John Jaeckel: 7 is enough

First?

2nd

Be glad, for now, you have Brent Seabrook. And focus elsewhere.

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

In other cities, Vancouver...St Louis... Nashville... They'd be raising statutes of #7 for all the playoff heroics he's had. And the 3 Cups.

10 years from now even his current skeptics will see his contributions in context and cheer when they raise his number to the rafters.

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

I second this comment. If Seabs is our problem, then I like this team's chances.

I'll repeat my question from last Blog, for all clamoring for a trade that yields a defenseman. Which defenseman is going when we upgrade? Keith and Seabrook are going nowhere. Murphy is probably not going anywhere either, but who knows. Early returns say Rutta is here to stay as well. So are we ready to give up on Forsling and Kempney? Time to platoon them?

How about - we're mixing two issues here.

One is Seabrooks ability today (and for another season or two) - he's probably a legitimate top 4 through then - and, at a cap hit of $6.875MM per, is probably appropriately paid. I know there are a couple here who think he IS Roszival today - but I don't see it.

But - his contract (at that $6.875) goes for another 6 seasons after this one, with 4 more years of an attached NMC.

So - IMO - for today - we're fine; for the years in the last half of his deal, perhaps not so fine - with the ability to get out of the contract (by deal or by CBA buy-out) being questionable.

Assuming the CBA is reopened after next year, it's impossible to tell how negotiations will go in a revenue-stagnant environment that the NHL finds itself in - will the 50/50 split remain, leading to a stagnant cap - will the players' share decrease, leading to declining caps - will the players' share increase - will there be compliance buy-outs....

Live for today, boys - we have no idea what cap issues will exist in two years - accept a still-quality Seabrook for his play today and don't worry about his contract in 2022.

If the forwards can't keep it on the offensive end for more than 10 seconds, it really doesn't matter.

Past 2 years, line 2 was the only line that could consistently maintain pressure on the ozone.

This year its currently line 1, no other line can sustain or maintain offensive zone pressure

From 2013-15 we had 3 lines that could score and fourth that could maintain ozone pressure, btw this has been the Penguins path to the SC the past 2 years, i mean seriously look at their defenseman for the SC run those 2 years, nothing special.

I'll repeat my question from last Blog, for all clamoring for a trade that yields a defenseman. Which defenseman is going when we upgrade? Keith and Seabrook are going nowhere. Murphy is probably not going anywhere either, but who knows. Early returns say Rutta is here to stay as well. So are we ready to give up on Forsling and Kempney? Time to platoon them?
- TheTrob

Rutta and Kempny are UFA's so keeping them both is not likely unless somebody goes. Or they give us very friendly deals. Seabs himself is not the problem he is fine #4RD the problem is he is being paid like a #1 D. This is not hammer who signed a team cheap deal on his last contract. Seabs made just shy of 6 mil from 25-30. He again at the time was being paid like a #1. in the salary cap era if you want to stay with a team and on a good team you need to give a little back (Seabs gave nothing, I do not blame him I blame SB to call his hand) Look at the Manning, Brady ETC. Brady makes about as much as Glennon. Brady wanted to stay in NE, wanted his legacy to be in NE and wanted to play on a good team. So he did a deal that was at least 5mil per year under value. Every other contract SB has given even ones that turned out bad other then giving ROZ 2 years, 3 years ago I understood why.

Excellent post. This is exactly why I think the focus trade-wise should be on a top-9/middle-6 center that can play the wings if need be. I also wouldn't be opposed to looking into Evander Kane, not a center, I know.

If we need to go for defense though, which LD might not be a bad idea, I will feel like they should be targeting McNabb from VGK.

Any trade talk out there JJ?

EDIT: This was in response to BetweenTheDots.. didn't quote.

When Q says someone has been "fine", that means they're just this side of "suck".

In other cities, Vancouver...St Louis... Nashville... They'd be raising statutes of #7 for all the playoff heroics he's had. And the 3 Cups.

10 years from now even his current skeptics will see his contributions in context and cheer when they raise his number to the rafters.
- Hawkjet

All true--if you want to live in the past. I prefer to look forward.

Hey John 🙋. ..good honest write! ..ya that seabs contract will be a little scary in a few years! ..but for now he's fine and hopefully will stay healthy and contribute at a top 4 dman level! And Hartman and shamaltz have looked great! Best of luck with the rest of the way!

All true--if you want to live in the past. I prefer to look forward.
- tompo1015

Why not stick to the present?

Why not stick to the present?
- L_B_R

all IMO, Seabrook has been a solid well rounded dman for many years. He was never really elite at any one thing but did everything really well.

He had a bit of an up and down year last year (struggled with some bad moments around the time he was injured in late 2016) and he has had a few rough games here this year.

No fancy stats needed, he has made errors. He is still a solid NHL dman, but he is past his peak. He has had this so-so start to this season while playing with Duncan Keith. He isn't done but there should be questions about if he should be top pair RD, because he isn't the same shutdown guy he once was. It would be more ideal if they could put him in the 2nd pair and get him away from so many tough matchups. If the Hawks can figure out someone to handle that top pair.

When Q says someone has been "fine", that means they're just this side of "suck".
- tompo1015

For young guys, yes. Not for his vets.

Quotes not working.....

Why not stick to the present? Because Seabrook's contract doesn't end this year. And, any good organization--business or sports--always looks forward.

For young guys, yes. Not for his vets.
- JRoenick97

Did you expect Q to say anything derogatory?

Did you expect Q to say anything derogatory?
- tompo1015

No, because Seabs has been truly fine. So has Keith.

Rutta and Kempny are UFA's so keeping them both is not likely unless somebody goes. Or they give us very friendly deals. Seabs himself is not the problem he is fine #4RD the problem is he is being paid like a #1 D. This is not hammer who signed a team cheap deal on his last contract. Seabs made just shy of 6 mil from 25-30. He again at the time was being paid like a #1. in the salary cap era if you want to stay with a team and on a good team you need to give a little back (Seabs gave nothing, I do not blame him I blame SB to call his hand) Look at the Manning, Brady ETC. Brady makes about as much as Glennon. Brady wanted to stay in NE, wanted his legacy to be in NE and wanted to play on a good team. So he did a deal that was at least 5mil per year under value. Every other contract SB has given even ones that turned out bad other then giving ROZ 2 years, 3 years ago I understood why.
- kmw4631

It's always weird to me when people say Hjammer took a team cheap deal or hometown discount. He took 'less to stay' because he signed an offer sheet for more than his value on his previous contract. Hjammer got paid something like $500-700k on his 2nd contract and then only got a $600k raise on his 3rd. Seabrook is different because he was paid his value on his previous contract and then took a pretty usual raise for top pairing d-men, which he most certainly was in 2015, coming off another good playoffs with big timely goals.

The amount of Seabrook's contract isn't currently a problem. It might become a problem down the line (though contract amounts will go up over time) but that's a future Hawks problem. People need to stay more focused on what is happening now, which is that Seabrook is playing overall well (not without mistake, but well) and he's a integral part of the defense.

Stats show otherwise. He and Keith are very similar on their stats and they have shut down some great lines. They've also been burned by other lines. They handled CBJ and TOR greatly when there were on the ice at 5v5. Matthews line was at 17% corsi and Panarins was at 35%. Minnesota and Pit were higher (>50%). Pitt was a function of the score though, they just sat back and let them have the puck. For being "too old" and "too slow" those 2 dominated the young Matthews/Marner line.
- JRoenick97

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.

Quotes not working.....

Why not stick to the present? Because Seabrook's contract doesn't end this year. And, any good organization--business or sports--always looks forward.
- tompo1015

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.

When Q says someone has been "fine", that means they're just this side of "suck".
- tompo1015

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...