Bryan Bickell

[MassHavoc]

I think the thing we're missing in the posts above is.... where the hell is phranck...

 

[winos5]

He was AWOL even before the move from IHN.

 

[Variable]

The fact is, Variable, if Crawford is ditched this offseason (let's be Frank (or better yet, let's not; he was a crackpot) there is no reason to ditch anyone on the roster while the season is going), it's not going to be to aquire better skater assets, or goalie assets--nor will it be for anyone else who is ditched while still under contract--it's going to be to drop salary to make room for Toews/Kane while still maintaining much of the core and critical resignings like Saad. in that respect they are going to be replaced on the cheap--be it cheap because they are new and unprove, or cheap because they are just not that good but someone upstairs thinks that the second coming of Pisani can fill a hole.

Can the 'hawks get it done with Raanta or Darling? While possible it really has yet to be seen and just because the 'hawks did it before with Niemi and Crawford, it doesn't necessarily mean they can do it with Raanta or Darling.

It was hypothetical what I was saying. I know Crawford's going nowhere, I know Bickell will probably be a tough sell. I was saying that I wouldn't trade Crawford in order to keep a guy like Bickell,that wouldn't be the reasoning behind it because Bickell embodies the same type of cap mismanagement that Crawford is. He was the same type of mistake. I wouldn't get rid of one in order to keep the other, I would get rid of both of them.

And if the Hawks did it before with Niemi that means it's "been seen". It comes down to how you view the position. If you don't see it as the single most dependent position on the ice, we're not going to agree on much more beyond that when it comes to goalies.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I think the thing we're missing in the posts above is.... where the hell is phranck...

He was over on one of the Bears threads, but was chewed up and spit out. It's just not safe over there.

 

[LordKOTL]

It was hypothetical what I was saying. I know Crawford's going nowhere, I know Bickell will probably be a tough sell. I was saying that I wouldn't trade Crawford in order to keep a guy like Bickell,that wouldn't be the reasoning behind it because Bickell embodies the same type of cap mismanagement that Crawford is. He was the same type of mistake. I wouldn't get rid of one in order to keep the other, I would get rid of both of them.

And if the Hawks did it before with Niemi that means it's "been seen". It comes down to how you view the position. If you don't see it as the single most dependent position on the ice, we're not going to agree on much more beyond that when it comes to goalies.

I don't think the netminder is the single most position, yet I don't think it's a throw-away position like a lot of Crawford-bashers on other boards claim. I think the netminder is as-integral as any other position. No team out there is good enough to win on netminding, offense, or defense alone. IMHO you need a balance of all three because at some point, even the team's greatest strength is going to fail you.

Outside of the slide, all three have been, in general, great. A couple of games the D took a powder, a couple of games the O took a powder, and a couple of games the netminding took a powder. Overall none of the aspects of our game has been a weakness except in the slide, and in that case, all were except maybe O and even that was less than usual.

Going into next year, though, I figure most everyone not resigned can't be resigned, and they'll need sub-1M players to fill in. If we want to keep, say, Saad, it's going to cost an equvalent contract (Bickell). Seeing as how Kruger, Oduya, Runblad, & Rosival are all subject to the knife in that case, it means the team D is going to take a hit at least until chemistry builds. With that respect, keeping a known, vet presence in net is a less risky option that Raanta or Darling--at least for next year.

That fact that we did it with Niemi or Crawford has no bearing on whether or not Raanta or Darling can do it; they would have to do it with a different core supporting cast. Much like 2010 to 2013; it's a different team around the core. Niemi had Keith, Seabrook, and Campbell with a journeyman Hammer and a vet in Sopel hasing out the back end. By the time Crawford did it he had Keith and Seabs with Hammer, a journeyman Leddy, with Oduya and a vet Rosival. Going into next season the only "guarentees" would be Keith & Seabs in their 30's, and Hammer. Maybe a still-rookie TVR; and that's just the backend.

As such, it's not qute an apples-to-apples comparison. It's more like an apples to pineapples to pinecone comparison.

Couple that with Bickell being a better sell in the offseason. Both have an NTC, but the market for a 6M starter at-market goalie is going to be tougher than a 4M above-market big bodied forward--even taking an NTC into consideration. The only team I can count that *may* go for Crawford are Anaheim (I think they stay on the cheap with Andersen and go with a cheap backup, but plausible), Buffalo (doubtful Crawford waives his NTC to Buffalo), Edmonton (Very doubtful Crawford waive his NTC to go there), The Sharks (Since Niemi hasn't done anything since 2010 they can probably get him cheaper, but, plausible), the Blues (I think they will stay cheap and develop Allen--even though plausible, I doubt Chicago would trade to a division rival), and Washington (Probably the only real plausible trade partner). Outside of those teams every team has a starting goaltender paid per their skill or accomplishments. As such, any other team would have to sent their starter back, and that won't really work here.

At least with Bickell you have 2-6 slots on every team that Bickell could fill (bottom-6 LW to bottom-9 winger) as compared to only 1 per team Crawford can fill. Chances are greater if bickell submits his list of teams that we can make a deal there than with Crawford.

Just my opinion, though. I think the rest of this year and next year Crawford will be very valuable as the starter. After next year; who knows--that's when the Seabrook, Saad, Smith, & Raanta questions pop up.

 

[Variable]

Look I understood as soon as the contract was signed Crawford probably wasn't going anywhere for the duration of it, that doesn't need to be explained anymore. I'm not arguing the chances of that happening. A goalie like Crawford is all the Hawks will need for right now, but his contract is going to become an albatross moving forward. The Hawks never needed to spend that kind of money on that position.

To me puck possession is the single most important aspect of the game. That's what the Hawks are built on, that's what the most successful teams in recent NHL history (at least from the salary cap era on) have been built on. And very little of that is due to your goalie, no matter how good he is at handling the puck (which Crawford isn't the best in and saying it in that way is being generous). So when you tie up that kind of money on that position and for that amount of time, you start to lose your ability to keep or attain players that give you that strength and you start to depend more and more on your goalie instead. That's a big reason why big money, long term contracts given out to goalies rarely work out for teams. The Hawks aren't built around their goalie, so why pay a goalie like they are? Let teams like Columbus do that, or Montreal or Nashville (excluding this season). Teams that need to in order to be competitive. The Hawks don't need to.

The Hawks have put themselves in the position where they are probably going to have to depend more and more on Corey Crawford to be able to play better in his mid thirties (and beyond) than he has ever before in his career. That's not a knock against Corey, that's just probably not going to happen. Not exactly comforting. I'll take a better overall roster and an "unknown" in goal over that.

 

[LordKOTL]

The 'hawks puck posession gameplan isn't perfect. Last game against the Wild proved it. Crawford had to come up big whenever the team didn't have posession.

The 'hawks moving forward is not going to be like in years past. Keith, Seabs, Sharp, & Hossa are all aging vets and well-established--moreso than that were in 2010 and to a lesser extent, 2013. Toews and Kane rightfully so are franchise players. All are paid as such. Hammer and Saad have been coming along nicely as mid-tier journemen in terms of skill and in Hammer's case (and Saad's next year) paycheck.

I think Stan signed Crawford keeping those resingings in mind. Instead of moving forward with unknowns in both skater depth and goal, he erred for paying less for skater depth with a known in goal rather than paying a bit more overall for skater depth with an unknown in goal--since in that case both skater and goalie depth will be unknown at least with respect to the 'hawks system. Instead of gambling that both depth and netminding will be good enough, he took a slightly bigger gamble for skater depth and heged his bet with known netminding.

And yes, I only think the gamble between splitting Crawford's paycheck in any way, shape, or form between 9 skaters and retaining Crawford, potentially losing a estalished skater, and going cheaper among those 9-10 skaters is only slight. The difference between Rosival and Runblad in skill is slight, but the paycheck makes all of the difference.

 

[LordKOTL]

...anyhow, back to Bickell. He's playing well now which is good, but long-term between him and saad I still chose Saad.

 

[MassHavoc]

Holy crap. Can I get a TL: DR? haha

 

[Capt. Serious]

...anyhow, back to Bickell. He's playing well now which is good, but long-term between him and saad I still chose Saad.

Yeah, it's Saad & not even close.

 

[Variable]

The 'hawks puck posession gameplan isn't perfect. Last game against the Wild proved it. Crawford had to come up big whenever the team didn't have posession.

The 'hawks moving forward is not going to be like in years past. Keith, Seabs, Sharp, & Hossa are all aging vets and well-established--moreso than that were in 2010 and to a lesser extent, 2013. Toews and Kane rightfully so are franchise players. All are paid as such. Hammer and Saad have been coming along nicely as mid-tier journemen in terms of skill and in Hammer's case (and Saad's next year) paycheck.

I think Stan signed Crawford keeping those resingings in mind. Instead of moving forward with unknowns in both skater depth and goal, he erred for paying less for skater depth with a known in goal rather than paying a bit more overall for skater depth with an unknown in goal--since in that case both skater and goalie depth will be unknown at least with respect to the 'hawks system. Instead of gambling that both depth and netminding will be good enough, he took a slightly bigger gamble for skater depth and heged his bet with known netminding.

And yes, I only think the gamble between splitting Crawford's paycheck in any way, shape, or form between 9 skaters and retaining Crawford, potentially losing a estalished skater, and going cheaper among those 9-10 skaters is only slight. The difference between Rosival and Runblad in skill is slight, but the paycheck makes all of the difference.

Right so you're going to have aging veteran players who might not be quite as good but you're able to supplement them with better role players because you wouldn't be paying a goalie six million a year. OR you're going to have aging veteran players that you're going to support with cheap replacements (who are cheap for a reason) and/or rookies and having to depend on an aging Crawford who you now, because of committing that type of money and years to him, have to expect to play better than he ever has before when he's in his mid thirties. That just doesn't happen. Unless you're someone like Hasek. Which he isn't.

The choice wasn't between players like Rozi and Rundblad, it was more between Rozi and Leddy. They lost Leddy because of the cap. That's not a slight difference. That's a big fucking loss. I'll take a kid who isn't even at his potential yet but is able to give 30 something points playing mostly third pairing over this carousal of shit that they currently have going on there. When we're waiting on pins and needles for a rookie TVR to return, that's not exactly a good thing.

 

[DMelt36]

Right so you're going to have aging veteran players who might not be quite as good but you're able to supplement them with better role players because you wouldn't be paying a goalie six million a year. OR you're going to have aging veteran players that you're going to support with cheap replacements (who are cheap for a reason) and/or rookies and having to depend on an aging Crawford who you now, because of committing that type of money and years to him, have to expect to play better than he ever has before when he's in his mid thirties. That just doesn't happen. Unless you're someone like Hasek. Which he isn't.

The choice wasn't between players like Rozi and Rundblad, it was more between Rozi and Leddy. They lost Leddy because of the cap. That's not a slight difference. That's a big fucking loss. I'll take a kid who isn't even at his potential yet but is able to give 30 something points playing mostly third pairing over this carousal of shit that they currently have going on there. When we're waiting on pins and needles for a rookie TVR to return, that's not exactly a good thing.

I didn't mind that trade as much when it happened, but each game that Rozi looks like shit and Leddy looks pretty good in NY I get more and more disappointed about it.

 

[LordKOTL]

Leddy was behind the 8-ball here. He looked like horse shit with Hammer and dog shit with Keith. The only top-4 guy he looked good with was Seabrook and there was no way in hell Hammer or Keith were going to be moved for him to stay. Leddy has only historically looked good with a righty partner on a team that had 5 leftys on defense and one geriactric righty.

In retrospect, I wonder how he would have looked wuith TVR, but IMHO the reality was we lost Leddy because no one would take Rosival--who played like congealed buttsweat in the playoffs and continues to do so, or Versteeg, who played like curdled afterbirth in the playoffs and completely turned it around. I think Stan was hedging his bet on Bickell (probably will turn out to be a mistake), so I think he wasn't even on the table. Couple that with the fact that Oduya, defensively, was light years beyond Leddy's play in the backend (and that says a lot) means Leddy was the odd-man out.

It sucks, but we got over the likes of Buff and Ladd just fine. I still don't think Leddy would have been here after this year. He would have commanded too much and realistically he would never force Keith or Hammer of of the roster no matter what his upside.

As for the rest, I think we should take the Crawford stuff to a Crawford thread and leave this for Bickell.

 

[ClydeLee]

I think simply moving Leddy was the most benefitial to cap, moving just one of Rozy/Steeger would of made it a tight neck squeeze all year long, and it was highly unlikely Leddy gets resigned at a reasonable rate for the Hawks next year. His trade also didn't harm the teams chances to win the cup as much as others like Oduya or Bickell would in a trade. With all the young D on that cusp of maybe ready to contribute, keeping Leddy wasn't gonna be a long term possibility anyway.

 

[Variable]

Ehhh Ladd I'd take back any day of the week and Buff was a defenseman in name only and as a forward is like another version of Bickell. So yeah he was easy to get over. But having another good young puck moving defenseman who could do what Leddy did, that's a pretty big blow. Puck possession, zone entries, he was key in that. I think he needed a longer look with anyone not named Rozisval. Sometimes you gotta just bite the bullet and see what he can do. Not to mention he was under utilized on the power play. At least some of his "failings" could be attributed to Q. I don't think that's a stretch.

But my point with Leddy was that could've been anyone in his position at that point in his career and they were going to be the odd man out and behind the 8 ball because of bad cap management, bad signings along with throwing out NTCs like they were candy corn. They created that problem for themselves with cap mismanagement more than anything that Leddy didn't do well.

This really isn't about Crawford as much as it is about just using cap space wisely. The logic behind the team getting worse as time goes on as the reasoning behind signing Crawford to that kind of a deal doesn't make any sense. Do you think Crawford is going to be a better goalie at 32 or 33 or 34 than he was at 27 or 28? The answer is no in just about every single case. So you at least don't sign him to that long of a deal.

 

[puckjim]

Crawford's cap hit is in line and he is paid exactly what a SC winning goaltender is worth.

 

[LordKOTL]

Leddy being behind the 8-ball was not cap (mis)management; it had to do with the type of player Leddy was and the guys on our team.

Leddy with us was an offensive puck-moving d-man with little defenisve upside, and he, like Keith, had the bad luck of being liquified assfat when paired with most all other lefties. He sucked with Keith (and Keith sucked with him), He sucked with Hammer, He sucked with O'donnel, he sucked with Olsen, he sucked with Lepistopheles, he was meh. with Oduya--and the only leftie he looked anywhere decent with was Brian Campbell. He's always played better with righties--even bottom-pairers like Brookbank, Kostka, Montador, and Rosival.

Leddy reaching his potential with the 'hawks would have meant that he got top-4 minutes and a rightie defensively-sound partner to play with. In order to do that it would have meant at best marginalizing Hammer--one of our best defensive fwds, or at worst getting rid of him--one of our best cap vs. play players. That was not happening.

 

[R K]

Crawford's cap hit is in line and he is paid exactly what a SC winning goaltender is worth.

And all any simpleton need do is look at what Bobrovsky was just paid to realize this. It's not rocket science. Nor is Crawfords contract by any means not tradeable.

 

[DMelt36]

And all any simpleton need do is look at what Bobrovsky was just paid to realize this. It's not rocket science. Nor is Crawfords contract by any means not tradeable.

Think this doesn't get mentioned enough.

I bet there'd be plenty of teams willing to take on a $6 million cap hit for a goalie with a Cup win on his résumé

 

[Ares]

Why is this thread no longer about Bigfoot?

Bigfoot is so stealthy even a fucking thread about him cannot focus on him