Denver defenseman Keith Seabrook has signed with the WHL's Calgary Hitmen.
Seabrook was a second round draft pick of the Washington Capitals in 2006. He played one season for the Pioneers where he registered 13 points in 37 games. I haven't heard any reason for his departure.
Best of luck to Seabrook in the WHL. It's probably just as well since I always got him confused with his brother Brent anyway.
UPDATE USCHO was able to get a quote from DU coach George Gwozdecky on the departure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Seabrook should of went to the WHL 2 yrs ago. GO CHL!!!
Right... because nobody good has ever come out of college hockey... anybody playing in the CHL is practically gauranteed a NHL career!!1!
Anyway, sounds like a "family advisor" got involved here.
The CHL really did wonders for Todd Warriner's and Brent Bilodeau's career!
GO CHL!!!
The prestigious CHL turns out more flops than a Jack Black pool party.
So what exactly is Seabrook going to do when his hockey career fails and he has no degree to fall back on?
Maybe his brother can support him?
Anonymous said...
So what exactly is Seabrook going to do when his hockey career fails and he has no degree to fall back on?
2:22 AM
Wow. You mean he can't take classes while he's playing in the WHL? or durning the summer. Or is he going to sign with Washington (2nd rd'er) and play in the AHL the 08-09 season.
Anonymous said...
The CHL really did wonders for Todd Warriner's and Brent Bilodeau's career!
GO CHL!!!
1:19 AM
Todd Warriner
4th overall in 1992 draft (Not Bad)
453 NHL games played (Just OK)
Still playing hockey over in Germany making over 100,000 a year.
Now that's a bust!
Brent Bilodeau
17th overall 1991
Played in the minors until 04-05.
AHL,IHL and ECHL.
Now he's a Coach in the ECHL.
Might not of made the NHL, But has played hockey for 12yrs and is now in the coaching side.
Both total Bum's.
The last anonymous makes me thing about how the term "success" is defined. I mean, some may say the key to success is, you know, a well respected career. Others say success is like the CHL claim of producing NHL stars. In which case, Todd Warriner and Biladeau did a great job of burning the guy who thought he was burning the other anonymous.
Personally, I think both avenues produce different kinds of NHL players. Neither path guarantees anything in terms of NHL success. LIkelihood is based more upon the player and his playing style than on the path he takes.
There is the arguement about development and that argument goes back and forth. The truth is that both paths develop players well. It is up to the player and his support set up as to what path best suits him.
Argue all you want about which side is better, the CHL or the NCAA, but the truth is that the argument is nothing more than vain tripe spouted by fans of that particular path with both sides seemingly unable to understand the value of the other.
It's a stalemate.
Anybody who played 10+ years in the NHL or other high-level pro leagues like AHL, many European leagues, etc, probably grossed in the seven figures for income in his career and had a good career. In which case, who cares whether he played junior or NCAA.
The players who are important to this CHL vs NCAA argument are the ones who DON'T go on to make a career in the sport, and this is the majority of players regardless of which path they take. Which of these options leaves them better off when their playing days are over?
I still think it's a wash in most cases. The CHL offers scholarships too for players who play in their leagues and assuming those kids use that scholarship money and get a degree, they aren't any worse off than the NCAA kids.
For some other kids, college was never something they were interested in anyway. For them, no loss if they play CHL and never go to college. And for others, playing NCAA offers them a chance to attend a school (say, Harvard) that is far superior to what college they might have gotten into otherwise. Again, this is a wash. Both those groups got what they wanted out of their hockey careers.
They are both good options, they are both very high calibre levels of hockey, and I don't think one is better than the other overall. It all depends on the individual player and what he wants out of his hockey career.
Annon 9:31 a.m. The kid that was drafted 17th overall spent 12 years in the minors. If that's your definition of success you gotta be a 'Kato fan!
for a kid who doesn't know what he wants to study at age 18 the CHL is the way to go, provided he has a packaged scholarship to use later. Think of the CHL as a "Hockey trade school" where players concentrate on their primary goal, hockey. Those in the NCAA who have an idea of what they want to study at age 18, good choice for them. You don't want to waste the scholarship $ taking bogus courses as a result of not knowing what they want to do other than hockey IMO.
anon 9:31
The point I am making is that either of those players could of accomplished the same careers if they chose NCAA. The only difference is they could of had a degree to go along with it.
It is the CHL trollers that think there is only one path to the next level and that the CHL guarantees some type of NHL superstardom.
anon 4:29 makes a great point.
However, anon 10:20 not so much.
I don't know if ANY kid knows what he wants to study when entering college, athlete or otherwise. That's really what your freshman and sometimes even sophomore years are for.
The average American college student will switch majors no less than 3 times in a collegiate "career." So, why not find out what you'd like to do while playing hockey?
Like anon 4:29 says, it is probably more of a wash with the only difference off the ice being when the schooling takes place and perhaps some significance in the quality of the school you are attending (I'm not sure how many people would take U of British Columbia over Harvard or Cornell provided that both colleges have programs that appeal to that particular person and the person is qualified to get into said colleges, but there are always exceptions).
Another option is to spend an additional year or two in the USHL while deciding what to do with your education.
Drafted players are not going to the USHL unless they were there when drafted. Taking college courses on a part-time basis while playing in the CHL, which is paid for by the team, is a good way to go for 18 and 19 year-olds who aren't sure what they want to study IMO. We certainly have enough Business and Speech Comm majors already participating in all of the NCAA sports! Anyway, I don't see this route as a lost education, as some anti-CHLers make it sound. There are valid reasons for making the decison that Seabrook made. Also not everyone is made for college, some will benefit from a trade school in somethng other than hockey (i.e. plumbing, electricians, etc.) and do quite well financially, usually better than most business majors in today's job market. The point being made is to get the most out of the scholarship rec'd, for the individual player, so as to benefit his own future. Sometimes that isn't connected to an undergraduate degree. Would any of you consider your own child a fool or a failure for not going to college as long as they had a goal they were seeking?
I just love the desperation of the insecure chl trollers that visit this site.
Warriner and Bilodeau? Really grasping for straws if you have to use those two players as your slam against the CHL. They didn't even have education packages back then for the CHL. I don't even think the NCAA was producing NHL players at the rate they are now. Give me some current names of players that have ruined their career in the CHL. Whether a player plays 5 years in the CHL and has 5 years of schooling paid for or an NCAA player gets all 4 years of his education it still depends how much effort they put in their classes.
Ruined their career? So we're now going to extremes?
Please.
I don't think any player has had their career ruined by selecting either route. They choose what they feel is the best plan for them. Some, like Adam Pineault or Bourque from BU tried college and didn't like it then went CHL. The real shame is that the opposite can't happen. If a player doesn't like the CHL he has limited options (turn pro if anyone is willing to sign him, go to Canadian college, if he's under 21 (don't know if the age requirement is different in the CHL... they do have "overagers" whatever that means), he may be able to go down to Junior A (USHL, BCHL, NAHL, etc.), or go to Europe... There may be others I'm not thinking of).
What IS happening is that some people are looking at stat sheets and assuming that the players they look at will produce similarly in the NHL. Unfortunately still, it happens for both pro-CHLers and pro-NCAA people. I like to pick on the Minnesota Mild as an example for the CHL. What about Stephane Veillieux... wasn't he like a scoring machine, or at least a point-making machine, in the CHL? How's that working for him now?
I'm positive there are plenty of NCAA players who went pro and had similar disappointments, so spare me the trite and childish retributions.
What is simply put is that, at one point the NCAA was not really taken seriously. Not many top flight players saw it as a viable option. That has since changed considerably. I believe that it has never been more difficult to be a top flight hockey player, especially an American, because there are two solid choices that can be made.
Post a Comment