- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,438
- Location:
- Chicago
A turd like DiPietro is making 4.5 mil
Crawf is already a better goaltender than him.
Crawf is already a better goaltender than him.
- Joined:
- Apr 10, 2011
- Posts:
- 16,341
- Liked Posts:
- 5,990
I like this deal. Now that we have a solid 'tender with some playoff experience, our chances of becoming a consistent SC contender are growing.
- Joined:
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,194
- Liked Posts:
- 1,463
I think his play in game 7 more than showed he's for real.
IF the Hawks would have squeaked that game out, would you still think the way you do?
ClydeLee
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2010
- Posts:
- 14,829
- Liked Posts:
- 4,113
- Location:
- The OP
Well technically baring injury or, :lol: the thought of benching him for Turco for some reason, Crawford would of had at least 4 more games experience if they inked out the win.
- Joined:
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,194
- Liked Posts:
- 1,463
He was never "meh". The guy had an absolutely fantastic rookie season with a struggling (putting it lightly) defense in front of him.
His regular season numbers were not far off those of Roberto Luongo (see: http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/...wford-vs-luongo-2010-11-reg-season-stats.html) and his playoff performance was enough to win the series.
You know why he got paid what he did? Because that is what he's worth. You don't think another team would have gladly paid him what the Hawks did?
- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,053
- Liked Posts:
- 11,503
My favorite teams
Well then Duncan Keith didn't exactly have to play at a high level according to your logic. He had big goals, and had a hand in the series going 7. Crawford did everything he could to win game 7. Crawford didn't allow the games to become close (see Huet, Cristobal)
It's Duncan Keith who helped the series get to 7, but Crawford lost it? As I recall, Crawford stopped 40 shots in game 7. The defense obviously didn't do much that game in helping him. Usually you don't see rookie goalies get nominations for the Venza Trophy, but he was 8th in GAA. Not great, but still solid and with room for improvement.
Did you consider the fact that Crawford will probably get better and more consistent with age and experience.
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
For sure there were "meh" times this season. I've dug it up before.
But after not even one full season?
The bolded part is why I stated Stan overpaid - to prevent any attempted poach.
3.25? For real? Bleh. That's more than Halak made this past season...and he had a very successful coming out party in the playoffs prior to signing his deal. Rask had won the starting job over Thomas when he inked his deal - 1mil and 1.5, respectively. Quick signed a 3 year deal after he played a 72 game season on his ELC earning peanuts (afterward, he signed for 1.9, 1.8, 1.7) and has been in prior discussions of earning a Vezina nomination. Niemi signed with the Sharks after winning a cup for 2mil...and Crow will be making more salary than Niemi next season (even after he signed his extension he signed when he was hotter than hell). Should I even bother mentioning Jimmy Howard?
Fry me all you guys want and I like Crow, but damn, .800 to 3.25? :/
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
I'm not sure how are drawing the conclusions you are based on my "logic." Keith didn't "have to play" at a high level? I'm saying he was the bigger reason why we won the games we did. This also means, if you want to jump and draw to conclusions, that he played the biggest role in the reason why we lost the games we lost. He was plain awful in the losses. I'm saying the series is won and lost more so based upon his play than ANY other reason (or goaltender we've had). I mean, we won a Cup with a rookie goaltender who had only one amazing series and was driving a Zamboni prior to earning a spot as a backup (see Niemi, Antti). Our team defense is (and will be) the driving force to our success and our failure...and Keith is our motor there.
I never said "Crawford lost the series."
As for your third point (paying a player big bucks now in the hope he pans out later), that's the kind of fiscal philosophy that will bury this team (see Hjalmarsson, Niklas). Stan allowed SJ to set his market (which was high)...and got burned..and I said at the time of the signing he's not worth it, but eventually he may be. Who knows. But if this type of fiscal philosophy is subscribed to, we're screwed. Because of the way the CBA is set up in the NHL, there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but I think the goaltender position is one where this type of gambling makes so little sense (see Dipietro, Rick).
There's no harm in asking for further clarification before you assume and jump to conclusions and insinuate statements I never intended.
- Joined:
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,194
- Liked Posts:
- 1,463
Don't bother with Jimmy Howard. I don't really get the fuss over him. That's on me though.
You mention a bunch of other goalies and that's cool. Niemi is a very good comparison. Wasn't the rumor that the Hawks offered him a very similar 3 year deal to what Crawford got and he turned it down and went to arbitration instead? Of course its a rumor, but I remember 3 years 8mil being talked about. I also remember wishing Niemi took it.
The point I made is still valid. You don't think another team would have snatched him up? I'm pretty sure there are more than a few teams that absolutely would take him for what the Hawks got him. That is how you determine value.
And come on... a 2.6 cap hit for a legitimate, young goalie is FINE. It's actually really good. It's certainly nothing to worry about. Crawford is technically very sound and the guy appears to have a great head on his shoulders.
Think about it this way- if they didn't offer him this huge (sarcasm) deal and he ended up signing elsewhere (likely)... where would the Hawks be then?
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
Yeah, I feel the same about Howard, which is why I didn't waste my time delving into him, but he is worthy of a mention as he does fall into similar category.
I don't remember the exact rumored offer for Niemi. But being a rumor and not exactly verifiable kinda puts that baby to bed.
I haven't complained about the cap hit. I do not see how he deserves to make more than some of the goalies I mentioned above. Is Stan paying attention?
Also, a 55 + 7 (playoff loss) season does not equal legitimacy. I'd like to see more before he deserves/earns that kind of dough. 62+ is one regular season for a starter.
The terms of service and player rights really has to be worked on for the next CBA or our team is being way too soft with our RFAs. Look at it this way: our RFAs are, in a sense, holding the team hostage because "where would the Hawks be then" (having not signed him to this huge (sarcasm) deal) - your words. Seabrook played the same game, but at least he had some accolades to hang his hat on. Crow has been good, but in a really short amount of time and far fewer accolades to hang his hat on compared to others I mentioned earlier. I don't like the looks of that.
This class of RFAs is an amazing one and we'll see how it plays out.
- Joined:
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,194
- Liked Posts:
- 1,463
Me too, but that's not possible. I would have liked to have seen 2 additional seasons from Marty Havlat to see if he could have stayed healthy. Not possible.
A move had to be made and all things considered- it was a perfectly fine, very low risk move. If they gave him some big fucking Huet contract, I could see a healthy discussion on the subject. But right now we're just going around in circles here.
My team got the goalie I wanted. I'm incredibly happy and even more excited for next year than I was going into this year.
- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,053
- Liked Posts:
- 11,503
My favorite teams
But the games were blowouts, so it didn't matter what Crawford did is what I understood, but Keith played at a high level? Not disagreeing with you, defense is the key why Niemi and Crawford succeed, but to me, it seemed like you devalued Crawford's effort, and Keith was up on a pedestal.
I interpret that differently than you.
My interpretation of this statement is that Chicago paid too much, but another team could have set the market higher. It may bury the Blackhawks, but who knows? That's why they play the games. Crawford IMO is better as his position than Hjalmarsson ever was.
I'll never know now, but generally if I ask people to clarify something (in my experience) I get called stupid for not understanding a simple thing.
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,438
- Location:
- Chicago
Crawf couldn't win the series? He was one Sharp shot in OT from doing it.
You can thank Campoli for that series ending.
Series could've been over in 6 if it wasn't for him. (3rd period & OT especially)
You can thank Campoli for that series ending.
Series could've been over in 6 if it wasn't for him. (3rd period & OT especially)
- Joined:
- Nov 9, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,997
- Liked Posts:
- 1,153
- Location:
- Midlothian, IL
I like the deal. It's not a long term deal and has some trade value if he starts sucking in the walk year.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 9,066
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
- Location:
- Chicago
My favorite teams
no you can thank Alexandre Burrows for making a damn good play grabbing a puck that was cleared and keeping it in then making you get on your knees. dont blame campoli for making you get on your knees.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
Not everyone is an internet "know-it-all" and gets off on insulting others - but I can see how you could make that horrible assumption being around forums for a bit and have moved on from others where this was exactly the case. I'm not one of 'em (at least I consciously try not to be). I'm an older member of the forum (not in terms of how long I've been here, but actually years - I'm not a pimple-faced Sears catalog jerking off youngin' who also gets off on putting others down to get my frustrations out because I'm getting my lunch money stolen from a bully at school).
I could see your interpretation in how you said I put Keith on a pedestal, but then with a touch more clarification, I did put a huge amount of blame on him for the losses, more so than anyone else. With a lack of experience and with how the new NHL has shown us how goal tending is on the low end of importance in terms of team success, I think his number is on the high end.
Oops - Gotcha. When I said Crawford lost the series, I meant it more as a statistic rather than pointing the finger at him claiming he's the reason why we lost the series. For example, when he goes into a negotiation, he doesn't have a result to hang his hat on like other goaltenders who have played with similar excellence along with similar service time who make less money than he will. This was ammo in Stan's gun that turned out to be blanks? :shrug:
I hope we have a stud goaltender here and not a Steve Mason.
Like I said in the discussion between EIB, either we have to really toughen up on our RFAs or the system really needs to be looked at. This RFA class might be unprecedented talented and we'll see how these other teams make out with theirs (even as some of the teams may not be dealing with similar cap constraints, some of them will be dealing with cash constraints).
