Crawford Signs Six year extension

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208573" data-time="1378250151">
<div>


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>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Any other goalie can't do it because any other goalie doesn't have the luxury of the kind of team the Hawks have. Or the teams Brodeur had. Your original post doesn't even make sense. Of course there aren't going to be very many active starting players from 20 years ago still playing now or playing at a high level now, but in the last 10 years there's been 10 different goalies that started for their team the season they won the Cup. It's easy to leave things out or only allow certain factors to your liking in order to fit an argument. Anyone can do that. </p>


 </p>


Only 5  starting goalies that won a Cup in the last 20 years lol. That's uh....that's a new one. That might top the "Tomas Holmstrom is a Hall of Famer" bad hockey thought.</p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208575" data-time="1378250482">
<div>


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>
</div>
</blockquote>



And this is going off the same "experts" that on other topics in hockey, you would take their word on it over someone that disagrees with you as long as it supports what you believe. Because they "know the game" or because they played the game. It's also easy not to mention convenient  when you do that. Again, anyone can do things like that.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<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. 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>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Got a list of the last 20 Stanley Cup Finals' goalies? I'm betting that list would be pretty underwhelming, as far as goalie talent is concerned. :icon-wink:</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208579" data-time="1378251809">
<div>


 </p>


Only 5  starting goalies that won a Cup in the last 20 years lol. That's uh....that's a new one. That might top the "Tomas Holmstrom is a Hall of Famer" bad hockey thought.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Look at the numbers. And notice how I said ACTIVE goalies you idiot. I love how you just skip words when they don't suit your purpose.</p>


 </p>


there are 5 active starting goalies who were starting goalies on cup teams.</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208580" data-time="1378252309">
<div>


Got a list of the last 20 Stanley Cup Finals' goalies? I'm betting that list would be pretty underwhelming, as far as goalie talent is concerned. :icon-wink:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Do you mean the winners? Or the losers?</p>


because if you mean winners</p>


 </p>


Crawford</p>


Quick</p>


Thomas</p>


Niemi</p>


Fleury</p>


Osgood</p>


Guigere</p>


Osgood</p>


Ward</p>


Khabibulan</p>


Brodeur</p>


Hasek</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Belfour</p>


Osgood</p>


Vernon</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Richter</p>


Roy</p>


 </p>


very underwhelmiong list. Bunch of plugs for sure.</p>


 </p>


And just for you Variable, care to count how many of those goalies listed are still active, starting goaltenders?</p>

 

[Variable]

No, no, I addressed that in the post. There aren't going to be very many active starting goalies from 20 years ago playing now. Sorry. Not sure why you're surprised.</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208583" data-time="1378253691">
<div>


No, no, I addressed that in the post. There aren't going to be very many active starting goalies from 20 years ago playing now. Sorry. Not sure why you're surprised.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


fine, how's this.</p>


 </p>


over the last 10 years, there are only 5 active starting goaltenders.</p>


 </p>


because 50% is a very high, respectable number.</p>

 

[Variable]

Because the others were older goalies at the end of their career somehow that proves something that they aren't playing anymore? And where are you getting Osgood twice with Giguere in between? Did Osgood win the imaginary Stanley Cup the lockout year or something? All by himself?</p>

 

[R K]

Snap

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="208585" data-time="1378254171">
<div>


Because the others were older goalies at the end of their career somehow that proves something that they aren't playing anymore? And where are you getting Osgood twice with Giguere in between? Did Osgood win the imaginary Stanley Cup the lockout year or something? All by himself?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


oh, my bad. That's the part you pick on.</p>


 </p>


Crawford</p>


Quick</p>


Thomas</p>


Niemi</p>


Fleury</p>


Osgood</p>


Guigere</p>


Ward</p>


LOCKOUT</p>


Khabibulan</p>


Brodeur</p>


Hasek</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Belfour</p>


Osgood</p>


Vernon</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Richter</p>


Roy</p>


 </p>


better?</p>


 </p>


and my point, is that cup winning goalies are not something you can just go out and get. And (big surprise) They are locked up for the long term! Who knew that a team would want to hold on to a cup winning goalie.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208587" data-time="1378254325">
<div>


oh, my bad. That's the part you pick on.</p>


 </p>


Crawford</p>


Quick</p>


Thomas</p>


Niemi</p>


Fleury</p>


Osgood</p>


Guigere</p>


Ward</p>


LOCKOUT</p>


Khabibulan</p>


Brodeur</p>


Hasek</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Belfour</p>


Osgood</p>


Vernon</p>


Roy</p>


Brodeur</p>


Richter</p>


Roy</p>


 </p>


better?</p>


 </p>


and my point, is that cup winning goalies are not something you can just go out and get. And (big surprise) They are locked up for the long term! Who knew that a team would want to hold on to a cup winning goalie.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Aside from Brodeur and Roy, how many of those goalies got a nice pay-day based on winning a cup, and never repeated that performance? Whether it was injuries, or just never again reaching that level... What were the salaries of those goalies in the season they won the cup? Just looking at that list, guys that got paid handsomely based on their Stanley Cup win:</p>


 </p>


Crawford</p>


Niemi</p>


Fleury</p>


Giguere</p>


Ward</p>


Khabibulin</p>


 </p>


Before the salary cap, it didn't matter what you were paying a goalie, because you could afford to pay a goalie big money and still stack the rest of the team.... In the salary cap era:</p>


 </p>


Crawford: $2.67M</p>


Quick: $1.8M</p>


Thomas: $6M($5M cap hit)</p>


Niemi: $826k</p>


Fleury: $3.5M</p>


Osgood: $800k</p>


Giguere:$4M(very comparable to the Crawford situation)</p>


Ward: $684k</p>


 </p>


Notice something here? Not a lot of money tied up between the pipes....</p>


 </p>


I'd like to see the losing list too, and see how much they tied up in net. Bottom line is, there are two philosophies to take with a team when trying to win a cup. Spend a lot on a goalie, and sacrifice somewhere else. Spend a reasonable amount on the goalie, and strengthen the depth or defense in front of him. You can guess which I prefer.</p>

 

[R K]

but you are assuming they are going to sacrifice and I say they know what they are doing.  Why go through this?  Is two Cups not enough proof they know what they are doing?</p>

 

[R K]

And doesn't Crawford have another year at 2.6 mil?</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208589" data-time="1378257047">
<div>


but you are assuming they are going to sacrifice and I say they know what they are doing.  Why go through this?  Is two Cups not enough proof they know what they are doing?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Well, it's just how it works in the cap era. You spend money on a position, and you have to sacrifice somewhere else. That's $1.5-2M they don't have to spend on defensive or forward depth. I think Crawford is a really good goalie, I just have a different philosophy when it comes to how to spend the cap space. Although, I guess there's really no difference here between 2010 and the goalie budget from 2014 onwards. We were paying Huet 5.6M to sit on the bench, as much as we all want to forget about it. :icon-lol:</p>


 </p>


So if they keep a budget backup, it can work out just fine.</p>


 </p>


Also, why not go through this? This forum has been dead during the offseason. Excuse me for taking a counter position and encouraging discussion. </p>

 

[R K]

I think it's slightly different though.  They rolled back knowing they'd gain it right back.</p>


 </p>


Stans already been down this path once, do you seriously think he'd risk that again?  Not a chance.</p>


 </p>


 </p>


And funny you bring up HUET, while it was Mcdonough, we had two very serviceable goalies BEFORE that signing.  Something we do not have now.</p>

 

[Pez68]

Well, Crawdaddy was locked up for another year, and they have Khabi signed. So, really, they did have two very serviceable goalies signed for this season. One of them is even the same guy! haha</p>


 </p>


It's not as big a deal as I'm making it out to be. Maybe a million bucks in cap space when all is said and done.</p>

 

[Rex]

Here's the cup losing teams for the last 20 years (forgive me if there is one or two incorrect, I'm just looking at the teams and going off memory)</p>


 </p>


Rask</p>


Brodeur</p>


Luongo</p>


Leighton</p>


Osgood</p>


Fleury</p>


Emery</p>


Roloson</p>


LOCKOUT</p>


Kipprusof</p>


Guigere</p>


Irbe</p>


Brodeur</p>


Belfour</p>


Hasek</p>


Kolzig</p>


Hextall</p>


Vanbesbrook</p>


Osgood</p>


Mclean</p>


Hrudy</p>


Belfour</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="208587" data-time="1378254325">

oh, my bad. That's the part you pick on.
 
Crawford
Quick
Thomas
Niemi
Fleury
Osgood
Guigere
Ward
LOCKOUT
Khabibulan
Brodeur
Hasek
Roy
Brodeur
Belfour
Osgood
Vernon
Roy
Brodeur
Richter
Roy
 
better?
 
and my point, is that cup winning goalies are not something you can just go out and get. And (big surprise) They are locked up for the long term! Who knew that a team would want to hold on to a cup winning goalie.</p></blockquote>
RICHTER!!!!!!!!!

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208594" data-time="1378257689">
<div>


Well, Crawdaddy was locked up for another year, and they have Khabi signed. So, really, they did have two very serviceable goalies signed for this season. One of them is even the same guy! haha</p>


 </p>


It's not as big a deal as I'm making it out to be. Maybe a million bucks in cap space when all is said and done.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


I think Khabi's injury history is in question.  He's just here to give Raanta some experience.  Before they had Khabi, Niemi and Crawford.</p>


 </p>


I think maybe a mil to much and a year or two too long.  Like you said not a big deal with a team that clearly knows what they are doing.</p>

 

[Rex]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="208594" data-time="1378257689">
<div>


Well, Crawdaddy was locked up for another year, and they have Khabi signed. So, really, they did have two very serviceable goalies signed for this season. One of them is even the same guy! haha</p>


 </p>


It's not as big a deal as I'm making it out to be. Maybe a million bucks in cap space when all is said and done.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


you make up for it by not paying big money to a backup.</p>


 </p>


2010 we had a lot of money in our goalies, even though the won who won the cup wasn't making much at all.</p>

 

[R K]

He sure was shortly after he won the Cup.  Over 4 mil.  And his numbers put him in the top five last year.  Unfortunately his team is full of a bunch of individual players.  IE Smokin Joe Thornton...</p>