Blackhawks: 3 Bad Contracts That Still Haunt Chicago

2. Brent Seabrook

I understand signing Duncan Keith to a 13-year deal when he was in his 20s, but giving Brent Seabrook an eight-year deal worth $6,875,000 AAV is embarrassing. I’ll start by saying this, Seabrook is not and never will be better than Keith.

The Blackhawks gave Seabrook this contract when he was 30. A 30-year-old defenseman shouldn’t be offered a contract longer than five years. As we’ve seen with Keith and Seabrook, they slow down.

When they slow down, teams are forced to play them because of their contracts. With four years left on his contract, Seabrook will be a staple on the Blackhawks’ lineup, unless he waves his no-movement-clause. I really don’t see that happening. What team wants to pay him $6,875,000 AAV?

The only trade option I could see would be the Blackhawks taking some of his salary. They can’t buy him out. That would be a waste of money. They’d have to pay him to either sit at home or sign with another team.

Coming off of three surgeries this year alone, will Seabrook even be 100% ever again?

This contract is a tricky one. At least with Keith, he still pulls his weight. Seabrook hasn’t pulled his weight for a few years now. They can’t put in younger defensemen because they can’t move him. Is it worth benching him and paying him to do nothing?

This season they’ve had a chance to play Adam Boqvist. He has a bright future. Once Ian Mitchell joins the team, things will get better. If they draft a solid defenseman in the draft, they could have a nice future ahead of them. They just can’t give out bad contracts.

Decisions like these are why I question Stan Bowman. He took a team that he didn’t build and really ruined it. He got rid of too many prospects to win cups now. They’d still be competitive if they had some of those players back.