Is Darling playing himself into a starting position with a team somewhere?

[DMelt36]

No...he isn't.

Ooh. Close. President of Hockey Ops.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Don't disagree about his numbers. I just believe more is involved than just the numbers. Talent wise, team in front of him, mental composition, numbers, contract are all things that come to into play.

I'm sure many teams will be interested, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were maybe 2-3 teams at most, and the offers would suck.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

You underestimate the stupidity of the Maple Leafs.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

You underestimate the stupidity of the Maple Leafs.

Shanahan is in charge now, he doesn't strike me as someone willing to put up with the past bullshit.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[NCChiFan]

10$ says Q starts Crow in the 2nd round of the playoffs....

Could be, sometimes a net minder is better against certain systems or players. Could be Crow will be fine in the second round. Darling might just be the Predator's Kryptonite.

 

[ClydeLee]

I still don't get people with their fears of thinking certain players couldn't get moved for good value with high salary... Apart from players that are 35+ in age this has never been an issue anywhere across the league. It's something that doesn't happen much at all. Teams with no goalie strength like Edmonton or SJ may like the deal as they need to change their makeups.

But I think even in any scenario the price Crawford has because of Darling and even Raanta's salary. When you compare the amount of salary each team pays to their goalies overall, The Hawks are 13th even with Craws 6 MIL. That's also likely to drop further from the top next year with contracts having been given out like Ben Bishops, Schnider, etc. If they stay put with Darling's cheap 2 year deal. So devoting less than half the league does the goalie spot is a safe place to be in. Both capwise comparably and for the potential to trade one off.

 

[Rex]

The people saying we should trade Crow are clueless. There is no book out on Darling yet because he is new. There's a reason sophmore goalies struggle so much, and they have to adapt or they are out of the league.

 

[mikita's helmet]

If Darling grows some and gets 4 feet wide, he can lay on his side and have the whole net covered.

:elephant:
:X
:elephant:

Crawford can do the same, though.

 

[Pez68]

Beat me to my next post.

It's a tad early to start considering Darling as a long-term replacement for Crawford, but he's making a pretty good case so far.

I think Darling is proving the adage that above average goaltending is all you need in behind a team that can play team defense as well as the Hawks. Which seemed to be the organization's philosophy during the first 2 Cup runs, until they threw that huge contract at Crow.

Also: there would absolutely be a market for Crawford. Maybe not a first-round pick type of market, but someone would take a goalie with a Cup win in his career.

Been saying this for years. The contract they gave Crawford didn't make any sense at the time, and it makes even less sense now, given the cap situation next season, and what has transpired in these playoffs.

Love Corey, but he's the first salary you look to dump in the offeseason after Bickell.

 

[Pez68]

The people saying we should trade Crow are clueless. There is no book out on Darling yet because he is new. There's a reason sophmore goalies struggle so much, and they have to adapt or they are out of the league.

He is 26 years old and has played a ton of ECHL/AHL hockey....

 

[ClydeLee]

Crawford had 5 years consistently starting in the AHL and became a fulltime NHL starting goalie the year he turned 26 as well.

If a case to point out Darling has played in many pro leagues and is 26 is some argument against possible sophomore slumps, it's a poor case to make. Plenty other players go that route and struggle too because lots of goalies take a good amount of years in the minors leagues before getting regular NHL shots, and a lot of them go through struggles when teams get better sights and reports on them which changing situations.

 

[DMelt36]

Been saying this for years. The contract they gave Crawford didn't make any sense at the time, and it makes even less sense now, given the cap situation next season, and what has transpired in these playoffs.

Love Corey, but he's the first salary you look to dump in the offeseason after Bickell.

I'm not quite there yet, because I need a larger body of work from Darling to make me believe this isn't just a flash in the pan. Like what I've seen so far, though.

Definitely a good problem to have.

 

[Rex]

He is 26 years old and has played a ton of ECHL/AHL hockey....

yes, because THAT is the same.

Crow made the team at 25 when he made the Blackhawks, and had played a ton of AHL hockey and still had a sophomore slump. I can't even think of a goalie off the top of my head who hasn't had a bad sophomore year.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I know what I would do, because I'm a risk taker. I think championships are worth risking it all for, and you end up risking yourself out of contention. Personally I would

1) Move Crawford for the highest pick with no salary help back I could get. Edmonton, Rangers, hell...San Jose? Somebody would look at Crawford as a boost to the back end that could change their fortunes. He is a top 15 goalie without question. I make this move because I see something in Darling...mojo and hands. He can play off his confidence, has unpredicatability, and catches things that Crawford deflects. Crawfords single issue is the rebounds or he would be a top goalie when right. He wasn't right this series, that was obvious, its like he wasn't there physcially, pucks going through him. Nightmare. The time to move him is now before he becomes an injured head case.

I use that money to sign Sharp and Seabrook. I don't care what happened, the guys can clearly live with it too. He is too good of a talent to lose and think you still have the same dynasty.

Vermette, Desjardins, Carcillo, Shaw, Bickell, Versteeg, Timo, Rozy, Nordstrum, Oduya (removing the majority of our penalty minutes) should all go and open the way for an overdue Ice Hog wave of talent.

Pokka, Johns, plus the glimpses we saw this year of other youth indicate we can move forward to a young team balanced by superstars and be contenders again within 2 years, sooner if Darling is legit.

2016 Hossa-Toews-Sharp
Richards-Kane-Tuevo
McNeil-Bickell-Saad
Kruger-Baun-Hartman (Schmaltz)


Keith, Hammer, Seabs, TVR, Johns, Pokka



I suspect however, with Q's fascination with toughness, and managements desire to sit on a dynasty.


It makes sense to have two good goalies next year until the trade deadline. You hold pat and see what Roses you got and if you need em then. Otherwise you could be starting Raanta in the playoffs next year very easily. Two goalies, one cheap, is a good dilemna. You stay pat unless a deal is huge, meaning we are getting a first and you take Crow's contract. Ok...we might bite. But for less lets just have two goalies.

The D talent might spell doom from management standpoint for Oduya and Seabs. They won't be fun to lose, but you gotta use your talents in Pokka, Johns, TVR and others possible. Let Keith groom his last crop of youth and finish the dynasty strong.

Sharp goes for whatever reason, leaving a spot for Tuevo who can probably replace his goals and give you more assists at least. As good as Sharp is he doesn't seem a natural fit to any line we have, whereas I think Tuevo/Kane are going to be natural partners once they click and build chemistry. With Tuevo's defensive mind and ability to take faceoffs he will be a natural pairing into Kane. McNeil could be that 2C. Tuevo could be. We have to watch that 2C and start giving Hossa/Keith time off during seasons imo just to be cautious.

Its going to be intersting, all we know is the Hawks are going to be younger soon and a little different. If the youth we have include toughness (Hartman, Baun, McNeil) all have 6'2" and sturdy 215 lb frames I think......

we could finally compliment our superstars with players that bond to their weaknesses rather than accentuate their strengths and further weaknesses. I'd like a more balanced team personally, and that is why I have been Bickells supporter. He gives us something we lack. Now if you can get that from Baun, McNeil, Hartman fine. But be confident in that because Bickell gives us something in the playoffs we would be fucked without. He makes teams respect us and fear upsetting us. Him and Seabs basically threaten retribution and offer Kane/Toews a level of protection. Losing them both imo could be terrible for us and lead to injuries to our skill playerss.

 

[Pez68]

yes, because THAT is the same.

Crow made the team at 25 when he made the Blackhawks, and had played a ton of AHL hockey and still had a sophomore slump. I can't even think of a goalie off the top of my head who hasn't had a bad sophomore year.

I have come to the conclusion that the sophomore slump is an old wive's tale and bullshit. Goalies have down years. Sometimes it is their second year in the NHL, sometimes it is their 4th, sometimes it is their 7th. Sometimes they have down years because the team in front of them has a down year. The sophomore slump is not a quantifiable "thing". Rask, Niemi, Lundquist, Rinne, Quick? Where was the "sophomore slump" for those guys?

How does a sophomore slump even work? The goalie has a down year in their second season because the NHL figured them out, but they forget what they figured out about the goalie in the third season? :lol:

Did Crawford have a "sophomore slump" or did the Hawks as a whole just suck that season?

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I know what I would do, because I'm a risk taker. I think championships are worth risking it all for, and you end up risking yourself out of contention. Personally I would

1) Move Crawford for the highest pick with no salary help back I could get. Edmonton, Rangers, hell...San Jose? Somebody would look at Crawford as a boost to the back end that could change their fortunes. He is a top 15 goalie without question. I make this move because I see something in Darling...mojo and hands. He can play off his confidence, has unpredicatability, and catches things that Crawford deflects. Crawfords single issue is the rebounds or he would be a top goalie when right. He wasn't right this series, that was obvious, its like he wasn't there physcially, pucks going through him. Nightmare. The time to move him is now before he becomes an injured head case.

I use that money to sign Sharp and Seabrook. I don't care what happened, the guys can clearly live with it too. He is too good of a talent to lose and think you still have the same dynasty.

Vermette, Desjardins, Carcillo, Shaw, Bickell, Versteeg, Timo, Rozy, Nordstrum, Oduya (removing the majority of our penalty minutes) should all go and open the way for an overdue Ice Hog wave of talent.

Pokka, Johns, plus the glimpses we saw this year of other youth indicate we can move forward to a young team balanced by superstars and be contenders again within 2 years, sooner if Darling is legit.

2016 Hossa-Toews-Sharp
Richards-Kane-Tuevo
McNeil-Bickell-Saad
Kruger-Baun-Hartman (Schmaltz)


Keith, Hammer, Seabs, TVR, Johns, Pokka



I suspect however, with Q's fascination with toughness, and managements desire to sit on a dynasty.


It makes sense to have two good goalies next year until the trade deadline. You hold pat and see what Roses you got and if you need em then. Otherwise you could be starting Raanta in the playoffs next year very easily. Two goalies, one cheap, is a good dilemna. You stay pat unless a deal is huge, meaning we are getting a first and you take Crow's contract. Ok...we might bite. But for less lets just have two goalies.

The D talent might spell doom from management standpoint for Oduya and Seabs. They won't be fun to lose, but you gotta use your talents in Pokka, Johns, TVR and others possible. Let Keith groom his last crop of youth and finish the dynasty strong.

Sharp goes for whatever reason, leaving a spot for Tuevo who can probably replace his goals and give you more assists at least. As good as Sharp is he doesn't seem a natural fit to any line we have, whereas I think Tuevo/Kane are going to be natural partners once they click and build chemistry. With Tuevo's defensive mind and ability to take faceoffs he will be a natural pairing into Kane. McNeil could be that 2C. Tuevo could be. We have to watch that 2C and start giving Hossa/Keith time off during seasons imo just to be cautious.

Its going to be intersting, all we know is the Hawks are going to be younger soon and a little different. If the youth we have include toughness (Hartman, Baun, McNeil) all have 6'2" and sturdy 215 lb frames I think......

we could finally compliment our superstars with players that bond to their weaknesses rather than accentuate their strengths and further weaknesses. I'd like a more balanced team personally, and that is why I have been Bickells supporter. He gives us something we lack. Now if you can get that from Baun, McNeil, Hartman fine. But be confident in that because Bickell gives us something in the playoffs we would be fucked without. He makes teams respect us and fear upsetting us. Him and Seabs basically threaten retribution and offer Kane/Toews a level of protection. Losing them both imo could be terrible for us and lead to injuries to our skill playerss.

 

[Variable]

Yeah, but at 6 million a year? Not sure that's a huge market.

Say the Hawks do win the SC with Darling as their goaltender. The rest of the league is going to take notice and realize if you field a competitive team, you won't need to put so much $$$ on a goalie.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

So why did Chicago pay 6 million to Crawford after winning the Cup a few years ago with Niemi, some dude who, before coming over to the NHL, was cleaning rinks in his spare time in Finland? There are always going to be GMs who give out huge, stupid contracts to goalies. The Hawks winning the Cup with Darling wouldn't change that because the Hawks winning the Cup with Niemi didn't change that. Even within the same organization it didn't change it, why would it now make a league wide change? The Hawks climbed the mountain doing it that way and they still gave Crawford that kind of contract.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

So why did Chicago pay 6 million to Crawford after winning the Cup a few years ago with Niemi, some dude who, before coming over to the NHL, was cleaning rinks in his spare time in Finland? There are always going to be GMs who give out huge, stupid contracts to goalies. The Hawks winning the Cup with Darling wouldn't change that because the Hawks winning the Cup with Niemi didn't change that. Even within the same organization it didn't change it, why would it make a league wide change? The Hawks climbed the mountain doing it that way and they still gave Crawford that kind of contract.

I've never liked the Crow contract and actually am one of the only people to (ever) agree with you when you said 6 million is a lot for a goaltender, especially Crawford.

Again, Darling has played well, but I think it's waaaay to early to be ready to toss Crawford. Crows grown on me, though I think he's worth 4 mill a year, but you know what you are getting from Crow. He's got his great games, his lousy games, and then the in between. Darling has played great, but for how long?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Variable]

That doesn't answer the question though. Why would teams all of a sudden now think they shouldn't pay that type of money to goalies IF the Hawks were to win, or go far, with Darling? They themselves won the Cup with an "unknown" and still ended up being a team that gave a stupid contract to a goalie. Why would it become this league wide change this time?

 

[LordKOTL]

Beat me to my next post.

It's a tad early to start considering Darling as a long-term replacement for Crawford, but he's making a pretty good case so far.

I think Darling is proving the adage that above average goaltending is all you need in behind a team that can play team defense as well as the Hawks. Which seemed to be the organization's philosophy during the first 2 Cup runs, until they threw that huge contract at Crow.

Also: there would absolutely be a market for Crawford. Maybe not a first-round pick type of market, but someone would take a goalie with a Cup win in his career.

I'm just not so sure about the market for a 6 million dollar goalie.

Crawford has stood on his head at times, but these past two games he's played are not the only dumps he's taken before.

Also have to look at the team he plays in front of. If Darling is looking so good, why isn't Crow doing that well in front of the same team. These are just questions a GM will ask before they get involved.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

You're operating onder the false assumtion that our Team D was Game-4 good in all of the previous games--which was not the case. The Team D was a partial-birth abortion in game 1 before Crawford was pulled, and was only slightly better after Darling came in. Game 2 it was bad on the 1st 3 goals, and Keith coughing it up right in front of the net (Granted, Crawford should have tried to freeze it rather than poke it out of there) was the blade of grass that turned the dromedary into a paraplegic. Game 3 it was okay. Game 4 it was much better except when Keith coughed it up in front of the net yet again (Surprise, score on Darling he had little chance of stopping).

By my eyetest, it's not so much how "good" the team is in front of the netminder, since the O didn't really show up until game 3 and the team D not until Game 4, but rather Crawford is on a downslide while Darling is playing out of his fucking mind right now--and honestly I hope they ride Darling until he really screws the pooch--and I hope he doesn't. Further, based on the articles flowting around cyberspace now, I like Crawford's attitude in the whole thing-it seems like he and Darling got each other's back.

Going into next season, though, I think the longer and farther Darling goes into the playoffs, the more ammunition goes to counter my old argument of the 'hawks brass wanting a vet netminder to back him up--since Darling is playing in those high-pressure situation and he's being there and doing that. The flipside to this is that (a) We will likley have to take something back if the team decides to move Crawford, meaning in all likleyhood Sharp's getting the boot as well, and (b) in a couple of years down the line Darling may very well command a 8.7% contract--or larger--especially if the overall goalie market doesn't correct itself. Even if Crawford's moved, assuming Darling is still playing at a high level, the "how much to pay the goalie" question will come into play yet again.

 

[ClydeLee]

If wanted, There easily will be a market for Crawford, people over fear this salary impact, you may have an actual player return or a goalie at a 2 mil return that could be a paired guy with Darling if you also wanted a good draft pick or quality young player to go along with it but he's still going to have a desired availability if you look.

Especially because the market for goalies this offseason is so bare. There may be others open for trades, but there is only 1 starting goalie on the UFA market and that is Neimi. And many people are down on his ability to be a quality starter opposed to just a vet 1B now so it's likely open. It's just a matter of how much that desire is had by the Hawks to actually try to move it.