Crawford has been signed for 3 years.

[Pez68]

THEY HAVE MORE CAP SPACE NOW!

And they won't have it for long paying everyone "market value". Keith and Hossa are pretty much the only contracts we have where the player is worth more than their cap hit. Shave a few hundred thousand off of 5-6 contracts that have been signed under junior and you have the cap space for a rather nice upgrade.



Why is it stupid to compare contracts to the Wings and Holland? If they can do it and get small discounts here and there, why can't we?

 

[R K]

And they won't have it for long paying everyone "market value". Keith and Hossa are pretty much the only contracts we have where the player is worth more than their cap hit. Shave a few hundred thousand off of 5-6 contracts that have been signed under junior and you have the cap space for a rather nice upgrade.



Why is it stupid to compare contracts to the Wings and Holland? If they can do it and get small discounts here and there, why can't we?

Why can't 29 other organizations. I don't think thats "Market value" rather "arbitration value". Which Crawford was on his way too.



As for the rest Pez, if it was so easy you'd be a GM.

 

[LordKOTL]

I'm of the opinion that Crawford should have been around 2 as well, so I'm right there with you. Crawford and Niemi are pretty interchangeable, so I don't see the reason for the double standard now... Jimmy Howard is making around 2.25. I think that number would have been good for Crawford, and Howard actually has another year under his belt.

I think there's more than just that.



The previous summer we had Crawford as a signed goalie, Huet wasn't an option, and the sticking point was Niemi with a major cap crunch. I think the consensus was that Crawford was going to be the backup. As such, we could have made the cost of Niemi a point of contention because all we had to do was sign a starter--which we did: Turco for less.



This summer would have had a different scenario. The cap isn't as contentious, but still an issue, but we only had only 1 signed goalie: Huet. And he's still not an option. It's not that the cost of Crawford could have been as big of a point of contention because we had to sign 2 goalies. We needed a signed starter and backup. Toiveven, Turco, and Richards were all FA's as well, and I'm not up-to-date on Richards, but Toivenen should be as much of an option as Huet is. Turk may or may have not been salvageable. Carruth and Simpson, although unsigned, need more maturation.



I can see the mindset of spending and extra 4-600k to make sure we don't have a big ? in net going forward and have at least one goalie familiar with the system rather than fishing FA's for both starter and backup, or putting someone in net that doesn't belong there (ever or yet). Plus, I'm sure we can make up part of the 600k elsewhere. In fact, Given Craw's last contract, I think that the Salak contract made up 100-200k on it.

 

[MassHavoc]

This year you could have kept them both. THere is more to go around. I think anyone comparing Howard is an idiot. The Wings and Holland always get more of a discount. Or appear too. I think 2.6 was about right. Maybe slightly high but not much. He had a great year and the team he's behind will be much better and more hungry next year. Looking at Niemi's 4 mil and Arb award I'm guessing Arbitration would have put hit close and no way were they going to risk Arbitration.

I think you are missing the point. Cap space or not, we would have been able to pay 2.75 for a rookie goalie coming off a Stanley Cup and everyone around here including Niemi's mother was up in arms that he wasn't worth that because he hasn't played more than a season, and hasn't proved himself and anyone could win the cup in front of that defense.



Now we have Crawford getting 2.66 for 3 years, and everyone is overjoyed. The amount of money you give a person shouldn't go up as the cap space goes up.

 

[LordKOTL]

And they won't have it for long paying everyone "market value". Keith and Hossa are pretty much the only contracts we have where the player is worth more than their cap hit. Shave a few hundred thousand off of 5-6 contracts that have been signed under junior and you have the cap space for a rather nice upgrade.



Why is it stupid to compare contracts to the Wings and Holland? If they can do it and get small discounts here and there, why can't we?

Not this past season Keith wasn't. I think that last year was an anomaly, though.

 

[Pez68]

I think there's more than just that.



The previous summer we had Crawford as a signed goalie, Huet wasn't an option, and the sticking point was Niemi with a major cap crunch. I think the consensus was that Crawford was going to be the backup. As such, we could have made the cost of Niemi a point of contention because all we had to do was sign a starter--which we did: Turco for less.



This summer would have had a different scenario. The cap isn't as contentious, but still an issue, but we only had only 1 signed goalie: Huet. And he's still not an option. It's not that the cost of Crawford could have been as big of a point of contention because we had to sign 2 goalies. We needed a signed starter and backup. Toiveven, Turco, and Richards were all FA's as well, and I'm not up-to-date on Richards, but Toivenen should be as much of an option as Huet is. Turk may or may have not been salvageable. Carruth and Simpson, although unsigned, need more maturation.



I can see the mindset of spending and extra 4-600k to make sure we don't have a big ? in net going forward and have at least one goalie familiar with the system rather than fishing FA's for both starter and backup, or putting someone in net that doesn't belong there (ever or yet). Plus, I'm sure we can make up part of the 600k elsewhere. In fact, Given Craw's last contract, I think that the Salak contract made up 100-200k on it.

Fair enough, and good points. I'd still love to see Stan start getting small discounts here and there... The list of guys pulling their weight in cap space on this team is still pretty small.

 

[MassHavoc]

Why can't 29 other organizations. I don't think thats "Market value" rather "arbitration value". Which Crawford was on his way too.



As for the rest Pez, if it was so easy you'd be a GM.

So they were heading to arbitration with him, and instead of offereing him something closer to what they offered Niemi (2.375), they go straight up to 2.66? I like Corey a lot, but I still say Niemi is the better goalie.

 

[R K]

So they were heading to arbitration with him, and instead of offereing him something closer to what they offered Niemi (2.375), they go straight up to 2.66? I like Corey a lot, but I still say Niemi is the better goalie.

They didn't offer Niemi anything acording to his agent NO OFFER was ever made. IT was talked about it I guess. I don't think Niemi is better than Crawford at all.



Which is why Crawford beat him out of a job TWICE in Rockford and once in Chicago.

 

[R K]

I think you are missing the point. Cap space or not, we would have been able to pay 2.75 for a rookie goalie coming off a Stanley Cup and everyone around here including Niemi's mother was up in arms that he wasn't worth that because he hasn't played more than a season, and hasn't proved himself and anyone could win the cup in front of that defense.



Now we have Crawford getting 2.66 for 3 years, and everyone is overjoyed. The amount of money you give a person shouldn't go up as the cap space goes up.

I'm not missing the point. They chose Hjarlmarsson over Niemi. Right or wrong thats what they did. So when that was done, and the ARBITRATION for NIEMI came through, they didn't have the Cap Space.



What point am I missing? It's a MOOT POINT. Crawford has EARNED his money in this organization. He has been ready for three years now. Lucky for us he bucked up and stayed or we'd really be fucked now.

 

[R K]

I think there's more than just that.



The previous summer we had Crawford as a signed goalie, Huet wasn't an option, and the sticking point was Niemi with a major cap crunch. I think the consensus was that Crawford was going to be the backup. As such, we could have made the cost of Niemi a point of contention because all we had to do was sign a starter--which we did: Turco for less.



This summer would have had a different scenario. The cap isn't as contentious, but still an issue, but we only had only 1 signed goalie: Huet. And he's still not an option. It's not that the cost of Crawford could have been as big of a point of contention because we had to sign 2 goalies. We needed a signed starter and backup. Toiveven, Turco, and Richards were all FA's as well, and I'm not up-to-date on Richards, but Toivenen should be as much of an option as Huet is. Turk may or may have not been salvageable. Carruth and Simpson, although unsigned, need more maturation.



I can see the mindset of spending and extra 4-600k to make sure we don't have a big ? in net going forward and have at least one goalie familiar with the system rather than fishing FA's for both starter and backup, or putting someone in net that doesn't belong there (ever or yet). Plus, I'm sure we can make up part of the 600k elsewhere. In fact, Given Craw's last contract, I think that the Salak contract made up 100-200k on it.

Crawford beat Niemi out of camp. In fact Crawford was the BEST goalie in camp. Due to contractual things Niemi stayed and Crawford was sent down. Last year.



Previous year they just weren't sold on Crawford even though many thought he was ready. Something about signing the Huet contract fucked that year all up, goalie wise.

 

[LordKOTL]

Crawford beat Niemi out of camp. In fact Crawford was the BEST goalie in camp. Due to contractual things Niemi stayed and Crawford was sent down. Last year.



Previous year they just weren't sold on Crawford even though many thought he was ready. Something about signing the Huet contract fucked that year all up, goalie wise.

I'm not going to argue that point, because I agree based on what I have heard. Regardless, I think my point stands that last year they could have made a few hundred thou a sticking point because they had options in net--be it Craw the starter, Neimi the starter, or going outside like they did for a starter. They just needed to secure 1 goalie slot.



This coming season, had Salak and Craw not been signed, we'd have had to fill both slots, so if Craw is overpaid like some claim (I personally was thinking between 2.25 and 2.75, and he falls nicely in there, so IMHO he's not overpaid), I think there is justification because he's proven that he can play within our team. Salak as an unproven backup with only a couple of games NHL experience for 600k (200k less than Crawford last year) is nice to boot unless he completly blows it. Somehow I doubt that he will.

 

[R K]

I'm not going to argue that point, because I agree based on what I have heard. Regardless, I think my point stands that last year they could have made a few hundred thou a sticking point because they had options in net--be it Craw the starter, Neimi the starter, or going outside like they did for a starter. They just needed to secure 1 goalie slot.



This coming season, had Salak and Craw not been signed, we'd have had to fill both slots, so if Craw is overpaid like some claim (I personally was thinking between 2.25 and 2.75, and he falls nicely in there, so IMHO he's not overpaid), I think there is justification because he's proven that he can play within our team. Salak as an unproven backup with only a couple of games NHL experience for 600k (200k less than Crawford last year) is nice to boot unless he completly blows it. Somehow I doubt that he will.

I agree. I also think with Arbitration coming for Crawford it was NOT an overpayment. Arbitration would have given Craw the same as they did Niemi last year. Why risk Arbitration? They didn't so must have learned their lesson from last year. After they matched Hjarlmarsson they wouldn't have been able to afford 2.2 mil for Niemi either way. Assuming thats the offer they never made.

 

[R K]

...not FLA....but maybe when they relocate to Quebec....

Could be, who knows.

 

[PatrickShart]

Is Kruger going to replace Bolland?

 

[R K]

Is Kruger going to replace Bolland?

Why?

 

[PatrickShart]

.....it was a joke. From the end of the year, when the Hawks signed Kruger.....on who he was replacing in the lineup.......

 

[MassHavoc]

I thought Bolland was replacing sharp who was replaced by Kruger?

 

[R K]

I thought Bolland was replacing sharp who was replaced by Kruger?

Wasn't Bolland over paid by Tallon? I swear I heard that some where. That Overpaid player ALMOST got them from an 0-3 hole.

 

[MassHavoc]

Wasn't Bolland over paid by Tallon? I swear I heard that some where. That Overpaid player ALMOST got them from an 0-3 hole.

Of course he was overpaid, him not being on the ice got them in the 0-3 hole!

 

[PatrickShart]

Missing 107gms in 3 of the last 4 years - missing 64/playing 100 since signing (21g/43pts)...only healthy season was his RFA season...going from 850K with 1 full NHL season to 3.375mil - I know I thought it was an overpayment.