Stans goalie choices after last years cup win

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="226063" data-time="1397750206">
<div>


I knew him saying salary "dump" would get you excited.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I thought I may have to steal some of Chasman's blue pills. </p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226057" data-time="1397748633">


But he's not, because there is no one in the pipeline.


Our offensive and defensive prospects are much closer to Leddy/Saad than Simpson or even Raanta, for example, is to Crawford. You say this team is deep, and that's because we have the best front office in the league. They have a lot to work with in the pipeline, kids like Morin, Teravainen, Johns (and many many more) where are they going to play? They will eventually take someones job. They aren't keeping all these guys around forever. You're talking about strengthening a log jammed position and weakening a position where we have frail depth. How does that make sense?


Again, you're taking a chance that one of these unproven netminders can handle the pressure and fit in with the team/system, when you already know Crawford can. You think the Oilers in the 80's would have traded Fuhr? The Islanders with Billy Smith? Probably not, because they knew those guys could handle the pressure and they were a perfect fit on those teams, they had trust. You're playing with an awfully important position by spinning the wheel again in goalie roulette, when you already have a guy that fits.


I trust Stan. We have 20 guys signed through next season at $67M, the cap should be around $71M. I don't see what the problem is. Toews and Kane will be due after that season, but once again the cap will probably go up. What's the issue? We don't have to lose anybody. Worst case scenario is they do a salary dump with Versteeg next season.


The bottom line is, now is not the time to see if some unproven kid can crack it as a starting goaltender for a Cup contending team. They need someone with experience that can handle the pressure and win championship games.</p></blockquote>


The Canadian dollar isn't doing as well and that has a pretty big impact on the cap. Don't be so sure about an ever increasing cap....

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226095" data-time="1397755050">
<div>


The Canadian dollar isn't doing as well and that has a pretty big impact on the cap. Don't be so sure about an ever increasing cap....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I've heard anywhere from 68M next year to 71M.  Either way the only *critical* signing has to be a backup netminder. Every other FA in every other position could walk without disruping the balance of the system too much and there's at least 1 player that can fill in (i.e..</p>


 </p>


Realistically, I will expect other moves based on signed players swapping in and out, but in general I think next year will be the testing year. and figuring out who stays and who goes.</p>


 </p>


Be it roster or 2nd tier players, I think there will be a lot of competition next year for slots moving foreward.</p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226095" data-time="1397755050">
<div>


The Canadian <strike>dollar isn't </strike>NHL hockey clubs aren't doing as well and that has a pretty big impact on the cap. Don't be so sure about an ever increasing cap....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Fixed.

Go Habs g-- **** the Habs. </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BHP" data-cid="226108" data-time="1397760295">
<div>


Fixed.

Go Habs g-- **** the Habs. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


HAHa I was just up there... nice enough town and was a lot of fun. Some of the people I didn't care for and unfortunately they had the same long winter grime on it that chicago does so I didn't get it's full beauty.</p>

 

[Tater]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="226117" data-time="1397767119">
<div>


HAHa I was just up there... nice enough town and was a lot of fun. Some of the people I didn't care for and unfortunately they had the same long winter grime on it that chicago does so I didn't get it's full beauty.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


No, that's just how it always looks.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226057" data-time="1397748633">
<div>


But he's not, because there is no one in the pipeline.</p>


 </p>


Our offensive and defensive prospects are much closer to Leddy/Saad than Simpson or even Raanta, for example, is to Crawford. You say this team is deep, and that's because we have the best front office in the league. They have a lot to work with in the pipeline, kids like Morin, Teravainen, Johns (and many many more) where are they going to play? They will eventually take someones job. They aren't keeping all these guys around forever. You're talking about strengthening a log jammed position and weakening a position where we have frail depth. How does that make sense?</p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Because either you misunderstood what I said or have ignored the several other times it's been said by others. Every single year, every offseason, there are "good enough" goalies out there for the Hawks.  Because there are only so many starting goal jobs in the NHL. Whereas that's hardly the case with forwards or d-men and there is no other Leddy or Saad in the Hawks system.</p>


 </p>


Look, if the cap goes up that much to where they really don't have to lose guys like that AND keep Crawford, that's fine, all the better. I've said it before in this discussion, I like him, he's all the Hawks (as currently constructed) ever need. But if it gets to the point where choices have to be made between players and those names start coming up, Seabrook, Leddy, Saad, etc, for me, Crawford is the first to go before anybody else. He is the most replaceable. If you start with the "Cup winning goalie" bullshit again (which has been disproved time and time again)  I honestly have no idea what to tell you anymore in regards to a belief like that, Where that one individual who depends so much on his team in a sport where a complete team effort means so much,  to narrow it down to that one guy and have that be your counter argument, it's completely contradictory and asinine.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226151" data-time="1397778119">
<div>


Because either you misunderstood what I said or have ignored the several other times it's been said by others. Every single year, every offseason, there are "good enough" goalies out there for the Hawks.  Because there are only so many starting goal jobs in the NHL. Whereas that's hardly the case with forwards or d-men and there is no other Leddy or Saad in the Hawks system.</p>


 </p>


Look, if the cap goes up that much to where they really don't have to lose guys like that AND keep Crawford, that's fine, all the better. I've said it before in this discussion, I like him, he's all the Hawks (as currently constructed) ever need. But if it gets to the point where choices have to be made between players and those names start coming up, Seabrook, Leddy, Saad, etc, for me, Crawford is the first to go before anybody else. He is the most replaceable. If you start with the "Cup winning goalie" bullshit again (which has been disproved time and time again)  I honestly have no idea what to tell you anymore in regards to a belief like that, Where that one individual who depends so much on his team in a sport where a complete team effort means so much,  to narrow it down to that one guy and have that be your counter argument, it's completely contradictory and asinine.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I didn't misunderstand you, although you've certainly had a hard time grasping the simple concept I'm tossing your way.</p>


 </p>


Good luck finding a goaltender that fits with this system seamlessly, a guy the players like to play for, a guy that can compete in pressure filled atmospheres and keep his team in every game. I'm sure if the Hawks grabbed Reimer, he would surely be a Conn Smythe candidate as Crawford was last season. In fact, any goaltender with a little talent would be!</p>


 </p>


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the team in front of Crawford isn't the best team in history. I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but the goaltender has a lot to do with their success too. In fact, last year many thought he should win the Conn Smythe, Kane included.</p>


 </p>


This isn't a team trying to be "good enough"... this is a team trying to win Stanley Cups, and Corey Crawford is a huge part of this team.</p>

 

[puckjim]

This team is not good enough to just plug in just any adequate goalie.</p>


 </p>


I don't know where this myth got started but it's fucking ridiculous. </p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226229" data-time="1397796466">
<div>


I didn't misunderstand you, although you've certainly had a hard time grasping the simple concept I'm tossing your way.</p>


 </p>


Good luck finding a goaltender that fits with this system seamlessly, a guy the players like to play for, a guy that can compete in pressure filled atmospheres and keep his team in every game. I'm sure if the Hawks grabbed Reimer, he would surely be a Conn Smythe candidate as Crawford was last season. In fact, any goaltender with a little talent would be!</p>


 </p>


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the team in front of Crawford isn't the best team in history. I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but the goaltender has a lot to do with their success too. In fact, last year many thought he should win the Conn Smythe, Kane included.</p>


 </p>


This isn't a team trying to be "good enough"... this is a team trying to win Stanley Cups, and Corey Crawford is a huge part of this team.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


+1.

This team is a bit better than the team that was ousted by the Yotes. 

It's capable of winning a cup, but I think too many people didn't realize that the '13 team may have been the best iced Blackhawks team ever. Time will tell, but guys like Versteeg aren't going to be the difference makers. 

But hey, I think it's harder to sign the support cast rather than an anchor for the core. 

The 2 million dollar player that can be "that guy" and step up when the core is putting up goose eggs. 




 </p>

 

[Variable]

A bit better than the 11'-12' team? The same team that had Sean O'Donnel suit up and play significant minutes for over half the season? The same team with Andrew Brunnette? Come on, that's a joke.  How can you say that with a straight face? I mean this team is almost identical to last year's and now it's just a bit better than THAT team? Fucking hell. Talk about downplaying stuff, that's crazy.  The difference Saad brings alone elevates this team well over that one. Just him alone.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BHP" data-cid="226272" data-time="1397834487">
<div>


+1.

This team is a bit better than the team that was ousted by the Yotes. 

It's capable of winning a cup, but I think too many people didn't realize that the '13 team may have been the best iced Blackhawks team ever. Time will tell, but guys like Versteeg aren't going to be the difference makers. 

But hey, I think it's harder to sign the support cast rather than an anchor for the core. 

The 2 million dollar player that can be "that guy" and step up when the core is putting up goose eggs. 




 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


The difference between this team and the '13 team being... Stalberg, Bolland, and Frolik? :lol:</p>

 

[Variable]

And who said Versteeg is "the guy"?  Morin can replace him.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226315" data-time="1397859823">

And who said Versteeg is "the guy"?  Morin can replace him.</p></blockquote>


Fine by me, although Versteeg wasn't bad yesterday. Except for his lazy, selfish penalty.


But he wasn't the only one.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226312" data-time="1397854726">
<div>


The difference between this team and the '13 team being... Stalberg, Bolland, and Frolik? :icon-lol:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Everyone Loves Handzus.

Coming to CBS this fall.</p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226315" data-time="1397859823">
<div>


And who said Versteeg is "the guy"?  Morin can replace him.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Tell Q that.</p>

 

[Ton]

Great read from Tracey Myers: Blackhawks' Corey Crawford handling playoff pressure</p>

 

[Rex]

only on here can any goalie win a cup, and a cup winning goalie means nothing.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

yah rex. know what you mean. unbelievable nonsense.</p>


 </p>


 </p>


as for versteeg. actually been the hawks best forward which is sad and frightening. no need for morin to replace versteeg the problem is that slow ass up the middle that cant move anymore. well he isnt the problem but hes certainly not a bennefit to the hawks right now despite what ego Q thinks. figure Q would like young players since he has ridden on the back of good number of them to get where he is right now esp in chicago. but oh how times have changed i guess. </p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I wasn't one of the Twitter morons threatening to murder the guy either.... at least not yesterday </p>