice at 5v5, but in the Leafs game while Seabrook was on the ice...

Corsi For - Against
10-21

Fenwick For - Against
7-17

Shots For - Against
2 - 9

Scoring Chances For - Against
3 - 16

High Danger Chances For - Against
1 - 9

All that against Toronto was while being deployed in the Ozone 72% of the time.
- breadbag

You can't really pick one bad game from an already too small sample size and make an argument.

In our house when out to dinner, if a server asks how the meal is, and is met with "Fine", it's code for: " I don't like it, don't like it one bit and won't be back." But not trying to take it out on the server - who is usually busting their arse...
- riozzo

Except that's not how Q uses fine but okay.

You can't really pick one bad game from an already too small sample size and make an argument.
- L_B_R

The context was on how he played against the Leafs and I wasn't making an argument outside of that.

Seabrook has been fine yea he has jad is moments of wtf but he is experience and good hockey IQ i don't see kieth and seabrook combo staying together all season if rutta continues to get better then i would see hom with kieth and seabrook with kempney. To me the biggest problem is faceoffs if the centers can win draws then the d can get the puck out of the d zone faster instead of running around same in o zone. So use the cap space and go and get a center that wins faceoffs over 50%.

Matthews Corsi for during that game while he was against Seabs was 16.67% and he was on the ice against him for 7+ minutes. It was 53% away from him. Nylander was 16.67 also, and Marner was 0. Kadri's line was the one that did the most damage against 2-7
- JRoenick97

Well I don't see the same numbers you do, but maybe there are some bad sources.

http://naturalstattrick.c...eason=20172018&game=20035

Matthews was listed at 5v5 with Corsi of 87% and 87.5% in all sitations. I don't see how he could have been 16.67% vs Seabrook and 53% away from him.

The context was on how he played against the Leafs and I wasn't making an argument outside of that.
- breadbag

Your first sentence is that stats aren't really in Seabrook's favor, which seems like at least the start of a point. But mostly is just one game out of six still so it doesn't say anything except that he had a bad game. Everyone had a bad game that night.

Stats don't show anything by themselves and they aren't really in Seabrook's favor at this point. The thing that stands out is when he been burned. Not on the stat sheet, but on the ice in the last 3 games or so. Sure, maybe he had an okay game against one line, but overall against the Leafs his stats weren't so good.

He was only one of 5 players on the ice at 5v5, but in the Leafs game while Seabrook was on the ice...

Corsi For - Against
10-21

Fenwick For - Against
7-17

Shots For - Against
2 - 9

Scoring Chances For - Against
3 - 16

High Danger Chances For - Against
1 - 9

All that against Toronto was while being deployed in the Ozone 72% of the time.
- breadbag

Believe that was the game where $16 million in salary (38-15-88) was all under 20% in Corsi. A line that typical gets its starts in the o-zone. So let's be fair. The Hawks as a team were not great in that game, although Forsberg kept them in it.

Your first sentence is that stats aren't really in Seabrook's favor, which seems like at least the start of a point. But mostly is just one game out of six still so it doesn't say anything except that he had a bad game. Everyone had a bad game that night.
- L_B_R

I completely understand that and you are missing my point. I'm responding to the comment that Seabrook played well against Matthews in that game. I don't see that he (or anyone really as I acknowledged he was only 1 of 5 players on the ice at the time) had a good game at all.

Believe that was the game where $16 million in salary (38-15-88) was all under 20% in Corsi. A line that typical gets its starts in the o-zone. So let's be fair. The Hawks as a team were not great in that game, although Forsberg kept them in it.
- John Jaeckel

Absolutely, I was saying he was only 1 of the 5 on the ice when those stats happened. It isn't all on him, but I don't think that game is a good example of Seabrook shutting anyone down.

Couldn't agree more. This is a "problem" other teams wish they had
- BURDA13

Not sure if having a #2 Defenseman that's only as good as most teams 3/4 defenseman while making 7 mil per season is a problem other teams wish they had...

Matthews Corsi for during that game while he was against Seabs was 16.67% and he was on the ice against him for 7+ minutes. It was 53% away from him. Nylander was 16.67 also, and Marner was 0. Kadri's line was the one that did the most damage against 2-7
- JRoenick97

I think I see what you are reading and I could be wrong, but I think the stat is actually the opposite.

i.e.

http://naturalstattrick.c...sit=5v5&stype=2&rate=&v=o

I.e. Austin Matthews in that game. Seabrook played 7:31 against him and Seabrooks Corsi was 16.67% in that time while it was 53.85% when Matthews wasn't on the ice.

I just think Seabrook is better not facing the top tier opposition but still offers a lot to the Hawks.

I think I see what you are reading and I could be wrong, but I think the stat is actually the opposite.

i.e.

http://naturalstattrick.c...sit=5v5&stype=2&rate=&v=o

I.e. Austin Matthews in that game. Seabrook played 7:31 against him and Seabrooks Corsi was 16.67% in that time while it was 53.85% when Matthews wasn't on the ice.

I just think Seabrook is better not facing the top tier opposition but still offers a lot to the Hawks.
- breadbag

Well don't I seem silly now. I guess I was reading that backwards. So he was good against Pitt, CBJ, and MINN, but bad against TOR. His high danger stats are still solid. I did say i was new at this

EDIT: I reloaded the tables and it wasn't showing me the right numbers. I'm wrong on all accounts.

I completely understand that and you are missing my point. I'm responding to the comment that Seabrook played well against Matthews in that game. I don't see that he (or anyone really as I acknowledged he was only 1 of 5 players on the ice at the time) had a good game at all.
- breadbag

I wasn't missing that point, I just didn't disagree with it so I wasn't commenting lol. Sorry if that was confusing. I was just focusing on the generalization you made at the start, which is that stats don't favor him. They don't in that one game, they do in others. Too small a sample in either case.

Though yes, JR is reading the opposition numbers backwards.

Speaking of the present, some got their wish of Keith being taken off the 1st PP unit.
Blackhawks lines:
Saad-Toews-Panik
Hartman-Schmaltz-Kane
Sharp-Anisimov-DeBrincat
Bouma-Wingels-Hayden

Kero here, but not on a line.

PP1: Schmaltz-Hartman-Kane, Seabrook-Sharp

PP2: Keith, Toews-Panik-Saad-DeBrincat

Ugh, Seabrook has def lost a step and gets turn styled on a pretty regular basis. Though to be fair the team in general is getting spanked in all of the SAT categories and Crawford has made the difference. Also Brandon Saad using the power of Grayskull.

Ugh, Seabrook has def lost a step and gets turn styled on a pretty regular basis. Though to be fair the team in general is getting spanked in all of the SAT categories and Crawford has made the difference. Also Brandon Saad using the power of Grayskull.
- fattybeef

Either that or Saad is from Krypton...Kneel before Saad...or something like that

Not sure if having a #2 Defenseman that's only as good as most teams 3/4 defenseman while making 7 mil per season is a problem other teams wish they had...
- SimpleJack

So quantify this. I'm not disagreeing per se. But you can't say that and just support it with this guy or that guy is "better."

My point is, it's really hard, even with Corsi, unless you really, really dig into it and add a lot of context, to make an apples to apples comparison of Seabrook with another team's 3/4 defenseman.

The contract is a problem, longer term, but really not right now.

I still think they ought to use Seabrook and Forsling as point men on the PP. They could rotate back and forth and both can really bring it and mostly get it through.

Ugh, Seabrook has def lost a step and gets turn styled on a pretty regular basis. Though to be fair the team in general is getting spanked in all of the SAT categories and Crawford has made the difference. Also Brandon Saad using the power of Grayskull.
- fattybeef

Not really gonna argue that he has lost . . . something . . . and is not worth $6.875 mil a season. But the devil you know . . .

Some other team's "Top 4 defenseman," the new best hockey player in the world to some Hawk fans, who Stanley is gonna go out and get for a bag of pucks, probably has blemishes too.

I still think they ought to use Seabrook and Forsling as point men on the PP. They could rotate back and forth and both can really bring it and mostly get it through.
- 6628

Seabrook has the best point shot on the team, except maybe Franson who is slower than Sheldon Souray or Andy Delmore.

Any good organization knows how to balance the present with an outlook on the future. And the Hawks are doing both, but now that the season is started, they have to focus on the present because the ultimate goal is winning the cup this year. Losing Seabrook now, unless it was for an equal or better replacement (highly unlikely), would hurt those chances. That's just fact. I mean, were you for or against keeping Oduya over Leddy in 2014? The possibility of cups vs the reality of one?

But anyway, don't let me stop you from worrying about some fantasy future instead of looking at the current team and it's chances this year, but I do think it's kind of unproductive since we don't know what the future holds.
- L_B_R

Are you saying you can only trade Seabrook for someone of equal talent? Did the Blackhawks get equal or better talent when they traded Hjarrmarrson? I don't think so.

Sometimes you need to move a player because it's best for the future of the team. Going forward, Seabrook is not going to be a #2 Dman. Probably not even on today's team.
Do you believe, as presently constituted, this a Cup contender?

Are you saying you can only trade Seabrook for someone of equal talent? Did the Blackhawks get equal or better talent when they traded Hjarrmarrson? I don't think so.

Sometimes you need to move a player because it's best for the future of the team. Going forward, Seabrook is not going to be a #2 Dman. Probably not even on today's team.
Do you believe, as presently constituted, this a Cup contender?
- tompo1015

Too early to tell.

Too early to tell.
- JRoenick97

But 6 games is a big enough sample size to crucify Seabs/Murphy/Bouma and all other 2017-2018 whipping boys!!!
WE'RE DOOMED

Are you saying you can only trade Seabrook for someone of equal talent? Did the Blackhawks get equal or better talent when they traded Hjarrmarrson? I don't think so.

Sometimes you need to move a player because it's best for the future of the team. Going forward, Seabrook is not going to be a #2 Dman. Probably not even on today's team.
Do you believe, as presently constituted, this a Cup contender?
- tompo1015

I'm saying they cannot trade Seabrook for someone of lesser value now / in-season because it would hurt their chances for this year too much. Key word being now. The fact that Hjammer was traded for a lower value player but who is a nod to them looking out for the future is exactly why they can't do the same thing with Seabrook. It's why I said the Hawks are balancing the present and future - Hjammer was moved for the future, Seabrook stays for the present.

Sometimes people like to play armchair GM for future seasons too much and aren't looking at what is best for the present team. To each their own, I guess.

And they've played 6 games, dude. I don't know how the season is going to roll out, and unless you have a crystal ball, you don't either. I do know that I don't want them to waste a year of Toews, Kane, and Keith not going for it and that Seabrook right now is more helpful than the likely return they'd get for him in-season. Also after the Pens winning last year, anything is possible because that was a not good team.