Crawford NEEDS To Go!

[Toast88]

I'm not going to kick Crawford when he just won a Stanley Cup. Seems like a great guy and a very good goalie.

He's not "elite" (whatever that means), and he's not Top 5, but who gives a shit? He's good enough to win a Cup, and he's a great fit for the current team. That's what matters.

But don't try telling me he's one of the handful of best. It's just not true. You're overvaluing his individual play, although the guy is very good and the Hawks need to hold on to him for quite a while if possible.

 

[Ton]

I'm not going to kick Crawford when he just won a Stanley Cup. Seems like a great guy and a very good goalie.

He's not "elite" (whatever that means), and he's not Top 5, but who gives a shit? He's good enough to win a Cup, and he's a great fit for the current team. That's what matters.

But don't try telling me he's one of the handful of best. It's just not true. You're overvaluing his individual play, although the guy is very good and the Hawks need to hold on to him for quite a while if possible.

I'm going to argue this to the death... because I just don't understand...

In your mind, what qualifies a goaltender to be a "top 5" or "elite" or "handful of the best" goaltender?

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I'm going to argue this to the death... because I just don't understand...

In your mind, what qualifies a goaltender to be a "top 5" or "elite" or "handful of the best" goaltender?

NHL 15 rating of 90 or above.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Ton]

NHL 15 rating of 90 or above.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

Poor Kaner... lol

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Poor Kaner... lol

He sucks.

In all seriousness, I don't think Crow is awful but I don't think one of the best either. He's a good goalie but I wouldn't say elite. Top 10 seems fair to me.

My biggest gripe with Crow is when it rains, it seems to pour for him.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Rex]

He sucks.

In all seriousness, I don't think Crow is awful but I don't think one of the best either. He's a good goalie but I wouldn't say elite. Top 10 seems fair to me.

My biggest gripe with Crow is when it rains, it seems to pour for him.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

thats the case with all goalies though

 

[Shantz My Pants]

thats the case with all goalies though

Idk what you want me to say.... Just seems Crow is more prone to the bad goals. Maybe it's because I really just watch him only. Idk


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Idk what you want me to say.... Just seems Crow is more prone to the bad goals. Maybe it's because I really just watch him only. Idk


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

How about you get off your fucking calculator and watch some games, Trev?

<3

 

[Shantz My Pants]

How about you get off your fucking calculator and watch some games, Trev?

<3

Dude, fucking snake on this thing is addicting to play!!


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Shantz My Pants]

In all seriousness, I don't know a whole heck of a lot about goalies outside of the basics. Either way, Crows got 2 cups, he's earned them, and he's bailed the team out plenty of times. I guess you really can't ask for anything else from your starting goalie beside do there job and stop the first shot.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Rex]

Can we please can it with the Chris Osgood comparisons for this guy? Osgood was basically always a poor goaltender who happened to be on one of the greatest pre-salary cap assemblages of talent ever, and he actively hurt them even if it wasn't apparent. Put another way, the Red Wings probably would have won more Cups if they'd employed anyone but Chris Osgood. For his entire career, his save percentage is a point or two below league-average.
Meanwhile, Crawford is well above average. In fact, among the 28 goaltenders to play more than 20,000 minutes in both the regular season and playoffs since 2005-06, Crawford's save percentage of .9176 in all situations ranks tied for eighth (and is in fact two ten-thousandths behind Craig Anderson for sixth). That's starting to get into some pretty lofty company, all things considered.
The gap between him and fourth-place Pekka Rinne (.9185) is smaller than the one between him and 11th-place Super-Great-Goalie-One-Of-The-Best-Ever Jonathan Quick (.9166).
When talking about greatness, no one would ever dare criticize Jonathan Toews for merely being really good in the postseason because he's got great players all around him. Being on an elite team, if nothing else, has actually provided the impetus for the preposterous “Jonathan Toews is the best player alive” argument. Similarly, Marc-Andre Fleury continued to be propped up as an elite goaltender long after any evidence of such went away in a hurry.
So why the Crawford criticism? Part of it stems from 2011-12, when Crawford was a .903 goalie in the regular season and .893 in the playoffs. The next year, they won a Cup as he went .926 in the lockout-shortened season and .932 in those playoffs. That looked like an unsustainable jump. And to some extent it was, but he's still been very good ever since, and we now have enough evidence to suggest that, yeah, 3-5 points better than league average is a reasonable expectation for him.
And also it's the contract. He got that $6 million AAV deal the summer after Chicago won the Cup a second time (that he put up those insane numbers in what was effectively a contract year didn't help the perception that 2013 was a fluke) and that's a lot of money to pay anyone.
But among goalies, his $6 million cap hit is tied for seventh in the league, which, hey, that's what he is in save percentage in the cap era, too. You might be able to argue that he's being paid... appropriately?
Here's one thing you can indeed say about Crawford vis a vis his similarity to Osgood: When the playoffs roll around, he plays better than in the regular season. There are only 12 goalies to play more than 3,000 minutes in the postseason in the last 10 years, and very few people have been better than Crawford.

 

[fatbeard]

Can we please can it with the Chris Osgood comparisons for this guy? Osgood was basically always a poor goaltender who happened to be on one of the greatest pre-salary cap assemblages of talent ever, and he actively hurt them even if it wasn't apparent. Put another way, the Red Wings probably would have won more Cups if they'd employed anyone but Chris Osgood. For his entire career, his save percentage is a point or two below league-average.
Meanwhile, Crawford is well above average. In fact, among the 28 goaltenders to play more than 20,000 minutes in both the regular season and playoffs since 2005-06, Crawford's save percentage of .9176 in all situations ranks tied for eighth (and is in fact two ten-thousandths behind Craig Anderson for sixth). That's starting to get into some pretty lofty company, all things considered.
The gap between him and fourth-place Pekka Rinne (.9185) is smaller than the one between him and 11th-place Super-Great-Goalie-One-Of-The-Best-Ever Jonathan Quick (.9166).
When talking about greatness, no one would ever dare criticize Jonathan Toews for merely being really good in the postseason because he's got great players all around him. Being on an elite team, if nothing else, has actually provided the impetus for the preposterous “Jonathan Toews is the best player alive” argument. Similarly, Marc-Andre Fleury continued to be propped up as an elite goaltender long after any evidence of such went away in a hurry.
So why the Crawford criticism? Part of it stems from 2011-12, when Crawford was a .903 goalie in the regular season and .893 in the playoffs. The next year, they won a Cup as he went .926 in the lockout-shortened season and .932 in those playoffs. That looked like an unsustainable jump. And to some extent it was, but he's still been very good ever since, and we now have enough evidence to suggest that, yeah, 3-5 points better than league average is a reasonable expectation for him.
And also it's the contract. He got that $6 million AAV deal the summer after Chicago won the Cup a second time (that he put up those insane numbers in what was effectively a contract year didn't help the perception that 2013 was a fluke) and that's a lot of money to pay anyone.
But among goalies, his $6 million cap hit is tied for seventh in the league, which, hey, that's what he is in save percentage in the cap era, too. You might be able to argue that he's being paid... appropriately?
Here's one thing you can indeed say about Crawford vis a vis his similarity to Osgood: When the playoffs roll around, he plays better than in the regular season. There are only 12 goalies to play more than 3,000 minutes in the postseason in the last 10 years, and very few people have been better than Crawford.

Precisely. Opinions on Crawford are driven almost entirely on the style he plays, and not his actual performance. The truth is in the data.

 

[GSH_34]

Crawford is a damn good goalie who raises his play in big games. Is he a Hall of Famer? Probably not unless he remains the goalie for this core's run and we win more Cups.

Who cares though. Sure, he has moments where he lets in soft goals and has mental lapses. But again, who cares?

He shut down Tampa the last 3 games to close them out. He should've won the Conn Smythe in 2013. He helped win the Jennings Trophy two straight years.

Crow is fucking good. Look, everyone would probably want Hank or Quick if given the choice, but that's not going to happen and it doesn't need to happen for us to continue winning Cups.

We don't win in 2013 and 2015 without Crow. And he doesn't win two cups without the defense in front of him. This is why it's a team game.

The Hawks will continue to win with balance in all 3 phases of the lineup and that's all that matters. So long as guys, like Crow, continue to step up like they have that's what I care about.

Crow is so damn underappreciated it's ridiculous. He is an elite goalie and he fits extremely well on this team. Sure, $6 million is quite a bit, but right now he's worth every dime because he's helped us raise two banners.

 

[GSH_34]

I care more about what he does in big games than what he does in the regular season or early in the playoffs. He's a big moment performer.

 

[HawkWriter]

I care more about what he does in big games than what he does in the regular season or early in the playoffs. He's a big moment performer.

While I get what you are saying, I think the regular season performance is very important as well. I'm not saying Crawford doesn't perform in the regular season but I saw plenty of people argue that Bickell was worth his cap hit because of what he does in the playoffs (obviously that was said before this year). In the cap era, you need your highly paid players to help out in the regular season in order to position you for the most success in the playoffs. We saw how important home ice was to the Blackhawks this year. Last change, easier faceoff wins, home crowd, etc

I have no issue on the surface with Crawford's cap hit but I still think there is a possibility he is traded this offseason. Only reason is because of the salary cap. If it didn't exist, I would have no doubt that Crawford would be back next year.

 

[fatbeard]

I have no issue on the surface with Crawford's cap hit but I still think there is a possibility he is traded this offseason. Only reason is because of the salary cap. If it didn't exist, I would have no doubt that Crawford would be back next year.

Zero chance Crawford gets traded this year unless he goes Patrick Sharp on Rocky's wife. It would wreck the goalie depth for a team that is still going to contend next year. 2015-2016 is a year to rely on Crawford while getting Darling/Raanta more playing time to get a big enough sample to determine if they can do the job going forward. If one of them shakes out to be a quality player then you look to move Crawford after the season. Crawford's cap hit won't be an issue until 2016-2017 when we'll have a better idea how much Panarin/Teravainan/Johns etc. are going to need in raises going forward.

 

[DMelt36]

While I get what you are saying, I think the regular season performance is very important as well. I'm not saying Crawford doesn't perform in the regular season but I saw plenty of people argue that Bickell was worth his cap hit because of what he does in the playoffs (obviously that was said before this year). In the cap era, you need your highly paid players to help out in the regular season in order to position you for the most success in the playoffs. We saw how important home ice was to the Blackhawks this year. Last change, easier faceoff wins, home crowd, etc.

And this year, Bickell wasn't even worth his cap hit in the postseason. They may not get much for him but I just don't see Bickell in Chicago next year.

 

[ClydeLee]

I wasn't fearing the ability to trade Bickell before when you see contracts of players at 3.7 to 4 range out there, and it's plenty of shakey as bad guys as people see Bickell as. From PAP, Brierre, Brouwer, etc.

Yet with the concussion.. i mean vertigo... issue I think it's got a worse twinge. That's even worse than the issue of how his play wasn't even up to last years lesser standard. It's still with him so how many offers will even be there to take a guy with an active head injury.

 

[oober]

You keep Crow, he's not the top goalie in the league, but he is in the top 10. I'm good with that.

 

[Sunbiz1]

Change thread title to who goes, cuz' it certainly isn't Crawford.

Probably Sharp.