Crawford Signs Six year extension

[Maiden]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bookjones" data-cid="208432" data-time="1378145697">
<div>


Ugggh, well this is certainly not the Hawks news I wanted to get on a holiday. LOATHE this contract. Doesn't strike me as very Bowman-esque esp. during the Detroit model's best years. $6 mil per for fucking 6 years. . . for a goalie??? Lessons learned from the Khabibulin and Huet deals of the past = ZERO. Not to mention but good Lord, have they not seen all the big goalie contracts that have blown up in various organizations faces the past few years? This fanbase better pray there's no NTC/NMC component.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


6 years at 6 mil per year is as good as a NTC/NMC </p>

 

[LordKOTL]

I like the fact that he's re-signed.  At least he's a known quantity in net as opposed to Raanta, Simpson, and Carruth or some other bargain basement backup.  None of those three have played a single NHL game yet so we can't exactly count of them to be the goalie savior that will work for peanuts--especially if the defense of 2011 and 2012 show up.  And let's be honest, get any of those three to their sophomore year as a starter when the D goes lax and other teams have the book on them and there's a considerable chance we'd be begging for Dr. Craw @6M. </p>


 </p>


However, IMHO the contract is at least a mil too much, about 1 year too long at this point, and I'm not so sure the move was so shrewed signing him now rather than during the year.  if Craw doesn't continue to improve that contract is going to be very bad.  He may have a bye this year still playing for 2.667 this year behind the same D that helped us win the cup, but afterwards with likely Rosie gone and one of Hammer/Oduya gone he's going to have to be on top of his game covering for rookie mistakes--and that's not even considering if Keith and Seabs have an off year or Leddy reverts to 2012 form.  If he doesn't continue to step up his game that contract is going to hurt more than Curtis Brown.</p>

 

[R K]

Give me a break using khabi as an example. He had zero team in front of him and when he finally did they lost in the wcf. Maybe too long but not too huge imo.

 

[bookjones]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Maiden" data-cid="208443" data-time="1378150836">
<div>


6 years at 6 mil per year is as good as a NTC/NMC </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Ahahaha! Basically.</p>

 

[R K]

BS.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="208444" data-time="1378151295">
<div>


I like the fact that he's re-signed.  At least he's a known quantity in net as opposed to Raanta, Simpson, and Carruth or some other bargain basement backup.  None of those three have played a single NHL game yet so we can't exactly count of them to be the goalie savior that will work for peanuts--especially if the defense of 2011 and 2012 show up.  And let's be honest, get any of those three to their sophomore year as a starter when the D goes lax and other teams have the book on them and there's a considerable chance we'd be begging for Dr. Craw @6M. </p>


 </p>


However, IMHO the contract is at least a mil too much, about 1 year too long at this point, and I'm not so sure the move was so shrewed signing him now rather than during the year.  if Craw doesn't continue to improve that contract is going to be very bad.  He may have a bye this year still playing for 2.667 this year behind the same D that helped us win the cup, but afterwards with likely Rosie gone and one of Hammer/Oduya gone he's going to have to be on top of his game covering for rookie mistakes--and that's not even considering if Keith and Seabs have an off year or Leddy reverts to 2012 form.  If he doesn't continue to step up his game that contract is going to hurt more than Curtis Brown.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


It's what it means for re-signing players in the future that kills me with Crawford's contract. The problems that it incurs. Toew and Kane obviously (which both will stay and with raises) but then you got Leddy in a few years, Saad as well. Hammer next year, Shaw will be due for a raise. These things add up.  Again, you can find average NHL experienced goaltending  every year in free agency and that's all this team really needs. Anything better is just a bonus. To pay 6 million for that position with this team in front of him? Just not smart with the kind of team that the Hawks have.</p>


 </p>


Why make it that much harder?  Yeah so if the defense takes a step back or when they lose Rosie, you use that money that was spent on Crawford for another d-man.  This team does not need a goalie savior. Teams like Nashville do.  Of whom, Rinne's cap hit is only a million more than Crawford's and I thought that was kinda bad for Nashville to pay that kind of money, but I could at least understand why they did it. For the Hawks? That's fucking crazy.</p>

 

[R K]

Oh boy. Th I s team is damned if they do and damned if they dont. Ill just go with the gm with his name now on the cup twice in four years, rebuilding 50% of the first winner in two years, knows what hes doing. Waaa its a mil too much. ROTFL.

 

[bookjones]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208440" data-time="1378150136">
<div>


When did Holland and Bowman get that? When they had almost 30 million dollars tied up in three goalies?</p>


 </p>


or when their hand got forced, and they HAD to go cheap on goaltending? </p>


 </p>


People seem to forget how much money that team had tied up in Hasek, Cujo and Legace only to go out in the first round every year. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


The Legace contract was nothing---there was never a season when DET had $30 mil tied up in goalie salary that I can recall. Scotty's first few Cups with DET they won with serviceable and not particularly expensive goalies, i.e. Osgood's first tenure. Then after that they were ousted in the 2nd Rd a  couple of times and then the 1st Rd once with once again serviceable goalies. THEN they decided to fall for the whole expensive goalies angle and only won once---Scotty's final DET Cup in 2002 with that angle w/Hasek after agreeing to take on his large contract in the trade with BUF. Then Hasek retired, then Hasek un-retired which further screwed DET's expensive goalie experiment so then they had to wait out the Hasek/Joseph contracts during the Lewis era while only making the Playoffs and before going back to actually winning a Cup again with a serviceable goalie in the Babcock era. I'd say they got a clue after paying Joseph and Hasek the big bucks for a few of years each wouldn't you? As in the second time around they brought Hasek back during the Babcock era this time he was paid what? Less than a quarter of his old salary? They won that Cup by once again paying Osgood a pittance in 2008 while Hasek was on that lower contract. Then going with Osgood/Conklin/Howard in 2009 where they lost in the SCF. Then just going with a Osgood/Howard/Insert Random 3rd Goalie combos and still perenially making the Playoffs until making Howard their #1. Hence my point which is that in their best years they "got" it. </p>

 

[LordKOTL]

Hammer has done nothing much to justify a substantial raise. Leddy's D has to improve to give him much more. Shaw and Saad will come and go (and may be Versteeg'ed if they improve too much). Really, after this coming season our D will be weaker, Rosie will probably be gone, and one or both of Hammer and Oduya. If having a known quantity in net that was good enough for a cup and a jennings means 6 and 6 then okay. I think it's steep but I'll take it. Likey we will have 2-3 rookies on D whether or not we resigned Craw next season after this one. I may think it's steep but Crawford is better than Raanta, Carruth, Simpson, or whatever bottom basement netminder we pull in when it comes to knowing the team if/when we run Keith and Seabs ragged to make up for the rookie's steep learning curve.

 

[R K]

I disagree on #4.  He would be a TOP two D man on many NHL teams right now and his contract as it stands is a steal.</p>


 </p>


I'm guessing him resigning is just around the corner.  4-5 range for sure.</p>


 </p>


Crawford has two years before either Khabi is gone, hurt and or Raanta is ready for the NHL.  Until Raanta gets some playing time in Rockford who knows how he'll handle the North American Game.  That would leave Crawford with 4 years left.  Playing behind the same core for at least those first 2 years.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Not a huge fan of The term at least. maybe too long with Raanta possibly being the real deal.


Regardless, if Crawford plays like he did this past season for at least 5 of those years, I don't mind it.

 

[Ton]

I like knowing that Crawford will be in Chicago for a long time, maybe it's time to get his name stitched on my authentic. I think 6 years is a decent term (would have preferred 5) and $6 mil is fair.</p>


 </p>


Very few goaltenders in the NHL can elevate their mental game and bounce back the way Crawford did in 2013. It was encouraging to see him identify his weaknesses after his sophomore slump season, and turn them into his strengths. I'm excited to see what he can bring for the next 7 years in Chicago, I think he is an elite goaltender.</p>

 

[Variable]

It's not whether or not it's a fair cap hit, the question is do the Hawks need to pay for an elite goaltender? I don't believe they do. I think if they can keep their strength in depth and sign another quality d-man after Rosie/Oduya is gone they'll be fine defensively. It just severely hinders their ability to do that with all the cap that Toews/Kane/Sharp will be taking up when that time comes, now along with Crawford. It's not a million too much, it's more like 3 million too much for the kind of model the Hawks were following.</p>

 

[Ton]

As they have always said, they want to keep the core together. Clearly they believe that Crawford is part of the core. The Blackhawks probably believe that guys like Stanton, Olsen, Johns, and Clendening will be able to step right into the NHL after Oduya's and Rozsival's contracts expire, and they will be at a much more affordable cost. Similar to the way that Pirri, Morin, B. Smith will most-likely replace Stalberg, Bolland, and Frolik at a much more affordable cost, and will probably do as good of a job, or potentially better.</p>


 </p>


They are still following the same model, which is building the team from within the system. What they did here is no different than what Detroit did with Jimmy Howard, or the Kings did with Jonathan Quick. They don't have the depth within the system to let Crawford walk away, similar to how it would be nearly impossible to replace anyone else on the roster that is considered a core player.</p>


 </p>


Ultimately, you're talking about two stop-gap players. Two guys that are here until our prospects are ready. They probably never intended on replacing them with another veteran.</p>


 </p>


Two cups in four years... I think I can trust their decisions, and I can definitely see why they would want to retain Crawford. At the end of the day, this is a fair contract and a good one given the organizational depth. They have put themselves in a position where they don't need to be very active in the free agency market for a long time, I think that's the best part of it all. This move just confirms that.</p>

 

[R K]

Go one step further, the "Core" wants to stay together.  They have talked among themselves about the possibility.</p>


 </p>


And your statement 2 Cups in 4 years, one after rebuilding half the team in two years, says volumes.  No arm chair GMing from me.  Stan knows what he's doing.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208461" data-time="1378169513">
<div>


Go one step further, the "Core" wants to stay together.  They have talked among themselves about the possibility.</p>


 </p>


And your statement 2 Cups in 4 years, one after rebuilding half the team in two years, says volumes.  No arm chair GMing from me.  Stan knows what he's doing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


No doubt.</p>


 </p>


This could be the best managed team in all of pro sports at the moment.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Ton DeFrancesco" data-cid="208460" data-time="1378168636">
<div>


As they have always said, they want to keep the core together. Clearly they believe that Crawford is part of the core. The Blackhawks probably believe that guys like Stanton, Olsen, Johns, and Clendening will be able to step right into the NHL after Oduya's and Rozsival's contracts expire, and they will be at a much more affordable cost. Similar to the way that Pirri, Morin, B. Smith will most-likely replace Stalberg, Bolland, and Frolik at a much more affordable cost, and will probably do as good of a job, or potentially better.</p>


 </p>


They are still following the same model, which is building the team from within the system. What they did here is no different than what Detroit did with Jimmy Howard, or the Kings did with Jonathan Quick. They don't have the depth within the system to let Crawford walk away, similar to how it would be nearly impossible to replace anyone else on the roster that is considered a core player.</p>


 </p>


Ultimately, you're talking about two stop-gap players. Two guys that are here until our prospects are ready. They probably never intended on replacing them with another veteran.</p>


 </p>


Two cups in four years... I think I can trust their decisions, and I can definitely see why they would want to retain Crawford. At the end of the day, this is a fair contract and a good one given the organizational depth. They have put themselves in a position where they don't need to be very active in the free agency market for a long time, I think that's the best part of it all. This move just confirms that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Again the question is, are goalies at that price point worth it, regardless of how good they are, especially if you have a great team in front of him which needs to be kept together? I don't believe they are,  especially not in the salary cap era. I'd much rather have that money be spent on the team in front of the goalie, whether it be on forwards or defensemen. We've already seen a rookie goalie who's had one year of AHL experience come in with a dominant team in front of him and be good enough for the Hawks to win a Cup. He didn't light up the world that year, but he was good enough. That's all the Hawks need for that position.</p>


 </p>


They don't need to spend money like a team like Nashville does on it.  Saad is going to get a multi-million dollar contract when he's up, especially if he continues to improve, Hammer isn't taking a cut, he'll get at least as much as he is now if not a million more, Toews and Kane are both getting raises, who knows how much those will be. Could be close to 9-10 million?  Where is that money going to come from?</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Ton DeFrancesco" data-cid="208462" data-time="1378169829">
<div>


No doubt.</p>


 </p>


This could be the best managed team in all of pro sports at the moment.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Some people don't get it.  The players are dictating to themselves here as well.  It's not a guess, it's a fact.</p>


 </p>


Camp is two weeks away yet some are here already working out together.  That says quite a bit in a shortened summer, knowing a couple just had Olympic Camps last week.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208464" data-time="1378171070">
<div>


Again the question is, are goalies at that price point worth it, regardless of how good they are, especially if you have a great team in front of him which needs to be kept together? I don't believe they are,  especially not in the salary cap era. I'd much rather have that money be spent on the team in front of the goalie, whether it be on forwards or defensemen. We've already seen a rookie goalie who's had one year of AHL experience come in with a dominant team in front of him and be good enough for the Hawks to win a Cup. He didn't light up the world that year, but he was good enough. That's all the Hawks need for that position.</p>


 </p>


They don't need to spend money like a team like Nashville does on it.  Saad is going to get a multi-million dollar contract when he's up, especially if he continues to improve, Hammer isn't taking a cut, he'll get at least as much as he is now if not a million more, Toews and Kane are both getting raises, who knows how much those will be. Could be close to 9-10 million?  Where is that money going to come from?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


For the first paragraph, I don't think that is a question at all, and I already explained that. It's a comparison of apples to oranges, so I'm not really interested in talking about that.</p>


 </p>


As far as the 2nd argument... yes Hjalmarsson will see an increase in his salary after this season. Yes, Saad, Kane, and Toews will see an increase after 2015 (although there is an argument to be made when discussing whether or not Saad is part of the core). However, there is one thing we do know: The salary cap will most-likely increase after each season.</p>


 </p>


Knowing that, I'm sure they have broken down the numbers and identified what they can afford and how much the expiring contracts will cost. Will they be able to keep all of them? I don't know, but I trust that they will make the right decision.</p>

 

[R K]

Supposedly the Cap is already slotted to go to 70 mil for next year off last years revenue's.  The biggest in NHL history even WITH the lockout considered.</p>


 </p>


Then you have the Canadian $$ which is still on the rise, which only helps the situation if it maintains where it is.  Again, they know what they are doing.  The two Cups in 4 years says they do.</p>