Crawford Signs Six year extension

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208467" data-time="1378171909">

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.

 

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></blockquote>


Agreed. But the hand wringing is amusing.

 

[Pez68]

Horrible term(3 years too much). Horrible money($2M per too much). Horrible contract all the way around. No fucking idea what they were thinking. Crawford as important to this team as guys like Seabs, Toews, Kane, Sharp, Keith, Hossa? Get fucked.</p>


 </p>


This contract will hurt the Hawks in the future. Mark my words.</p>


 </p>


I like Crawford, I just don't see him living up to this contract. I really don't. $6M per is elite goaltender money. Is Crawford elite? Is he a guy that will carry you during the season when your defense is plagued with injuries? Is he going to win a Vezina? Is he going to steal games left and right? Because that's what you're paying him for, giving him this much money, for this long. Guy better shit unicorns and rainbows from here on out. A lot of pressure comes with that dollar amount too...... We'll see what he's made of.</p>

 

[R K]

This contract will not hurt anyone with the Cap going where it is.</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bookjones" data-cid="208452" data-time="1378156307">
<div>


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>
</div>
</blockquote>


 2004-3005 Cujo in Grand Rapids making 8mil while Hasek and Legace were starting for Detroit. How much did they have tied up in goaltending?</p>


 </p>


but Holland always believed in cheap goaltending, right?</p>


 </p>


at the end of the day, goalies are the most important players on the team. If Bowman wants to pay them that way, so be it. </p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208474" data-time="1378180903">
<div>


This contract will not hurt anyone with the Cap going where it is.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


We'll see where the cap goes. If the cap doesn't rise significantly, how do you afford the raises for Toews, Kane, Hammer, and the youth that proves itself?</p>

 

[R K]

Well, I can't find it, but a recent article said the NHL profits were at a sky high rate this past season.  Saying 10 mil would not be out of the question.  Now add the strength of the Canadian Dollar and the fact the Cap has risen EVERY year since the 2nd lockout in 03 I think they are safe.</p>


 </p>


Friedman is already saying the Cap is going to go through the roof.  They had a roll back this year, but really not for the Hawks since they never went much above the year over year.</p>


 </p>


While the length is probably a year or two long, I think they'll be fine.  Toews/Kane won't get more than a mil or two more.  Hammer my guess will be done soon.</p>

 

[R K]

as far as the youth there's kind of a log jam with the core.  Top 6 spots are not exactly easily come by and probably won't be for the next few years.  Other than 1-2 spots year over year.</p>


 </p>


I'm pretty sure they know this, but want the chance to play for the Hawks anyway when it rolls around.  Glass half full, as 2 Cups in 4 years says they know what they are doing.  Don't you think?  Or were those Cups on accident?</p>

 

[esbrechtel]

The team likes playing in front of Crow end of story. That's a major reason he got the extension. While I'm not a fan of paying big bucks to goalies I feel Stan deserves my trust.


Plus if the Hawks do repeat it will not be hard to move a 2 time Stanley Cup winning goalie plus a gold (or hopefully silver) medalist if Rannta is all that and a bag of chips...

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208449" data-time="1378154076">
<div>


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>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


sign an average goalie? Crow played :Average""last season. You all hated him for it. </p>


 </p>


eventually, the offense dries up, and you need someone like crow to steal you a game. That's why you pay. </p>


 </p>


"elite" goalies like Rinne, Luongo, Miller, Howard and Rask have never won a cup while in the crease. That's why you pay. </p>

 

[Pez68]

I'm with you on that, I just think this is too much, for too long. I'm in the camp that believes a goalie is only as good as the team in front of him. You pay the goalie big bucks, and that's just less money to spend on the team in front of him. See a lot of the top paid goalies raising the cup? Because I don't. Aside from Thomas, most of the Stanley Cup winning goalies were making peanuts at the time they won... How many of those guys repeated after getting their pay day? I'm just not a fan of tying up that much money in a goalie. I don't care who it is.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208480" data-time="1378181933">
<div>


sign an average goalie? Crow played :Average""last season. You all hated him for it. </p>


 </p>


eventually, the offense dries up, and you need someone like crow to steal you a game. That's why you pay. </p>


 </p>


"elite" goalies like Rinne, Luongo, Miller, Howard and Rask have never won a cup while in the crease. That's why you pay. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


Your argument collapses on itself. Crawford is being paid elite goalie money. Yeah, none of those guys have won a cup. Which is exactly the point. Doesn't matter how elite your goalie is, because the team in front of him is the most important part. It makes no sense to burn huge cap space on a goalie when it has been proven TIME AND TIME AGAIN that pretty much ANY goalie can win a cup behind the right team.</p>

 

[Tater]

Where is goalie Bob (HASWB) in this discussion? We need more goalie perspectives.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208480" data-time="1378181933">
<div>


sign an average goalie? Crow played :Average""last season. You all hated him for it. </p>


 </p>


eventually, the offense dries up, and you need someone like crow to steal you a game. That's why you pay. </p>


 </p>


"elite" goalies like Rinne, Luongo, Miller, Howard and Rask have never won a cup while in the crease. That's why you pay. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


You mean the year before this? No, he was quite a bit below average. The average save percentage that year was .915, he was .903. All while facing below the league average of shots per game.  Now you'll come back and say "Well the team was bad" and I'll come back and say well that kills your whole argument over those other goalies you mentioned that never won a Cup.  And then I'll continue to wonder  why seemingly very few in the hockey world can realistically judge the goalie position and say things like Osgood should be in the Hall of Fame and on and on. It's one way or the other folks, can't be both. It can't be individually the goalies fault for not winning a Cup but then when that argument hurts your own on a different topic, it's all of a sudden a team game again and everyone is to blame.</p>


 </p>


Every goalie at the NHL level has their technique down to where anyone can "steal  a game" here or there. Parity is probably at an all time high in the position. With this team, you don't need a 6 million dollar goalie. More often than not, the team makes the goalie what he is rather than the goalie making the team what they are. Those goalies are EXTREMELY rare. I don't know why people cannot grasp that.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208482" data-time="1378182157">
<div>


Your argument collapses on itself. Crawford is being paid elite goalie money. Yeah, none of those guys have won a cup. Which is exactly the point. Doesn't matter how elite your goalie is, because the team in front of him is the most important part. It makes no sense to burn huge cap space on a goalie when it has been proven TIME AND TIME AGAIN that pretty much ANY goalie can win a cup behind the right team.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


And that remains true even if the cap goes up.</p>

 

[Maiden]

There was never ever any talk that market value for Crawford was 6 mil per.</p>


What team was out there salivating about signing this player to this term and amount.</p>


Forget about cores and who wanted who what and where. Michael Jordan wanted players signed that couldn't play lick and management told him screw off.</p>


That's why managers manage and players play. This contract should have been no more than 4 mil for 4 years. TOPS.</p>


Like I said earlier this is not a Bowman style move; this had to come from somebody higher up the food chain.</p>

 

[bookjones]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208475" data-time="1378181016">
<div>


 2004-3005 Cujo in Grand Rapids making 8mil while Hasek and Legace were starting for Detroit. How much did they have tied up in goaltending?</p>


 </p>


but Holland always believed in cheap goaltending, right?</p>


 </p>


at the end of the day, goalies are the most important players on the team. If Bowman wants to pay them that way, so be it. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Did you even read my post that you quoted? I EXPLICITLY stated that DET tried for a few years during a part of the Bowman and then Lewis eras the whole expensive goaltending avenue and that it only paid off in terms of Cup wins once with Hasek. Then after that when Hasek retired-unretired and even with Joseph's being buried in Grand Rapids as a result they still weren't paying $30 mil in goalie salaries to him (8 mil) + Hasek (8 mil) + Legace (2 mil) and still doesn't change the fact that most of DET's Cup winning the past two decades (not to mention their successfully making the Playoffs in general) have come when they were paying relatively nominal amounts to goaltenders, i.e, Osgood tenures #1 and #2. So yeah, for the most part considering how long his tenure's been and excepting the Hasek/Joseph years and now with the new Howard contract Holland has indeed relied on cheap goaltending which reiterates my original statement which was that during their best moments this was DET's philosophy. </p>


 </p>


And this is not even getting into into the fucking obvious which is that it doesn't matter if Holland was paying $18 mil or $30 mil or $50 mil combined for goaltending when those Hasek/Joseph contracts were running because there WAS NO FUCKING SALARY CAP and  he an any other team could allocate as much money as they wanted to any team facet they wanted---there was no need to manage a non-existent number.</p>

 

[Variable]

I think some people are getting hung up on the idea that those who don't like this contract feel like Crawford hasn't earned it or isn't good enough. Which that latter one is definitely debatable but that's really not the point. I don't have anything against Crawford. The easiest way for me to say it is this:</p>


 </p>


With the team the Hawks have, and going into the future, there is not a goalie in the entire history of the NHL that I would take with that contract. Not one. Not Hasek, not Roy, nobody. In the salary cap era it is just not worth committing that kind of chunk of cap space to that position.</p>

 

[Ton]

Whether or not you like this deal, there should be no doubt that the team is comfortable playing in front of Crawford. This past season he proved that he can provide consistency and stability in the net. To me, that is more important than a goaltender that can "steal you a game" every once and a while. That's what you pay your back-up for.

 </p>


As far as the argument that any decent goaltender can win a Cup — please. Just stop. That's a slap in the face to any goaltender that has lifted the Cup in the past, and those in the future. Crawford was more than decent this past season, he was brilliant, and probably deserved the Conn Smythe. Just as Quick before him and Thomas before him.</p>

 

[Variable]

In the last 5 years they've won 2 Stanley Cups with two different starting goalies, gone to the WCF with another and had one bad exit which you might be able to blame on goaltending but then he was also the same guy who was there for the 2nd Cup.  5 years, 6 different goalies, all playing a significant amount of time, and those are the results. I don't think consistency (or lack thereof) of who is in net has really ever held them back. Literally every single one of those years there's  been the question of "Who's Number 1" throughout a good stretch of each season.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Ton DeFrancesco" data-cid="208490" data-time="1378208487">
<div>


Whether or not you like this deal, there should be no doubt that the team is comfortable playing in front of Crawford. This past season he proved that he can provide consistency and stability in the net. To me, that is more important than a goaltender that can "steal you a game" every once and a while. That's what you pay your back-up for.

 </p>


As far as the argument that any decent goaltender can win a Cup — please. Just stop.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Actually you stopped a little too short. You put an average goalie behind a great team, you can win a Cup. That's what was said. And that's what is true. Osgood is walking proof of that. People actually think he's a Hall of Famer. Because of fucking goalie wins and playing for a dynasty Red Wings team full of Hall of Famers and probably the greatest D-man who will ever play the game. Here's a stat you don't hear about him, because it's too telling of his true worth: His teams have won more games with his ass on the bench than when he started in net for them.</p>