Crawford NEEDS To Go!

[Spunky Porkstacker]

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.

Had he performed close, regular season and playoffs, to how he did in 2013 playoffs the contract he got would have been fine. Hindsight says the contract was a mistake. So at this point just have to find a taker and not expect much of anything in return

 

[GSH_34]

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.

Here's the thing though. The Hawks coasted through the regular season and still won the Cup. Need we look back to the Spring and that awful stretch of games?

I'm not saying that Crow should play like crap and then turn it on. I'm saying that this guy has proven time and time again that he's a big game goalie and he was pretty damn good before he got hurt at the concert.

Also, with Bickell. He sucked in the regular season and the playoffs this year. If he had a run like he did in 2013 or even last year, not many people would've complained that he had a crappy regular season.

It's different with Crow though. When the lights are brightest, he plays like a World Class goalie and he does it consistently.

 

[GSH_34]

I also like that Crow isn't a pussy. He's a hockey player and he's shown himself to be pretty damn tough. He's stood up for his teammates a few times and he's not afraid to get physical with an opponent if they get in his crease.

Again, what matters to me most is how a guy plays in big games and big moments. How do they bounce back, how do they deal with adversity and what type of player do they become when the weight of the game is on their shoulders. Of course consistently matters, but is it really up for debate that Crow isn't consistent? You don't win 2 Cups the way he has by being in inconsistent.

Crow was absolutely nails those last 3 games. 2 goals against against fantastic offensive team that at times were relentless with their attack. In fact, he was really good after the Nashville series.

 

[GSH_34]

I guess the big question that the Hawks need to ask is if Crawford is replaceable. Can Darling step in and this team not miss a beat? Possibly, but I think Crow more valuable than just a system goalie you can just plug in and win with.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Anyone who thought Bickells contract was worth it for how he played in the playoffs just doesn't get it. That line of thinking is Special person especially if the Hawks were to miss the playoffs. Then you paid a guy 4 million to be a bum for nothing.

Stan was in a tough spot because Bickell finally started coming around after 2 tepid years in the league. He played in 2013 like a true power forward that a lot of teams coveted. Could you imagine if he was that consistent every game or at least 90%? 4 million dollars would of been a steal. And if we would of let him walk and he played at that level for his next team, everyone would of been bitching about Stan not resigning him. It's a shitty situation all around and unfortunately the Hawks got the crap end of it.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Rex]

I think it's a safe bet that after Crawford's contract is finished, he will own most of the Blackhawks goalie records.

he already has the record for most playoff wins as a goalie, and the contract just started.

 

[italianbeef]

Crow was absolutely nails those last 3 games. 2 goals against against fantastic offensive team that at times were relentless with their attack. In fact, he was really good after the Nashville series.

I'll probably take heat for this again, but there were a number of goals that were saved by D-men's sticks, too, and some whiffs on one-timers to open cages. So, it wasn't all Crow holding them to 2 goals. In two of those three games, he faced only 24 and 25 shots.

That, IMO, is the formula for success.

 

[Rex]

I'll probably take heat for this again, but there were a number of goals that were saved by D-men's sticks, too, and some whiffs on one-timers to open cages. So, it wasn't all Crow holding them to 2 goals. In two of those three games, he faced only 24 and 25 shots.

That, IMO, is the formula for success.

he faced 25, 32 and 25 shots. 80 saves on 82 shots for a .975SV% over the last three games of the series.

 

[italianbeef]

he faced 25, 32 and 25 shots. 80 saves on 82 shots for a .975SV% over the last three games of the series.

Yep, he was great, but so was the D. That's all I'm saying. Crow AND the team D shut down the high powered Lightning.

 

[LordKOTL]

Yep, he was great, but so was the D. That's all I'm saying. Crow AND the team D shut down the high powered Lightning.

When the D isn't great, then you have Game 5 vs Anaheim or the Nashville series.

The difference is, few people are calling for, say, Seabrook's head, even though at his level the Netminder should never have to bail him out--which both of them had to.

IMHO if it comes down to cap Crawford's not the weak link. Even if we had and could afford an elite netminder they wouldn't have been good enough to regularly bail that D in the games we lost. Further, there wouldn't be a skater piece we could bring in, even for the full 6m, that would have countered the lack of D played by Keith, Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Seabrook, and the rest of our skaters in game 5 of the Anaheim series.

So, if you're looking for cap, why get rid of a goaltender who did his job as opposed to a skater that didn't?

 

[italianbeef]

When the D isn't great, then you have Game 5 vs Anaheim or the Nashville series.

The difference is, few people are calling for, say, Seabrook's head, even though at his level the Netminder should never have to bail him out--which both of them had to.

IMHO if it comes down to cap Crawford's not the weak link. Even if we had and could afford an elite netminder they wouldn't have been good enough to regularly bail that D in the games we lost. Further, there wouldn't be a skater piece we could bring in, even for the full 6m, that would have countered the lack of D played by Keith, Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Seabrook, and the rest of our skaters in game 5 of the Anaheim series.

So, if you're looking for cap, why get rid of a goaltender who did his job as opposed to a skater that didn't?

The goaltender is called the last line of defense for a reason. When a defender gets beat, you have to count on the goaltender to make a save.

And Corey does that a lot.

But he also gets beat and bailed out a lot, and that happened at least a half dozen times over the last couple games and could have turned the series if the D-men didn't get their sticks in the way.

Our D has shown it can play with other goaltenders, and in fact, Raanta and Darling both let in fewer per game when they played. I think they could be successful with a variety of good net minders. Don't need a Lundqvist or Price in Chicago.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

The goaltender is called the last line of defense for a reason. When a defender gets beat, you have to count on the goaltender to make a save.

And Corey does that a lot.

But he also gets beat and bailed out a lot, and that happened at least a half dozen times over the last couple games and could have turned the series if the D-men didn't get their sticks in the way.

Our D has shown it can play with other goaltenders, and in fact, Raanta and Darling both let in fewer per game when they played. I think they could be successful with a variety of good net minders. Don't need a Lundqvist or Price in Chicago.

So based on what you're saying it seems like you think the Hawks should lose Crow and his salary and go into next season with Darling and Raanta for the cap savings. Sounds like the whole season would be reliant on 2 unproven goalies. Considering the #5,6 Dmen could be rookies or an old castoff from who knows where and Oduya prolly gone, the defense will be in rebuild mode along with Raanta and Darling sharing duties between the pipes. :tiptoe:

 

[Rex]

 

[GSH_34]

The goaltender is called the last line of defense for a reason. When a defender gets beat, you have to count on the goaltender to make a save.

And Corey does that a lot.

But he also gets beat and bailed out a lot, and that happened at least a half dozen times over the last couple games and could have turned the series if the D-men didn't get their sticks in the way.

Our D has shown it can play with other goaltenders, and in fact, Raanta and Darling both let in fewer per game when they played. I think they could be successful with a variety of good net minders. Don't need a Lundqvist or Price in Chicago.

Crow bailed out the defense a lot too, no? I agree with you that his defense saved some goals, but that's why it's a team game.

Crow has been a major reason why we've won 2 cups. As has his defense.

 

[LordKOTL]

The goaltender is called the last line of defense for a reason. When a defender gets beat, you have to count on the goaltender to make a save.

And Corey does that a lot.

But he also gets beat and bailed out a lot, and that happened at least a half dozen times over the last couple games and could have turned the series if the D-men didn't get their sticks in the way.

Our D has shown it can play with other goaltenders, and in fact, Raanta and Darling both let in fewer per game when they played. I think they could be successful with a variety of good net minders. Don't need a Lundqvist or Price in Chicago.

We pay our defense and defensive forwards to not get beat. If they need the goaltender to bail them out why are we paying them allstar-contracts?

 

[ClydeLee]

Who are these defensive forwards or defense-men the Hawks are paying All-star contracts too?

There isn't any such contracts on the Hawks defensive side, apart from technically Toews as a defensive forward. There's nobody with a top 60 contract of the NHL on their defense salary space.

 

[LordKOTL]

Who are these defensive forwards or defense-men the Hawks are paying All-star contracts too?

There isn't any such contracts on the Hawks defensive side, apart from technically Toews as a defensive forward. There's nobody with a top 60 contract of the NHL on their defense salary space.

Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Keith, and Seabrook--all of them are known for Exceptional, Godlike, Good, Norris-calibre, and great work on the defensive side of things. You can throw Kane in there as well just because he's paid to not cherrypick--when he did it burned us at least once in the playoffs. All of them make in the ballpark of Crawford's salary and/or are on retirement contracts.

In other words, it's not like they're Michal Rosival or Andrew Shaw. They're paid to not screw the pooch.

 

[italianbeef]

Crow bailed out the defense a lot too, no? I agree with you that his defense saved some goals, but that's why it's a team game.

Crow has been a major reason why we've won 2 cups. As has his defense.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. We're in agreement.

I just disagree with all the "I told you so - Crow won the game single handely" junk when he saves 24 shots on a night when the Hawks were in the box all of one period, facing a 6 on 5 for two minutes, and getting forechecked all game. By all rights, Tampa should have put 50 on goal in some of those games, and would have against another team.

 

[Ton]

Yep, that's what I'm saying. We're in agreement.

I just disagree with all the "I told you so - Crow won the game single handely" junk when he saves 24 shots on a night when the Hawks were in the box all of one period, facing a 6 on 5 for two minutes, and getting forechecked all game. By all rights, Tampa should have put 50 on goal in some of those games, and would have against another team.

I don't think anyone is saying Crow won games singlehandedly (although he has, numerous times)... to win a Cup, I think we can all agree it comes down to the 19 players on the ice performing at a high-level.

I think the problem is saying that Crawford is as expendable as Bickell because of the big contract.

I personally think Crawford is a core player. He feeds off the defense, sure, but why is that a knock on him instead of a compliment? He knows the system well, he's been in the Hawks organization since 2003, and worked his way up to the top of the depth chart after 7 years of developing and learning in the minors -- without complaining once (Morin, Pirri anyone?). His first two years as a starter he had his bumps, but has been a rock ever since.

I think we are pretty fortunate to have him. No other goaltender in the NHL/AHL has as much experience in this organization, with this team, as Corey Crawford does right now... in fact, when it's all said in done, maybe no goaltender in the history of this organization will be able to say they did what Corey did for the Hawks. I don't want to get rid of him only to spend another decade searching for someone, or grooming someone, to take his place... potentially even longer than a decade. You can say Darling all you want, but at the end of the day, you just don't know how that would work out -- maybe he does eventually work and wins a Cup, but maybe it takes 2-3 years of bumps before he gets to that level consistently as Crawford can, or maybe he just never pans out.

Do you really want to find out right now?

 

[MassHavoc]

Hawks only need 17 players playing at a high level to win the cup. Unless you really do count Keith as 3 players.