Shantz My Pants
New member
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 3,923
- Liked Posts:
- 787
Hahaha, wanting to shop around Leddy and Saad who both are underpaid for their talents (due to their lack of experience and ELC)? How does that even make sense?
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="225852" data-time="1397586205">
<div>
You are trying to tell me that it is easier to replace a goaltender than a couple of skaters? You're fucking high.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Yea, the Hawks did that in 2010. Took 2 years to replace the skaters, Crawford was the guy pretty much right away. You really aren't making much sense, you do remember who the Hawks played in 2010, Michael Leighton, there were probably 50 goalies better than him that year and he got them to game 6 of the Cup Finals.</p>
</p>
In today's NHL it is all about the team, good goaltending is a necessity, but good goaltending is definitely available as their are only 30 starter spots in the league. </p>
<div>
You are trying to tell me that it is easier to replace a goaltender than a couple of skaters? You're fucking high.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Yea, the Hawks did that in 2010. Took 2 years to replace the skaters, Crawford was the guy pretty much right away. You really aren't making much sense, you do remember who the Hawks played in 2010, Michael Leighton, there were probably 50 goalies better than him that year and he got them to game 6 of the Cup Finals.</p>
</p>
In today's NHL it is all about the team, good goaltending is a necessity, but good goaltending is definitely available as their are only 30 starter spots in the league. </p>
Forklift
New member
- Joined:
- Dec 1, 2010
- Posts:
- 284
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Evanston
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225872" data-time="1397598254">
<div>
Yea, the Hawks did that in 2010. Took 2 years to replace the skaters, Crawford was the guy pretty much right away.. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Crawford might have been the guy IN 2010 - the only reason Niemi made the team over him was based on contracts. They payed each other dead even the year before in Rockford, as well as in training camp in September 2009.</p>
<div>
Yea, the Hawks did that in 2010. Took 2 years to replace the skaters, Crawford was the guy pretty much right away.. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Crawford might have been the guy IN 2010 - the only reason Niemi made the team over him was based on contracts. They payed each other dead even the year before in Rockford, as well as in training camp in September 2009.</p>
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225873" data-time="1397598628">
<div>
Crawford might have been the guy IN 2010 - the only reason Niemi made the team over him was based on contracts. They payed each other dead even the year before in Rockford, as well as in training camp in September 2009.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
I understand, but remember even after that we brought in old ass Turco to start. Bottom line is I definitely am in Variable's camp, could this Hawks team win with James Reimer? My answer is unequivocally yes.</p>
</p>
That is just the start, I like Crawford on this team and wish the price were right but come time next summer that 6 million will be a lot to bear. Also the notion that Seabrook would be gone before is ludicrous in my opinion. #2-#7 are the absolute best pair in the league, and are the foundation for this entire team, replacing Seabrook is not something that is really possible in the short term, and via free agency would only cost us more.</p>
<div>
Crawford might have been the guy IN 2010 - the only reason Niemi made the team over him was based on contracts. They payed each other dead even the year before in Rockford, as well as in training camp in September 2009.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
I understand, but remember even after that we brought in old ass Turco to start. Bottom line is I definitely am in Variable's camp, could this Hawks team win with James Reimer? My answer is unequivocally yes.</p>
</p>
That is just the start, I like Crawford on this team and wish the price were right but come time next summer that 6 million will be a lot to bear. Also the notion that Seabrook would be gone before is ludicrous in my opinion. #2-#7 are the absolute best pair in the league, and are the foundation for this entire team, replacing Seabrook is not something that is really possible in the short term, and via free agency would only cost us more.</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="225860" data-time="1397589868">
<div>
Just because Reimer was bad on a shit team doesn't mean Reimer will be good on a great team. One does not necessarily preclude the other.</p>
</p>
Reimer may very well be better than he was on the Leafs *if* he was on the 'hawks, but is his numbers going to be more like Crawford or more like Raanta? That was my point. Niemi, Emery, and Crawford were both good on Chicago's squads, while Huet, Khabi, and Turco outright sucked. If the team in front of them was so good that they can make anyone look good, than Huet, Khabi, and Turco wouldn't have been nearly as-bad. Reimer on the 'hawks is a complete enigma. You canot say he will be successful here any more than I can say he will fail.</p>
</p>
You're still making the same mistake. Reimer wasn't bad on a shit team. Yes what he's done, at least this past season (last season he was amazing) is considered to be average to below average numbers league wide, but to achieve those numbers with a team like Toronto? That's great. This is just like in other thread where Rosh didn't understand why Miller is seen as a great goalie when his numbers aren't far and away better than any other goalie's. Like everything, it's the context that matters and makes all the difference in the world. The teams those goalies played on. The only team worse in puck possession and who depends on their goalie more than Toronto is Buffalo. And Khabi, Turco and Huet were all just about finished as NHL goalies when they came to the Hawks. They haven't been back in the league since their stints with the Hawks (again, assuming Khabi will retire, which he should). So those guys failing here doesn't prove anything other than no team is good enough to make someone who is no longer a NHL caliber goalie look good as well. </p>
</p>
As for Saad and Leddy, my issue with them is not how good they are with respect to Rockford prospects, Leddy and Saad in their own right are awesome and I was not insinuating that they aren't, but you can't keep everyone.</p>
</p>
The way I see it right now the core consists of Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, Hammer, and Crawford. Their style of play, contract duration, and/or standing amongst the rest of the league determines that. IMHO *if* one of them goes it's because there is a 2nd tier player who is better, or somewhere else the damage from their departure is mitigated. If we lost Seabrook right now, there's no one in Rockford who can take his role on the team, There's no one that Keith can play with who's a righty and defensively responsible. So, someone who can be a Seabrook has to be coming back (a cheaper version), or we land another player in another role that covers for the deficiency.</p>
</p>
That being said, Leddy and Saad are approaching the place where guys like Buff and Ladd were in 2010. They are good enough to make enough money that the team cannot afford them. Some could argue Shaw being ion that cusp as well (Hey, how may big bodied guys *don't* go to the net while Shaw does fearlessly and actually cash in on?) Any way you slice it, the way I see it is that they either have to dethrone a core player, or we lose them.</p>
</p>
And seeing as for a team like the Hawks, that player to be dethroned should be Crawford, because the alternative is losing players that help the Hawks play their all important puck possession game (in which Saad in particular is sooo important in) which then affects Crawford or whomever is in goal for the Hawks all that much more. It doesn't make any sense to pay 6 million for a goalie on a team that is as high possession wise and defensively and offensively sound as Chicago is. The way it should be looked at is that they've already done the hard work, they've already put together that system with amazing players that basically allows them to have 3 scoring lines and a damn good 4th line. They can keep most of that together if they don't break the bank on the position in which they don't need to spend that kind of money on. That's top tier money for a goalie, they don't need to spend that kind of money on ANY goalie. Forget about Crawford, I don't care if it's whoever you consider the best goalie in the league to be, they don't need to do that. It's much better spent in keeping the team in front of the goalie together. </p>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
Just because Reimer was bad on a shit team doesn't mean Reimer will be good on a great team. One does not necessarily preclude the other.</p>
</p>
Reimer may very well be better than he was on the Leafs *if* he was on the 'hawks, but is his numbers going to be more like Crawford or more like Raanta? That was my point. Niemi, Emery, and Crawford were both good on Chicago's squads, while Huet, Khabi, and Turco outright sucked. If the team in front of them was so good that they can make anyone look good, than Huet, Khabi, and Turco wouldn't have been nearly as-bad. Reimer on the 'hawks is a complete enigma. You canot say he will be successful here any more than I can say he will fail.</p>
</p>
You're still making the same mistake. Reimer wasn't bad on a shit team. Yes what he's done, at least this past season (last season he was amazing) is considered to be average to below average numbers league wide, but to achieve those numbers with a team like Toronto? That's great. This is just like in other thread where Rosh didn't understand why Miller is seen as a great goalie when his numbers aren't far and away better than any other goalie's. Like everything, it's the context that matters and makes all the difference in the world. The teams those goalies played on. The only team worse in puck possession and who depends on their goalie more than Toronto is Buffalo. And Khabi, Turco and Huet were all just about finished as NHL goalies when they came to the Hawks. They haven't been back in the league since their stints with the Hawks (again, assuming Khabi will retire, which he should). So those guys failing here doesn't prove anything other than no team is good enough to make someone who is no longer a NHL caliber goalie look good as well. </p>
</p>
As for Saad and Leddy, my issue with them is not how good they are with respect to Rockford prospects, Leddy and Saad in their own right are awesome and I was not insinuating that they aren't, but you can't keep everyone.</p>
</p>
The way I see it right now the core consists of Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, Hammer, and Crawford. Their style of play, contract duration, and/or standing amongst the rest of the league determines that. IMHO *if* one of them goes it's because there is a 2nd tier player who is better, or somewhere else the damage from their departure is mitigated. If we lost Seabrook right now, there's no one in Rockford who can take his role on the team, There's no one that Keith can play with who's a righty and defensively responsible. So, someone who can be a Seabrook has to be coming back (a cheaper version), or we land another player in another role that covers for the deficiency.</p>
</p>
That being said, Leddy and Saad are approaching the place where guys like Buff and Ladd were in 2010. They are good enough to make enough money that the team cannot afford them. Some could argue Shaw being ion that cusp as well (Hey, how may big bodied guys *don't* go to the net while Shaw does fearlessly and actually cash in on?) Any way you slice it, the way I see it is that they either have to dethrone a core player, or we lose them.</p>
</p>
And seeing as for a team like the Hawks, that player to be dethroned should be Crawford, because the alternative is losing players that help the Hawks play their all important puck possession game (in which Saad in particular is sooo important in) which then affects Crawford or whomever is in goal for the Hawks all that much more. It doesn't make any sense to pay 6 million for a goalie on a team that is as high possession wise and defensively and offensively sound as Chicago is. The way it should be looked at is that they've already done the hard work, they've already put together that system with amazing players that basically allows them to have 3 scoring lines and a damn good 4th line. They can keep most of that together if they don't break the bank on the position in which they don't need to spend that kind of money on. That's top tier money for a goalie, they don't need to spend that kind of money on ANY goalie. Forget about Crawford, I don't care if it's whoever you consider the best goalie in the league to be, they don't need to do that. It's much better spent in keeping the team in front of the goalie together. </p>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,450
- Liked Posts:
- 22,189
Isn't this thread about Duncan Keith or did I miss something?
the canadian dream
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 6,402
- Liked Posts:
- 14
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="225880" data-time="1397602271">
<div>
Isn't this thread about Duncan Keith or did I miss something?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You missed the line where they were handing out awesomeness.</p>
</p>
Duncs was first in line.</p>
<div>
Isn't this thread about Duncan Keith or did I miss something?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You missed the line where they were handing out awesomeness.</p>
</p>
Duncs was first in line.</p>
Pez68
Fire Quenneville
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2014
- Posts:
- 4,693
- Liked Posts:
- 259
Trying to justify Crawford's contract is an exercise in stupidity. He's overpaid by at least $1.5M. On THIS HAWKS' TEAM, no goalie is worth 6 million per.</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,533
- Liked Posts:
- 440
I thought this was the Duncan Keith thread. While I think Keith is deserving of the Norris, I have a feeling it will be someone else. Maybe Weber.</p>
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="225903" data-time="1397624617">
<div>
Trying to justify Crawford's contract is an exercise in stupidity. He's overpaid by at least $1.5M. On THIS HAWKS' TEAM, no goalie is worth 6 million per.</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Man, I thought the logic would never come in this discussion. Thank you</p>
<div>
Trying to justify Crawford's contract is an exercise in stupidity. He's overpaid by at least $1.5M. On THIS HAWKS' TEAM, no goalie is worth 6 million per.</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Man, I thought the logic would never come in this discussion. Thank you</p>
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,745
- Liked Posts:
- 0
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="225903" data-time="1397624617">
<div>
Trying to justify Crawford's contract is an exercise in stupidity. He's overpaid by at least $1.5M. On THIS HAWKS' TEAM, no goalie is worth 6 million per.</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Of those starters, how many have a Cup win?</p>
</p>
Since the NHL got the Cup for good, there have been 67 goalies to win it in as many years. Hawks have one. I think I would bank on that. </p>
<div>
Trying to justify Crawford's contract is an exercise in stupidity. He's overpaid by at least $1.5M. On THIS HAWKS' TEAM, no goalie is worth 6 million per.</p>
</p>
The talk about Leddy and Saad being easily replaced is fucking clownshoes. Absolute fucking clownshoes. Leddy will be Hammer's partner once Oduya is gone. Saad is a top six player on ANY team in the NHL, including this one... He's a first liner on most teams.</p>
</p>
Crawford is better than...maybe 15 starters.... He's easily the most replaceable piece of this "core", and it's not even close.</p>
</p>
Is there a starter in the NHL the Hawks COULDN'T win a cup with?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Of those starters, how many have a Cup win?</p>
</p>
Since the NHL got the Cup for good, there have been 67 goalies to win it in as many years. Hawks have one. I think I would bank on that. </p>
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
Crawford > Leddy. Crawford > Saad. Leddy has potential. So did Cam Barker. Loosing Leddy or Saad to an injury would not be a critical blow at this point. Loosing Crow? That would be catastrophic. </p>
</p>
Not that I advocate trading any of them.</p>
</p>
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.</p>
</p>
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches. </p>
</p>
Not that I advocate trading any of them.</p>
</p>
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.</p>
</p>
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches. </p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,450
- Liked Posts:
- 22,189
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="225924" data-time="1397659122">
Crawford > Leddy. Crawford > Saad. Leddy has potential. So did Cam Barker. Loosing Leddy or Saad to an injury would not be a critical blow at this point. Loosing Crow? That would be catastrophic.
Not that I advocate trading any of them.
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches.
</p></blockquote>
Dude... Leddy is 22 and already plays like a veteran that's been in the league for ten years. Not sure if we are watching different players or not.
Losing crawford would be catastrophic???
Crawford > Leddy. Crawford > Saad. Leddy has potential. So did Cam Barker. Loosing Leddy or Saad to an injury would not be a critical blow at this point. Loosing Crow? That would be catastrophic.
Not that I advocate trading any of them.
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches.
</p></blockquote>
Dude... Leddy is 22 and already plays like a veteran that's been in the league for ten years. Not sure if we are watching different players or not.
Losing crawford would be catastrophic???
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
You don't think loosing your Stanley Cup winning goalie and having to play an unproven rookie goalie would be catastrophic? What have you been watching lately?</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,450
- Liked Posts:
- 22,189
Antti Niemi was an unproven rookie goalie who played behind an incredibly talented team.
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="225926" data-time="1397660602">
<div>
You don't think loosing your Stanley Cup winning goalie and having to play an unproven rookie goalie would be catastrophic? What have you been watching lately?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
<div>
You don't think loosing your Stanley Cup winning goalie and having to play an unproven rookie goalie would be catastrophic? What have you been watching lately?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225929" data-time="1397662631">
<div>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Raanta has done absolutely nothing to earn any confidence. </p>
</p>
Goalie wins are as meaningless as quaterback and pitcher wins, and are a poor point of comparison.</p>
</p>
Goalies do occasionally have great games that are called "goalie wins", but those don't happen very often.</p>
<div>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Raanta has done absolutely nothing to earn any confidence. </p>
</p>
Goalie wins are as meaningless as quaterback and pitcher wins, and are a poor point of comparison.</p>
</p>
Goalies do occasionally have great games that are called "goalie wins", but those don't happen very often.</p>
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225930" data-time="1397664317">
<div>
Raanta has done absolutely nothing to earn any confidence. </p>
</p>
Goalie wins are as meaningless as quaterback and pitcher wins, and are a poor point of comparison.</p>
</p>
Goalies do occasionally have great games that are called "goalie wins", but those don't happen very often.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Where the hell is this logic coming from? Goalie wins means that the netminder played well enough behind the team to win the game, that is all that matters. When he is 13-5-4 it means that in this current situation he is good enough for this team to win games. </p>
</p>
Also, your meaningless goalie win stat was good enough for Niemi to win the cup, 2.66 GAA and .910 SV% in the 2010 playoff....is not setting the world on fire in anyway and about what I would expect from Raanta. </p>
<div>
Raanta has done absolutely nothing to earn any confidence. </p>
</p>
Goalie wins are as meaningless as quaterback and pitcher wins, and are a poor point of comparison.</p>
</p>
Goalies do occasionally have great games that are called "goalie wins", but those don't happen very often.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Where the hell is this logic coming from? Goalie wins means that the netminder played well enough behind the team to win the game, that is all that matters. When he is 13-5-4 it means that in this current situation he is good enough for this team to win games. </p>
</p>
Also, your meaningless goalie win stat was good enough for Niemi to win the cup, 2.66 GAA and .910 SV% in the 2010 playoff....is not setting the world on fire in anyway and about what I would expect from Raanta. </p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="225924" data-time="1397659122">
<div>
Crawford > Leddy. Crawford > Saad. Leddy has potential. So did Cam Barker. Loosing Leddy or Saad to an injury would not be a critical blow at this point. Loosing Crow? That would be catastrophic. </p>
</p>
Not that I advocate trading any of them.</p>
</p>
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.</p>
</p>
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you're not sold on Leddy, you need to buy an new television. He is a top pairing d-man on almost any team in the league. Saad is top six. Crawford is a solid goaltender, but there are more solid goalies than top pairing defensemen. Especially those that are young and cheap.</p>
<div>
Crawford > Leddy. Crawford > Saad. Leddy has potential. So did Cam Barker. Loosing Leddy or Saad to an injury would not be a critical blow at this point. Loosing Crow? That would be catastrophic. </p>
</p>
Not that I advocate trading any of them.</p>
</p>
Saad has the higher potential than Leddy IMO. He put together a nice 2nd season despite shuttling up and down the line up.</p>
</p>
I'm not sold on Leddy. I've been hearing how he's the next Lidstrom since we got him. I'm not seeing it on the ice. But maybe he'll shock the shit out of me during the playoffs. Last season he was getting benched during playoff games for long stretches. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you're not sold on Leddy, you need to buy an new television. He is a top pairing d-man on almost any team in the league. Saad is top six. Crawford is a solid goaltender, but there are more solid goalies than top pairing defensemen. Especially those that are young and cheap.</p>
LordKOTL
Scratched for Vorobiev
- Joined:
- Dec 8, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,628
- Liked Posts:
- 2,972
- Location:
- PacNW
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225929" data-time="1397662631">
<div>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Raanta is too young and too new to really be able to tell where he lies. The bulk of his wins were when he first stepped onto NA ice and the Team D played incredibly tight around him--tighter than they did for Crawford this year. Hell, back in 2008 they did the same for Crawford when Khabi went down and they decided to rest Lalime.</p>
</p>
Comparing Crawford when the team D played like ass and Raanta when the team D played like ass Raanta fared much worse. This can chance once Raanta makes the counter-adjustment when the leage has the book on him (like comparing Crawford post-2012).</p>
</p>
IMHO if we lose Crawford over the summer, Raanta essentially comes in as a sophomore and will probably fare as well as Emery/Crawford did in 2012. Our D is good but they're not beyond light's out--Keith makes mistakes, Seabrook makes mistakes, Leddy makes mistakes, Hammer makes mistakes, Oduya makes mistakes, and the token #6 makes mistakes. Crawford on average kept it to near 2 goals when the D was mailing it it. Raanta was more like 3 goals when the D was mailing it in. It's not beyond possibility that Raanta will bring that number down but I think he needs at least 1 more year. If we're to ditch Crawford, now is not the time IMHO.</p>
<div>
I do not. Raanta was 13-5-4 behind the Hawks this year. And the losses happened when he hadn't played in 2 months, and then again weeks later. I would have full confidence in Raanta. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Raanta is too young and too new to really be able to tell where he lies. The bulk of his wins were when he first stepped onto NA ice and the Team D played incredibly tight around him--tighter than they did for Crawford this year. Hell, back in 2008 they did the same for Crawford when Khabi went down and they decided to rest Lalime.</p>
</p>
Comparing Crawford when the team D played like ass and Raanta when the team D played like ass Raanta fared much worse. This can chance once Raanta makes the counter-adjustment when the leage has the book on him (like comparing Crawford post-2012).</p>
</p>
IMHO if we lose Crawford over the summer, Raanta essentially comes in as a sophomore and will probably fare as well as Emery/Crawford did in 2012. Our D is good but they're not beyond light's out--Keith makes mistakes, Seabrook makes mistakes, Leddy makes mistakes, Hammer makes mistakes, Oduya makes mistakes, and the token #6 makes mistakes. Crawford on average kept it to near 2 goals when the D was mailing it it. Raanta was more like 3 goals when the D was mailing it in. It's not beyond possibility that Raanta will bring that number down but I think he needs at least 1 more year. If we're to ditch Crawford, now is not the time IMHO.</p>