Stans goalie choices after last years cup win

[the canadian dream]

Goalies these days don't win multiple cups? As opposed to when? The 50's when there were 6 teams? Or the 70's up t the early 2000's when there were no salary caps? There are reasons why most nhl players today don't win multiple cups (THAT INCLUDES EVERY SKATER ON THE ICE). **** 90% of NHL players don't ever touch the damn thing.</p>


 </p>


I guess Jean Beliveau would have won the 10 cups he did in todays NHL with the cap system and the 30 teams? Probably not. Would have been lucky to touch 1 let alone 2. Once again this works both ways. Skaters also don't win many multiple cups in todays NHL. Once again..there are a number of reasons for that. </p>


 </p>


How many repeat winning goalies in the history of the stanley cup have there actually been? Some of you talk as if that list is huge when infact it's rather small. And the time frame in which modern day goalies winning multiple cups is larger than some people probably assume. Guys like Roy didn't win back to back cups it took him multiple seasons to accomplish multiple cup wins. Took him 14 years to win 4 and this is a goalie some call the greatest of all time (possibly so mind you and im not trying to compare craw with roy). Yet these same people want to throw Crawford out the window after 4 years and winning one cup. Took Marty 9 years to win 3. Vernon 9 years to win 2 and that was with different teams. The last back to back winning goalie was Tom Barrasso in 91/92. Not going to get into the older eras when there were not enough teams to challenge that includes the 70's (although I still respect and like that era of hockey even though some hate it)</p>


 </p>


With that said I'll give into guys like Grant Fuhr winning more cups that he probably deserved while playing on really stacked teams but again thats a completely different era of hockey esp with no cap. No way in the hell those Oilers teams are what they were with a cap system in place..no bloody way. Grant Furh was a good goalie at his time but he was in no way the game breaker. I will actually say the same about Tom Barrasso..while good he did have that luxury of those Pens teams in a no cap era. So yes there have been situations where the team infront of the goalie has more to do than the goalie themselves. Obviously. But that sample size isn't that large and you can't use those examples to start basing every goalies cup win now on the idea that it was all the team infront of them. That's completely unfair and unrealistic. </p>

 

[the canadian dream]

here is a fun question. really has nothing to do with the topic at hand but since people like to ***** about contracts. This is obviously just for shits and giggles and hypothetical. </p>


 </p>


in 2001 when Roy won his 4th cup would you pay him 8.5 million for that season if there were a cap? Because that's how much his salary was at the time. Think the Avs win the cup in 2001 without Roy? Was a good team in front of him after all. Would you pay him 6 million? 7 million? 5 million? What was Roys monetary value in 2001 on that Avs team if there were a cap system say like todays?</p>


 </p>


just interested to know</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="227026" data-time="1398257637">
<div>


So because Crawford already won a Cup, they should have dropped him instead of signing him, and tried another (cheaper) goaltender? (Yeah I'm putting words in your mouth!)</p>


 </p>


Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.</p>


 </p>


I think the extra $2-3M is worth the chemistry alone. We aren't losing a key piece with $2-3M. Just Versteeg, maybe. Corey is part of the core, losing him would be losing a core player. I think ya'll are overrating how "overpaid" Corey is.</p>


 </p>


Tampa just got swept with a $2M goaltender. PHI is losing their series with a $1.65M goaltender. MIN, do they have a goaltender?</p>


 </p>


Only team winning without a top dollar goalie is Anaheim. Colorado doesn't count -- Varlamov has his contract extension kicking in next season ($5.9M), just like Crawford ($6M).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


None of those teams are the Blackhawks though. They each have their own separate problems besides who is in net. Come on, Philadelphia, Tampa? Look at the d-men for those teams. Again it comes down to whether or not you want to downplay the team in front of Crawford. If you want to do that, then that's where the conversation ends for me.  This team is almost identical to last season's. If you're going to tell me Frolik, Bolland and Stalberg are the key pieces they're missing, then I don't know what to tell you.</p>


 </p>


As I've said before, if they can keep him without losing players like Saad or Leddy or Seabrook, great, the more the merrier. But if there's a choice that has to be made between players like that, for me, Crawford goes before any one of them goes. Because what you'd be doing is giving up the type of players that allows this team to play their high puck possession game. Puck possession is everything to them.  When you start losing that, you start putting more pressure on your own goalie. That's what we've been seeing in this series. And that's something that isn't sustainable for very long. It starts to matter less and less who your goalie is the stronger you are in puck possession (and the Hawks have been either the top or near the top of that this entire season) and it's the same if you're really bad at it, because if you are going to be horrible in that aspect of the game  you can have whoever you believe is the best goalie in the league playing for you but it's not going to matter much when it's a shooting gallery he's facing every game. You can get away with it for games, even a series, but over the long haul it's going to catch up to you.</p>


 </p>


So it's really keeping a player at the risk of damaging the (highly successful) system of hockey the Hawks play, a player who is the most dependent on that system, or having to find another player who can find success in that system. And lots of goalies can fare well playing for a high possession team like the Hawks are.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

The thing you may be glossing over, Variable, is that because of the puck posession game, overall the quality of shot we give up is better than if we played tighter defensively.  Overall last game was more of an anomaly even though between 10:00 left in the 3rd and 5:00 left in the third Crawford had to be massive in net.</p>


 </p>


Our defense (as good as it is) does give up a lot better quality chances than just the perimeter shots--not many but enough that the netminder needs for the hawks have to be at least mid-ter-starter or better (IMHO), and that over the course of their career. Right now I'm not feeling that froma  guy like Reimer, but that's just my opinion. Crawford meets that and with his 6M next year, he might be setting that bad--even with a guy like Varlamint making 5.9 next year. </p>


 </p>


The other consideration is that unless they are Ã¼ber-elite, a netminer's numbers will fluctuate over their career--even with small changes in personnel.</p>


 </p>


As such, I don't think goalie is any more or less of a plug and play situation than, say, #2D--in Seabrook's case.  I think next year is going to be the time where a good hard look is taken at all positions for "bang for the buck" and "replacability".  It might be that we have to part with Leddy, or Saad, because other guys like Seabrook, Crawford, and the like are harder to replace in the lineup, or it could be Crawford, Seabrook, or Sharp are shipped out because we have peices that can adequately replace them.  But going into this summer we have a shit-ton of old UFA's coming off of the books and still enough pieces signed so that our likeup can remain intact--no reason to jump the gun.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

Crawford over Saad any day of the week and twice on sundays. Let me know when Saad wins a playoff series for the Hawks let a lone a single game or a shift for that matter. Saad...over-rated. He's good but he aint that freaking good where he should be bumping a proven goalie out of a position. Sorry. Can find another Saad type on the farm infact there are a couple there already. Aint got another Crawford in the pipeline.</p>


 </p>


There ends that issue. Moving on.</p>


 </p>


Stan would be an utter idiot to move Crawford over Saad. </p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Canadian Dreamalchuk" data-cid="227096" data-time="1398294585">
<div>


Crawford over Saad any day of the week and twice on sundays. Let me know when Saad wins a playoff series for the Hawks let a lone a single game or a shift for that matter. Saad...over-rated. He's good but he aint that freaking good where he should be bumping a proven goalie out of a position. Sorry. Can find another Saad type on the farm infact there are a couple there already. Aint got another Crawford in the pipeline.</p>


 </p>


There ends that issue. Moving on.</p>


 </p>


Stan would be an utter idiot to move Crawford over Saad. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Haha, oh yeah it's over alright.</p>


 </p>


Holy fucking dogshit. Holy. Fucking. Dogshit.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

Morin could drop in on that lw and be more effective than Saad has in playoff hockey. That is unless you like guys standing and watching the play? I don't. Pisses me off to no end. Hayes will probably be better. **** put Tevarian on lw. Saads so over-rated by this fan base.  And this is coming from a guy who actually likes Saad!! But so over-rated by the fans. Would pack Saads bags myself if it meant keeping Crawford over him.</p>


 </p>


But you tell me where another Craw is and if you say Reimer someone needs to take away your brain card.</p>

 

[Variable]

I've been over all that already. This is the second or third time I've seen somebody say there are multiple Brandon Saads in the minors. I really want to know who they are. Dying to know. Because as bad as you say he's been, and I'll say he hasn't made the best decisions at times, he's your leading scoring forward up to this point in the  playoffs.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

go watch each of Saads "assists". It's easy to do nhl.com you can watch every goal scored in the box scores of each game.</p>


 </p>


One of his assists is actually note worthy as a good play or good pass..that was on the Oduya goal on game 1. (same game where he totally shit the bed on the game winning goal by being lazy) Rest of his "assists"? Not one thing special about them esp that one on the emty net kuger scored.</p>


 </p>


Also look at game 2 Blues first goal. Sooooooo bad on it..sooo lazy.</p>


 </p>


I'll trade Saads 4 "assists" for better defensive play at even strength than he has shown any day.</p>


 </p>


over-rated..and i stand by that.</p>

 

[Variable]

I'm begging you, please, pleeeese tell me who the Brandon Saads are in the system.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

i already did. tell me who the crawfords are</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="227056" data-time="1398269840">
<div>


That premise only works if the goalie actually won the 'Cup.  By himself. </p>


 </p>


Niemi was less than sparkling in the Finals in 2010.  He didn't "win the 'Cup".  He had 17 other guys to pick up the slack.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


So Crawford won the cup all by himself now? :lol:</p>

 

[Variable]

So Jeremy Morin, who's had all of half a season combined in the NHL has convinced you he can replace Brandon Saad? That's it? Anyone else?</p>


 </p>


And like I said, I'm done talking about goaltending with you TCD, it's completely pointless. Too many red flags in your thought process on the matter. Too many well outdated beliefs you cling to with it for there to be any kind of meaningful dialogue to be had. And I've answered that question as well, in other threads talking about his over the past week or so. Look it up if you really want to know.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Canadian Dreamalchuk" data-cid="227070" data-time="1398280693">
<div>


Goalies these days don't win multiple cups? As opposed to when? The 50's when there were 6 teams? Or the 70's up t the early 2000's when there were no salary caps? There are reasons why most nhl players today don't win multiple cups (THAT INCLUDES EVERY SKATER ON THE ICE). **** 90% of NHL players don't ever touch the damn thing.</p>


 </p>


I guess Jean Beliveau would have won the 10 cups he did in todays NHL with the cap system and the 30 teams? Probably not. Would have been lucky to touch 1 let alone 2. Once again this works both ways. Skaters also don't win many multiple cups in todays NHL. Once again..there are a number of reasons for that. </p>


 </p>


How many repeat winning goalies in the history of the stanley cup have there actually been? Some of you talk as if that list is huge when infact it's rather small. And the time frame in which modern day goalies winning multiple cups is larger than some people probably assume. Guys like Roy didn't win back to back cups it took him multiple seasons to accomplish multiple cup wins. Took him 14 years to win 4 and this is a goalie some call the greatest of all time (possibly so mind you and im not trying to compare craw with roy). Yet these same people want to throw Crawford out the window after 4 years and winning one cup. Took Marty 9 years to win 3. Vernon 9 years to win 2 and that was with different teams. The last back to back winning goalie was Tom Barrasso in 91/92. Not going to get into the older eras when there were not enough teams to challenge that includes the 70's (although I still respect and like that era of hockey even though some hate it)</p>


 </p>


With that said I'll give into guys like Grant Fuhr winning more cups that he probably deserved while playing on really stacked teams but again thats a completely different era of hockey esp with no cap. No way in the hell those Oilers teams are what they were with a cap system in place..no bloody way. Grant Furh was a good goalie at his time but he was in no way the game breaker. I will actually say the same about Tom Barrasso..while good he did have that luxury of those Pens teams in a no cap era. So yes there have been situations where the team infront of the goalie has more to do than the goalie themselves. Obviously. But that sample size isn't that large and you can't use those examples to start basing every goalies cup win now on the idea that it was all the team infront of them. That's completely unfair and unrealistic. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


So, you agree with me then?</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="227082" data-time="1398285231">
<div>


None of those teams are the Blackhawks though. They each have their own separate problems besides who is in net. Come on, Philadelphia, Tampa? Look at the d-men for those teams. Again it comes down to whether or not you want to downplay the team in front of Crawford. If you want to do that, then that's where the conversation ends for me.  This team is almost identical to last season's. If you're going to tell me Frolik, Bolland and Stalberg are the key pieces they're missing, then I don't know what to tell you.</p>


 </p>


As I've said before, if they can keep him without losing players like Saad or Leddy or Seabrook, great, the more the merrier. But if there's a choice that has to be made between players like that, for me, Crawford goes before any one of them goes. Because what you'd be doing is giving up the type of players that allows this team to play their high puck possession game. Puck possession is everything to them.  When you start losing that, you start putting more pressure on your own goalie. That's what we've been seeing in this series. And that's something that isn't sustainable for very long. It starts to matter less and less who your goalie is the stronger you are in puck possession (and the Hawks have been either the top or near the top of that this entire season) and it's the same if you're really bad at it, because if you are going to be horrible in that aspect of the game  you can have whoever you believe is the best goalie in the league playing for you but it's not going to matter much when it's a shooting gallery he's facing every game. You can get away with it for games, even a series, but over the long haul it's going to catch up to you.</p>


 </p>


So it's really keeping a player at the risk of damaging the (highly successful) system of hockey the Hawks play, a player who is the most dependent on that system, or having to find another player who can find success in that system. And lots of goalies can fare well playing for a high possession team like the Hawks are.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I gave up after reading the first sentence.</p>


 </p>


The team in front of Crawford is the best team in history! You win! Any goaltender would win a Cup with this super awesome team!</p>


 </p>


Please, tell me more about how a 3rd line LWer is more important than a starting goaltender in the NHL!</p>


 </p>


Watch some of our prospects. They are far closer to Saad and Leddy than you think. This is stupid to talk about anyway, because in reality, we would probably lose Oduya, Versteeg, Rozsival, or Bickell before an RFA. So who cares! We don't have any goalie prospects to replace Crawford right now, but our forwards/defense are stacked. This is the plan bud. They will always play a puck possession game because they are drafting players and preparing them for that role to replace replaceable players. What a concept! Yes, that even means RFA's like Saad, Leddy, Shaw, Kruger, Smith. They are replaceable, because you have Teravainen, Morin, McNeill, Danault, Hartman, Johns, Clendening, Dahlbeck, and many others hungry for NHL action. You'll see. This is the Detroit model. You think those prospects are just going to sit in the AHL forever? They don't deserve a chance?</p>


 </p>


Also, I know. Sign a UFA goalie. Right? When was the last time you saw a UFA come in and win a Cup with a team? Most Cup winners have spent at least 5 years with the same team before winning a Cup. That ever cross your mind? That it takes time to adapt to a system and get comfortable on a team? Getting a team to trust you? That doesn't happen overnight.</p>


 </p>


Oh sorry, lets get back to your world.</p>


 </p>


Goaltending: The least important position in all sports!</p>

 

[Variable]

Downplay then.  That's fine. </p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="227108" data-time="1398299833">
<div>


So Jeremy Morin, who's had all of half a season combined in the NHL has convinced you he can replace Brandon Saad? That's it? Anyone else?</p>


 </p>


And like I said, I'm done talking about goaltending with you TCD, it's completely pointless. Too many red flags in your thought process on the matter. Too many well outdated beliefs you cling to with it for there to be any kind of meaningful dialogue to be had. And I've answered that question as well, in other threads talking about his over the past week or so. Look it up if you really want to know.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


This could be applied to you.</p>


 </p>


Your theory on a cheaper goalie basically boils down to the GM getting lucky on who he brings in regardless of how damn good the teams puck possession you keep referring to is, don't you get that? I know you don't, trades and free agent signings work sometimes and sometimes they don't. So while there are no guarantees with Crow there sure as Hell aren't with what ever acquisition the GM decides on. That's it in a nutshell. So if you think you can dump Crow and his salary to keep Saad  (HaHa) and get lucky and choose the right cheap goalie, well good luck wit dat.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="227109" data-time="1398300380">
<div>


So, you agree with me then?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Yes i do in many areas Pez. I also disagree with you in some also. I also like to ask the question "why" in these types of debates. "why" modern goalies don't win multiple cups as much as they used to. usually more than one reason surfaces. Nothing is black and white. Lot's of grey areas in everyones arguments including my own.</p>


 </p>


teams have won with good goalkeeping</p>


teams have lost with good goalkeeping</p>


teams have won with bad goalkeeping</p>


teams have lost with bad goalkeeping</p>


teams have won with average goalkeeping</p>


teams have lost with average goalkeeping</p>


and on</p>


and on</p>


and on</p>


and on</p>


 </p>


Everyone reaches for sample sizes to defend a theory or point..INCLUDING MYSELF. It's fun for sure but at the end of the day each and everyone of us is blowing hot smoke. You, I, Variable, Stu, Ton, eeeeeveryone. I troll the shit out of some of my thoughts to be honest just to prove how extreme the bullshit can get.</p>


 </p>


To be honest I just like watching hockey and like watching what the best players in the world can do. I like seeing what their strong points are and what their weak points are. But everyone has a combo of both even those who we anoint the best to have ever played. Hockey is too complex to break shit down anyways. The variables in everything are endless in this team sport. It's not like looking at two tennis players. Far too complex. </p>


 </p>


Fact = i like Crawford a lot. I think he has extremely good skill sets and he has improved a lot but there is still room for improvement.</p>


Fact = I actually like Saad a lot and I think he too still needs some improvement in some areas</p>


Fact = Toews needs improvement in some areas</p>


Fact = Kane needs improvements in some areas</p>


Fact = Keith needs improvement in some areas</p>


etc </p>


etc</p>


 </p>


The best thing about this Hawks teams the last while? All these weak points in individual players games? The strengths in other individuals on the team balance it all. Including Crawfords strengths which balance the weaknesses in other individual players game. Including Saad whos strengths make up for other players weaknesses. Does that make sense? Teams well built. I actually like every single player on the team including Oduya lol. </p>


 </p>


End of the day it's a team game and its really impossible to take the individual out of it and put them under a microscope. It's like taking the earth and just studying it and trying to figure out how it functions without looking at the solar system, the universe etc. around it.</p>


 </p>


Enjoy the game tonight. All I know it's another must win in my opinion and who ever fucks up will get bashed and who ever plays well will be celebrated. It's always the case..even with me.</p>


 </p>


Just don't tell me Crawford didn't play a part of a cup winning team. That would be like me saying Saad or Toews or Kane won a cup but we didn't need them to do. And I don't believe or think that for a second. Just don't understand why there is a double standard for goalies. I even think Neimi actually did help the Hawks win a cup. Why? Because he was playing when they won it. If he were on the bench then I would say the Hawks won without help from Niemi. All players play a part and all parts are important. You can't take one single player out of an equation and say a team would have still won a cup..that even includes a fourth liner. You can hypothesis but you will never be able to gather evidence to prove it. Doesn't work like that because the time lines of events will change when you do take a player out of an series of events that already took place. That's just a basic existence law. </p>

 

[Ton]

SHUT UP TCD!</p>


 </p>


YOU'RE WRONG!</p>


 </p>


I LIKE MICROSCOPES!</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="227107" data-time="1398299620">


So Crawford won the cup all by himself now? :icon-lol:</p>
</blockquote>



Never said that.


I don't believe in goalie wins.


They happen, but in general it's almost always a team effort.</p>