Bryan Bickell

[Variable]

A goalie like Bobovorsky means much more to a team like Columbus than any goalie would mean to a team like the Hawks of the last few years. That shouldn't be hard to realize either. That's fine if that's the going rate for a "Cup winning" goalie, you just take a pass on that. That's what you would have to do. You're expecting him to play better on the downswing of his career than he ever has at any other point in his career. Going by what Lord is saying, the rest of the team getting older means they'll be getting worse and not as effective but Crawford is somehow excluded from that? And that he'll somehow be better than he is or ever has been? No, of course he won't be. That kind of contract is just asking for problems. That's why they hardly EVER work out. For any team.

 

[ClydeLee]

Is 32-34 really downswings of a Goalies career? That doesn't really match up to what I see across the league in this era. I also don't get think it's logical to say you must think he will be playing even better to fit that contract at that time. It would be more likely you expect avg. goalie contract prices go up to a point where that contract is not significant for a experienced goalie at that point around the league.

 

[R K]

Crawford got what Crawford earned. Has Bob earned that contract yet? Don't believe so. Again Crawfords contract is movable if need be. Just as Louongo's was movable if need be. Hawks do NOT have a contract on their roster that couldn't be dealt tomorrow to another needy team. NONE! Wonder what Minnesota would pay for Crawford right now? Might just save their season which is on the brink of extinction. The post above is comical. He means more to them? OK. Then Crawford means more to A LOT of teams, as he has CUP WINNING EXPERIENCE!

 

[R K]

Even Bryan Bickell's contract is movable.

 

[LordKOTL]

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

Taking on the 6M is not the question--it's can the 'hawks move it with little to no salary coming back. Only a handful of teams right now fall into that category--and a lot of those would probably fail the NTC test--like Edmonton.

A goalie like Bobovorsky means much more to a team like Columbus than any goalie would mean to a team like the Hawks of the last few years. That shouldn't be hard to realize either. That's fine if that's the going rate for a "Cup winning" goalie, you just take a pass on that. That's what you would have to do. You're expecting him to play better on the downswing of his career than he ever has at any other point in his career. Going by what Lord is saying, the rest of the team getting older means they'll be getting worse and not as effective but Crawford is somehow excluded from that? And that he'll somehow be better than he is or ever has been? No, of course he won't be. That kind of contract is just asking for problems. That's why they hardly EVER work out. For any team.

A lot of goalies don't decline in their early 30's. It's usually mid-late 30's. Plus, his career has been in general, trending up. I don't expect that to continue for the duration, but I think it's a safe bet that for at least this year and next he won't be in a decline, and IMHO that might be all the time he's really needed.

I don't think keeping Crawford through at least next season is going to handcuff the team.

 

[Variable]

Is 32-34 really downswings of a Goalies career? That doesn't really match up to what I see across the league in this era. I also don't get think it's logical to say you must think he will be playing even better to fit that contract at that time. It would be more likely you expect avg. goalie contract prices go up to a point where that contract is not significant for a experienced goalie at that point around the league.

I'm not saying that though. I'm going by what Lord is saying on that one. Every time I bring up keeping the team in front of the goalie rather than paying out the ass for a goalie, he brings up that the team a few years down the road won't be as good, won't be as effective in their style of play and they'll need that consistency in net. To which I then respond to with "So Crawford's is exempt from that?" Do we not expect him to regress, how is he excluded? Especially if going by what Lord is saying is true, the team will be leaning more on Crawford than ever.....and he'll be playing better? Come on. It can't be both ways. You can't say it's true for the team getting worse as the years go by but not so for the goalie. Maybe if he was Hasek I'd agree with that, but he isn't.

Crawford's contract is movable only in the way of getting a big contract back as well, which the Hawks don't have the room for. They'd be putting themselves right back in the hole they dug. Or he could be moved while retaining a portion, up to half, of his cap hit, which teams can now do. But that's not really helping them either, that's wasted, dead cap space for X amount of years. That's fine for a team like Florida, but not for the Hawks, they need every dollar of their cap space they can get.

And Luongo is a horrible example as Vancouver stands to be cap fucked depending on when he decides to end his career. That was an amazingly botched situation the Canucks put themselves in, that's in no way a good example to follow or bring up.

 

[Variable]

Crawford got what Crawford earned. Has Bob earned that contract yet? Don't believe so. Again Crawfords contract is movable if need be. Just as Louongo's was movable if need be. Hawks do NOT have a contract on their roster that couldn't be dealt tomorrow to another needy team. NONE! Wonder what Minnesota would pay for Crawford right now? Might just save their season which is on the brink of extinction. The post above is comical. He means more to them? OK. Then Crawford means more to A LOT of teams, as he has CUP WINNING EXPERIENCE!

So why couldn't they move Rozi or Versteeg with only two years remaining on their small cap hit deals?

 

[LordKOTL]

So why couldn't they move Rozi or Versteeg with only two years remaining on their small cap hit deals?

I think they tried--but couldn't find any takers with no roster salary coming back. Just speculation though.

As for age and it's affect, I was thinking more of our older defensive stalwart players. Crawford and any netminder is in the net the whole game, but skaters aren't. Assuming two scenarios where the bottom D is a bust: one where Crawford is kept and we have green rookies in, and the other where Crawford is let go and we have higher-priced players but they end up being busts with Raanta or Darling in net. Okay: I would much rather have Crawford in net while Keith puts up 2011 minutes coving the kids' messes than Keith putting in in 2011 minutes covering the second coming of Boynton/Cullimore/Montador/Lepistopheles/O'donnel's messes with Raanta or Darling in net.

Just my opinion.

 

[puckjim]

I'm not saying that though. I'm going by what Lord is saying on that one. Every time I bring up keeping the team in front of the goalie rather than paying out the ass for a goalie, he brings up that the team a few years down the road won't be as good, won't be as effective in their style of play and they'll need that consistency in net. To which I then respond to with "So Crawford's is exempt from that?" Do we not expect him to regress, how is he excluded? Especially if going by what Lord is saying is true, the team will be leaning more on Crawford than ever.....and he'll be playing better? Come on. It can't be both ways. You can't say it's true for the team getting worse as the years go by but not so for the goalie. Maybe if he was Hasek I'd agree with that, but he isn't.

Crawford's contract is movable only in the way of getting a big contract back as well, which the Hawks don't have the room for. They'd be putting themselves right back in the hole they dug. Or he could be moved while retaining a portion, up to half, of his cap hit, which teams can now do. But that's not really helping them either, that's wasted, dead cap space for X amount of years. That's fine for a team like Florida, but not for the Hawks, they need every dollar of their cap space they can get.

And Luongo is a horrible example as Vancouver stands to be cap fucked depending on when he decides to end his career. That was an amazingly botched situation the Canucks put themselves in, that's in no way a good example to follow or bring up.

You don't know that the team will play as well with another goalie. You have never addressed this question across multiple message boards.

Crawford is a known commodity, and for a team that expects to win the Stanley Cup every year, you don't **** with the net.

 

[Rex]

lol @ Crawford being on the downswing of his career.

Goalies typically don't even come into their own until 26-27, they're ALWAYS late bloomers. Crawford is a positional goalie too, which means he will last a lot longer. I wouldn't be surprised if he was in his prime for the entire six year contract.

 

[Variable]

Yes he'll be on the downswing of his career in about two years. How is that a stretch? It's true goalies "age" differently than forwards or d-men but once you get around 30, you are what you are pretty much no matter what. You won't become more and you'll pretty much only be going down in just about every case from that point on.

And we're not going to know how the Hawks fare until they do it Jim, but I guess we'll continue to ignore, across multiple message boards, that they've already done that right? Because it seemed to have worked out with Niemi. They made Emery actually look good a few years later. Niemi's sample size his rookie season going into the playoffs looking to win the Cup for the first time in almost 50 years wasn't, and won't be, much bigger than Darling/Raanta's this year going into the playoffs. And in that, albeit small, sample size Raanta and Darling have fared better, with more pressure and shots per game having put on them as well, both compared to Niemi that season and Crawford this season. Are they really that worse off?

Sooner or later people have to get over the myth of the "Stanley Cup winning goalie". It's a team game. There will always, always be more NHL caliber goalies out there looking for an opportunity than there are spots for in the league. Now more than ever before.

 

[Variable]

I think they tried--but couldn't find any takers with no roster salary coming back. Just speculation though.

As for age and it's affect, I was thinking more of our older defensive stalwart players. Crawford and any netminder is in the net the whole game, but skaters aren't. Assuming two scenarios where the bottom D is a bust: one where Crawford is kept and we have green rookies in, and the other where Crawford is let go and we have higher-priced players but they end up being busts with Raanta or Darling in net. Okay: I would much rather have Crawford in net while Keith puts up 2011 minutes coving the kids' messes than Keith putting in in 2011 minutes covering the second coming of Boynton/Cullimore/Montador/Lepistopheles/O'donnel's messes with Raanta or Darling in net.

Just my opinion.

For sure they couldn't move those guys without getting a garbage player and/or contract back. I was hoping for garbage draft picks. I think it was more than just speculation. Wasn't there a report over the summer that the Hawks made it known if a team wanted Leddy, they'd have to take Versteeg as well? Or something like that. But obviously even that didn't work out if it was true.

But for someone to believe that the Hawks can snap their fingers and trade a guy like Bickell with no problem or Crawford with no problem, both players with NTCs to boot, they're fucking deluding themselves. I wish it was that easy, I wish it was like a video game, but it's not. Unless they're getting some kind of comparable return in cap hit back (and usually a player in similar standing with the team like Bickell is most of the time with the Hawks) or they're retaining part(s) of those player's contracts it's not going to be easy to move them. Especially in Crawford's case with 5 more years after this season. That's why I'm hoping Bickell breaks the playoff record for goals. Gotta hope for a huge playoff for him aside from the reason of wanting to win another Cup.

And how about a scenario where Crawford gets WORSE the more the team has to lean on him? Because that's the most realistic scenario out of the ones you've mentioned, as that is what happens to just about every single goalie put in that situation. So why have a guy making 6 million doing that? And we've already kinda seen that scenario get played out a few years ago where there was an honest question of is Ray Fucking Emery really a better option? But he looked like dogshit too that season. We see it with other teams as well. The Bruins have Rask making 7 million a year that they gave to him to be Superman in net but turns out, ****, you gotta be able to score as well. Too bad they let a generational talent go in order to clear cap space to sign Rask so he can struggle. Gotta know better these days. The team makes the goalie.

 

[puckjim]

Yes he'll be on the downswing of his career in about two years. How is that a stretch? It's true goalies "age" differently than forwards or d-men but once you get around 30, you are what you are pretty much no matter what. You won't become more and you'll pretty much only be going down in just about every case from that point on.

And we're not going to know how the Hawks fare until they do it Jim, but I guess we'll continue to ignore, across multiple message boards, that they've already done that right? Because it seemed to have worked out with Niemi. They made Emery actually look good a few years later. Niemi's sample size his rookie season going into the playoffs looking to win the Cup for the first time in almost 50 years wasn't, and won't be, much bigger than Darling/Raanta's this year going into the playoffs. And in that, albeit small, sample size Raanta and Darling have fared better, with more pressure and shots per game having put on them as well, both compared to Niemi that season and Crawford this season. Are they really that worse off?

Sooner or later people have to get over the myth of the "Stanley Cup winning goalie". It's a team game. There will always, always be more NHL caliber goalies out there looking for an opportunity than there are spots for in the league. Now more than ever before.

Emery played 21 games and played well, but was not a reliable choice because of his injury history. Niemi was an IMPROVMENT over Huet, so that change was necessary based on play, not salary or desire to prove that their goaltenders are interchangeable.

Raanta/Darling have not played enough so they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Is it possible that Hawks can win the 'Cup without Crawford? Of course.

But (again) it's too important of a position to **** with for a team that is a SC favorite and only an idiot would risk it.

 

[LordKOTL]

Again, I liked Leddy and if there was a way to keep him I'd want to, but I don't think it would have happened on the 'hawks. They were too invested in Hammer, Keith, and Seabs (Two of which he had zero chemistry with), so they moved him for assets. IMHO it was a matter of this past summer vs. this coming summer.

In the case of how putrid Rosival and Versteeg were (i.e. worse than Bollig) in the playoffs, I don't think "Garbage picks" were ever in the discussion since they weren't even worth that (speculation of course), Chances are every offer for either meant taking salary on that the 'hawks couldn't afford. Luckily for us, Versteeg has been awesome until he Matt Walker'ed his hand. Rosival? meh.

Between Crawford and Bickell, though, I think Bickell is more movable. On the surface there are 29 other slots in the league for Crawford, while for Bickell it's between 48 and 174, depending on whther you categorize him as a bottom-6 LW, or a bottom-9, with the possibility he or someone on the receiving team shifts to RW. Odds are greater that someone needing him, able to take on his salary and not give back any salary, and passes the NTC test, can do so over Crawford.

As for "the team making the goalie", that's horse-shit. It's all goes hand-in-hand and it's a team sport. The only time a good goalie wouldn't matter is if the skaters are an order of magnitude better than the opponent.

As much as we all love the 'hawks, let's be realistic: Our skaters are not an order of magnitude better than anyone/everyone with any consistancy, and I don't see (along with all the other ditchings) Crawford being ditched and as a result the piece his cap hit acquires--or the collection of pieces, that makes the resulting team that order of magintude better on a consistant basis.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

For sure they couldn't move those guys without getting a garbage player and/or contract back. I was hoping for garbage draft picks. I think it was more than just speculation. Wasn't there a report over the summer that the Hawks made it known if a team wanted Leddy, they'd have to take Versteeg as well? Or something like that. But obviously even that didn't work out if it was true.

But for someone to believe that the Hawks can snap their fingers and trade a guy like Bickell with no problem or Crawford with no problem, both players with NTCs to boot, they're fucking deluding themselves. I wish it was that easy, I wish it was like a video game, but it's not. Unless they're getting some kind of comparable return in cap hit back (and usually a player in similar standing with the team like Bickell is most of the time with the Hawks) or they're retaining part(s) of those player's contracts it's not going to be easy to move them. Especially in Crawford's case with 5 more years after this season. That's why I'm hoping Bickell breaks the playoff record for goals. Gotta hope for a huge playoff for him aside from the reason of wanting to win another Cup.

And how about a scenario where Crawford gets WORSE the more the team has to lean on him? Because that's the most realistic scenario out of the ones you've mentioned, as that is what happens to just about every single goalie put in that situation. So why have a guy making 6 million doing that? And we've already kinda seen that scenario get played out a few years ago where there was an honest question of is Ray Fucking Emery really a better option? But he looked like dogshit too that season. We see it with other teams as well. The Bruins have Rask making 7 million a year that they gave to him to be Superman in net but turns out, ****, you gotta be able to score as well. Too bad they let a generational talent go in order to clear cap space to sign Rask so he can struggle. Gotta know better these days. The team makes the goalie.

The team leaned on him against Minny and they came out fine. Yes, I know-- it's one instance.
Here's a question Variable: How much is Crawford worth? Don't dance around it either. Let's hear a figure.

 

[Variable]

For me, probably around what Niemi's getting in SJ. That's a good cap hit to have for an above average goalie. Combined with the kind of team the Hawks would able to put around him, it isn't large enough to substantially take anything away from that. But hockey is a business and it's not always realistic to expect a guy to take less than what he can make after team success like the Hawks have had, no matter what (look at Toews and Kane) and that's fine. Totally their prerogative to go for more. So you're left with a choice. Do you go the route of paying big money over a long term for a goalie or do you build up/keep intact the team in front of the goalie.

If you don't see goaltending without looking at how big an impact the team effect has on it, then there's no way we can even really discuss this, as I'm finding out with Lord. The quality of the team in front of the goalie has an immense effect on the goalie's performance. If you want to ignore that or underestimate that effect, then we aren't going to see eye to eye on much of anything else discussed on the topic. If we're going to be talking about the myth around "Cup winning goalies", we aren't going to get very far.

It's something in the salary cap era that teams are going to have to start learning from. Allocating that kind of cap space on a position that hurts your ability to provide adequate support for that position will almost always come to bite you in the ass down the road.

 

[Variable]

Emery played 21 games and played well, but was not a reliable choice because of his injury history. Niemi was an IMPROVMENT over Huet, so that change was necessary based on play, not salary or desire to prove that their goaltenders are interchangeable.

Raanta/Darling have not played enough so they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Is it possible that Hawks can win the 'Cup without Crawford? Of course.

But (again) it's too important of a position to **** with for a team that is a SC favorite and only an idiot would risk it.

It really doesn't matter the circumstances, the fact is that it happened when you want to argue like it's yet to be seen or something. We literally saw it happen. Niemi had a whole 40 something games under his belt at the NHL level going in those playoffs. That'll be about the same that Raanta will have by the end of this season. In fact he'll have more overall time spent up at the NHL level, traveling and practicing with the team and what not, than Niemi did when he was here.

 

[puckjim]

It really doesn't matter the circumstances, the fact is that it happened when you want to argue like it's yet to be seen or something. We literally saw it happen. Niemi had a whole 40 something games under his belt at the NHL level going in those playoffs. That'll be about the same that Raanta will have by the end of this season. In fact he'll have more overall time spent up at the NHL level, traveling and practicing with the team and what not, than Niemi did when he was here.

It absolutely matters. If Huet was playing well, Niemi wouldn't get a sniff and he would be just another no-name goalie bouncing around the league.

If your argument is that because Niemi was better than Huet so the Blackhawks don't need Crawford, then you're fucking crackers.

 

[Variable]

It absolutely matters. If Huet was playing well, Niemi wouldn't get a sniff and he would be just another no-name goalie bouncing around the league.

Thank you for making my point for me. It's simply a matter of opportunity that showed you that you can win with a "no name goalie" like Niemi given you have a team like the Hawks do (and a team like the Sharks do). They did that. They showed you that it's possible. The fucking Flyers nearly did it that same season with Leighton and Boucher. Like I've been telling you, there will always be more NHL caliber goalies looking for a job than there are jobs available for them. They just need the opportunity to show it. And those are a lot harder to come by when compared to a forward trying to break into the league or a d-man.

So instead of being a no name goalie, he's all of a sudden a Cup winning goalie. Would you have thought that was possible before that happened? The Hawks don't need a 6 million dollar goalie to win a Cup.

 

[puckjim]

Thank you for making my point for me. It's simply a matter of opportunity that showed you that you can win with a "no name goalie" like Niemi given you have a team like the Hawks do (and a team like the Sharks do). They did that. They showed you that it's possible. The fucking Flyers nearly did it that same season with Leighton and Boucher. Like I've been telling you, there will always be more NHL caliber goalies looking for a job than there are jobs available for them. They just need the opportunity to show it. And those are a lot harder to come by when compared to a forward trying to break into the league or a d-man.

So instead of being a no name goalie, he's all of a sudden a Cup winning goalie. Would you have thought that was possible before that happened? The Hawks don't need a 6 million dollar goalie to win a Cup.

Just because it happened once doesn't mean it will happen all the time.

The Blackhawks are not good enough to win a championship with every goalie out there.

There is no discernible way of knowing which ones they can with.

A bird in the hand and all of that.