Crawford Signs Six year extension

[LordKOTL]

Personally I think if you're going to claim that Crawford was *the* reason we were one-and-done in 2012 (as a lot of fans do), you can't claim that we won the cup on team D and team D alone in 2013.</p>


 </p>


Maybe, just maybe, both Crawford and the team in front of him have about an equal share in the net results both years. </p>


 </p>


But I think that the notion that any old average goalie plugged into our system can win the cup, much like a New York cabbie, simply won't wash.  It's not as if our vaunted D hasn't been known to mail it in occasionally since 2010.</p>


 </p>


Plus, let's say we didn't sign Crawford, and after this season we plugged Raanta in.  1st year in he probably does well.  2nd year when all teams have a book on him he has a sophomore slump like Crawford, Niemi, Price, Howard, Rinne, and Quick did.  Then he rebounds.  Then he needs a raise.  Then we need to go through this rigamarole when our team is 3-4 years older and starting to slow down</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="208554" data-time="1378240937">
<div>


Personally I think if you're going to claim that Crawford was *the* reason we were one-and-done in 2012 (as a lot of fans do), you can't claim that we won the cup on team D and team D alone in 2013.</p>


 </p>


Maybe, just maybe, both Crawford and the team in front of him have about an equal share in the net results both years. </p>


 </p>


But I think that the notion that any old average goalie plugged into our system can win the cup, much like a New York cabbie, simply won't wash.  It's not as if our vaunted D hasn't been known to mail it in occasionally since 2010.</p>


 </p>


Plus, let's say we didn't sign Crawford, and after this season we plugged Raanta in.  1st year in he probably does well.  2nd year when all teams have a book on him he has a sophomore slump like Crawford, Niemi, Price, Howard, Rinne, and Quick did.  Then he rebounds.  Then he needs a raise.  Then we need to go through this rigamarole when our team is 3-4 years older and starting to slow down</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Hit the nail right on the head. The time is now, they don't want to wait around for a key piece to mesh well with the core. They found their guy and paid the man. Simple as that.</p>


 </p>


I think this is a very safe move.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="208554" data-time="1378240937">
<div>


Personally I think if you're going to claim that Crawford was *the* reason we were one-and-done in 2012 (as a lot of fans do), you can't claim that we won the cup on team D and team D alone in 2013.</p>


 </p>


Maybe, just maybe, both Crawford and the team in front of him have about an equal share in the net results both years. </p>


 </p>


But I think that the notion that any old average goalie plugged into our system can win the cup, much like a New York cabbie, simply won't wash.  It's not as if our vaunted D hasn't been known to mail it in occasionally since 2010.</p>


 </p>


Plus, let's say we didn't sign Crawford, and after this season we plugged Raanta in.  1st year in he probably does well.  2nd year when all teams have a book on him he has a sophomore slump like Crawford, Niemi, Price, Howard, Rinne, and Quick did.  Then he rebounds.  Then he needs a raise.  Then we need to go through this rigamarole when our team is 3-4 years older and starting to slow down</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


You're talking about things 3-4 years down the line with absolute certainty.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Ton DeFrancesco" data-cid="208556" data-time="1378241577">
<div>


Hit the nail right on the head. The time is now, they don't want to wait around for a key piece to mesh well with the core. They found their guy and paid the man. Simple as that.</p>


 </p>


I think this is a very safe move.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I'm not worried about Crawford's play, I'm just thinking he got too much money for too long. If the cap hits 70 million by next season or the season after, this is probably a non-issue. So, time will tell, I guess.</p>

 

[R K]

on last years revenue alone I bet the Cap is near 70 next year.</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208550" data-time="1378240373">
<div>


So your defense is that it's not the worst goalie contract in the NHL? Well, bravo.... :icon-lol:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


My defense is that it seems to be going rate, considering there are goalies making more that have done less.</p>


 </p>


Reading Comprehension, Not even once. </p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208562" data-time="1378246597">
<div>


on last years revenue alone I bet the Cap is near 70 next year.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Isn't there going to be 5 or 6 outdoor games this year? Those things are insane revenue makers. </p>

 

[mikita's helmet]

<span style="font-size:18px;">LISTING THE FIVE CHEAPEST GOALIE TANDEMS IN THE NHL</span></p>


http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/03/listing-the-five-cheapest-goalie-tandems-in-the-nhl/related/</p>

 

[R K]

well Crawford is on that list until next year.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208563" data-time="1378247608">
<div>


My defense is that it seems to be going rate, considering there are goalies making more that have done less.</p>


 </p>


Reading Comprehension, Not even once. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Even if it is, let some other team pay it.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208563" data-time="1378247608">
<div>


My defense is that it seems to be going rate, considering there are goalies making more that have done less.</p>


 </p>


Reading Comprehension, Not even once. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I consider all of those contracts you listed to be bad contracts. I'm not a fan of giving goalies long term, big money deals, just out of principal. I don't think an elite goalie is a necessity to win the cup and I think the cap space is better spent on depth for the third or fourth lines. You're a goalie, so I understand. :icon-wink:</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208569" data-time="1378248525">
<div>


I consider all of those contracts you listed to be bad contracts. I'm not a fan of giving goalies long term, big money deals, just out of principal. I don't think an elite goalie is a necessity to win the cup and I think the cap space is better spent on depth for the third or fourth lines. You're a goalie, so I understand. :icon-wink:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208568" data-time="1378248294">
<div>


Even if it is, let some other team pay it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


In the last 20 years, there are only seven active starting goalies that have won the Stanley Cup, one of them is our starter. Another is our new backup. Another is Brodeur, who will be backing up next season. So technically, there are five starting goalies who have won cups in the last 20 years. </p>


 </p>


If any goalie could do it, you would think it would be higher than seven in twenty years. </p>

 

[R K]

No way let some other team pay it.  Because clearly with 2 Cups in 4 years, this organization has ZERO clue what they are doing.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208570" data-time="1378249019">
<div>


In the last 20 years, there are only seven active starting goalies that have won the Stanley Cup, one of them is our starter. Another is our new backup. </p>


 </p>


If any goalie could do it, you would think it would be higher than seven in twenty years. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Name me a better team than the Hawks have had in the last 20 years. Those 2 teams they've had in the last few years have been among the most complete teams the league has seen in recent history. People here have said it themselves, I'm not the only one saying it. How many captains came out of that 2010 team that weren't wearing a letter when they were on the Hawks?  5 or 6? Emery lost one game last year, you think that kind of success is going to continue in Philly? You've got two of the best players in the league who have both won Conn Smythe and who will be both (probable) multiple Olympic medalists play huge roles on their respective teams. And then you got probably the best D tandem in the league that will probably again make the Olympics themselves, along with a couple other members of their D-core for their countries.</p>


 </p>


Just like with Ton, it comes back to now you have to downgrade the kind of teams the Hawks have built for the better part of a decade because it doesn't fit into your argument in justifying Crawford's contract. It's amusing that now they really aren't that amazing of a team, that now it was a lot more due to the goalie leading them to those Cup wins. And then you criticize other goalies who haven't single handedly won their team a Cup. Keep up the good work guys. </p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208572" data-time="1378249889">
<div>


Name me a better team than the Hawks have had in the last 20 years. Those 2 teams they've had in the last few years have been among the most complete teams the league has seen in recent history. People here have said it themselves, I'm not the only one saying it. How many captains came out of that 2010 team that weren't wearing a letter when they were on the Hawks?  5 or 6? Emery lost one game last year, you think that kind of success is going to continue in Philly? </p>


 </p>


Just like with Ton, it comes back to now you have to downgrade the kind of teams the Hawks have built for the better part of a decade because it doesn't fit into your argument in justifying Crawford's contract. It's amusing that now they really aren't that amazing of a team, that now it was a lot more due to the goalie leading them to those Cup wins. And then you criticize other goalies who haven't single handedly won their team a Cup. Keep up the good work guys. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>



jesus you're a fucking moron. Learn to read. Win as a team, Lose as a team. Crawford was a major part of the team. He is well liked on the team, the team trusts him, and he was a major part in winning that cup. Without him we probably don't get past Detroit, and we defiantly don't get past Boston. </p>


 </p>


I really don't get you people, You were mad at the people we lost, and now you're equally mad when we don't lose people. There is no pleasing you. The cup is half empty even when the fucking thing is overflowing. </p>


 </p>


And Weren't you one of the people saying that Chicago should trade for Luongo last season? I'm pretty sure Pez was too. I guess 9 years at 5.5 mil is much more attractive over 6 years at 6 million. </p>

 

[R K]

If you stop quoting her some of us won't have to read it.</p>


 </p>


2 Cups in 4 years says shut the **** up and let them be.  They obviously know what they are doing and Crawford earned it.</p>

 

[Rex]

Chicago was the deepest most complete teams last year, other than Los Angeles and Boston. Remember, we weren't supposed to win those series. </p>

 

[R K]

Good thing Crawford was healthy because Emery wasn't.  We'd have had Karlsson in net against the Wild.</p>

 

[Rex]

What's wrong with that Ron? They're advocating winning the Cup with untested, average goalies. </p>

 

[R K]

Good point.  The travesty.  My armchair is stuck.</p>