The Crawford Dilemma: Sign or Walk Away?

[Granada]

Just curious who wants Crow back or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants at least 3 million -- which isn't bad, but do you trust Crawford (at this age and with his injury history) to be able to play a full season(s) for the duration of his contract (however long it may be)? Anyway, in the article, he says salary isn't necessarily important and is open to a short-term deal, but he does waffle on the short-term deal later in the article. I also found it interesting that he said his goal is to play for a team that will win a Stanley Cup -- if Stan actually does decide to fully rebuild (long shot, but nevertheless), Crawford may not want to stick around for that anyway.

Anyways, not too much to tell from this article -- he says all the right things, but you never know how it will go in the end. Thought it was a decent read all the same.

Crawford says playing time more vital than money in talks with Blackhawks | NHL.com

Goalie can be unrestricted free agent at end of season, hopes to stay with Chicago

www.nhl.com

 

[Jack Lantern]

"That's what they all say..." til they see what they are worth in the open market.

On a side note It's all about the cap dollars $$$

3 million is a bargain so you sign him. If he wants market value for starting goaltending which is 6million plus you let him walk.

 

[Ares]

I'd sign him for 1 more year.

We haven't got a young goalie sitting there, ready to step up.

I wouldn't recommend paying a ton for a starter.... coulda kept and re-signed Lehner.

And we're not in total rebuild as long as Kane/Toews/Keith are still here.

Oh... and Crow isn't the reason we got spanked by the Knights.

Hawks Defense is absolutely pathetic.

Sign him 1 more year, find a backup.... spend some money on the D men.

Right now Keith is like a 3/4 on his best days.

Murphy is a 4.

We have no 1/2 on Defense.... that's insane.

 

[LordKOTL]

I still stand by 3 for 2 or 2 for 3, and begin the succession process. There's really not that much better out there in the FA market and I don't think any young rookie goaltender can look remotely good behind our geriatric team D.

 

[JimAKABlkhwks918]

I'm with @LordKOTL, but leaning more toward the 3 for 2. I'd they can swing that and somehow move Seabrook and that albatross contract, then get someone not named Bowman to acquire some actual defense, this team might have a shot. Outside of Keith, there isn't a decent D man on this team. I know he's not who he was, but FFS, look at who he plays with. No team would give more than a middling draft pick for any of them. 5/6/7/8's down the line after DK.

 

[MassHavoc]

Sign

 

[Granada]

I wouldn't do 2 for 3. I'd let him walk.

I'm sort of on the fence of actually trying to fix the position for years to come, or just stick with Crawford, who is anything but a long-term solution at this point. It will be interesting to see Bowman's approach. With Hammer, he chose a long-term, younger option in Murphy, for example -- he may want to do that with Crow too, maybe by trading for a goalie. I haven't really looked at the UFA market for goalies, but a lot of teams will be wanting different goalies -- Calgary, Edmonton, Washington, maybe Colorado (who would want to upgrade their backup). There's talk that Holtby might be done in Washington. I can see a team -- that thinks goaltending is their last piece of the puzzle -- offering Crow more money, but who knows.

 

[LordKOTL]

I wouldn't do 2 for 3. I'd let him walk.

I'm sort of on the fence of actually trying to fix the position for years to come, or just stick with Crawford, who is anything but a long-term solution at this point. It will be interesting to see Bowman's approach. With Hammer, he chose a long-term, younger option in Murphy, for example -- he may want to do that with Crow too, maybe by trading for a goalie. I haven't really looked at the UFA market for goalies, but a lot of teams will be wanting different goalies -- Calgary, Edmonton, Washington, maybe Colorado (who would want to upgrade their backup). There's talk that Holtby might be done in Washington. I can see a team -- that thinks goaltending is their last piece of the puzzle -- offering Crow more money, but who knows.

If Holtby's indeed done is Washington, the 'hawks should look into that. If Stan didn't torch the bridge and poison the lake underneath with Lehner, I think the 'hawks should look into that. If Murray can be pried loose from Pitt, the 'hawks should look into anything but offer-sheeting (rebuilding--we need the picks).

Beyond them, EVERYONE else hitting FA status is worse than Crawford in my opinion, and the few that an argument could be made for are likely to be resigned or retire.

I'm also concerned what assets the 'hawks have that could fetch a good mid-to-long term goalie on the trade market. Debrincat wasn't good this year and he's got a 6.4 kicking in. Who else do we have that could pry a good goalie from someone else (or rather, who do do we have that Stan could use to pry a good goalie from someone else)? I'm not seeing much. Saad maybe? The 'hawks really don't have much to offer up that wouldn't hamstring them moving forward. Koob is a keeper. Dach is a keeper. Murph and Saad are good enough to be missed. Just about everyone else that would be good enough that other teams would covet are in NMC land, and the rest are underperforming their salary or "just a guy".

Beyond that, the best the 'hawks could hope for is load up on promising prospects and give them acclimation time--but at the same time have a stable presence in net for a few years. Crawford fits that bill but it has to take succession into consideration. The kids have to be able to play and make mistakes and by the end of 2-3 years, Crawford should be the de facto backup.

 

[Granada]

If Holtby's indeed done is Washington, the 'hawks should look into that. If Stan didn't torch the bridge and poison the lake underneath with Lehner, I think the 'hawks should look into that. If Murray can be pried loose from Pitt, the 'hawks should look into anything but offer-sheeting (rebuilding--we need the picks).

Beyond them, EVERYONE else hitting FA status is worse than Crawford in my opinion, and the few that an argument could be made for are likely to be resigned or retire.

I'm also concerned what assets the 'hawks have that could fetch a good mid-to-long term goalie on the trade market. Debrincat wasn't good this year and he's got a 6.4 kicking in. Who else do we have that could pry a good goalie from someone else (or rather, who do do we have that Stan could use to pry a good goalie from someone else)? I'm not seeing much. Saad maybe? The 'hawks really don't have much to offer up that wouldn't hamstring them moving forward. Koob is a keeper. Dach is a keeper. Murph and Saad are good enough to be missed. Just about everyone else that would be good enough that other teams would covet are in NMC land, and the rest are underperforming their salary or "just a guy".

Beyond that, the best the 'hawks could hope for is load up on promising prospects and give them acclimation time--but at the same time have a stable presence in net for a few years. Crawford fits that bill but it has to take succession into consideration. The kids have to be able to play and make mistakes and by the end of 2-3 years, Crawford should be the de facto backup.

I still think Crawford is a question mark health-wise, and his age doesn't help either. Signing him for 3 years would be a terrible mistake. We already have some brutal contracts on this team as is; we can't afford another one, even at 2 mill.

I'm not sure if the asking price for a goalie via trade would be as high as you're supposing. It depends on the team and if it makes sense of course.

If all we need essentially is a filler, I really don't think Crawford wants to do that; I don't think the Hawks should do that either if he wants more than 2 years.

 

[Granada]

I fear them actually believing they got something in Suppan. I suppose if that discovery has to be made, they will be drafting very high.

Maybe there is hope in the AHL.

Yeah I'm not sure how they feel about Subban. I would guess they let him go, but I could be wrong.

Delia actually didn't look terrible when Bowman signed him to (if memory serves) a 3 year, 1 mill contract a season or two ago -- but evidently, he's looked like shit since (I don't watch a lot of Rockford so I can't say personally). And Lankinen, I don't think he's anything special. Stan bet the boat on Forsberg being "something," which was a disaster of course and why we are where we are now.

 

[MassHavoc]

If you don't sign him, who is going to replace him that is better for cheaper. And I don't mean 6M cheaper I mean what you resign him for cheaper? The defense is a bigger problem than the goaltending.

 

[blackpep72]

Just curious who wants Crow back or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants at least 3 million -- which isn't bad, but do you trust Crawford (at this age and with his injury history) to be able to play a full season(s) for the duration of his contract (however long it may be)? Anyway, in the article, he says salary isn't necessarily important and is open to a short-term deal, but he does waffle on the short-term deal later in the article. I also found it interesting that he said his goal is to play for a team that will win a Stanley Cup -- if Stan actually does decide to fully rebuild (long shot, but nevertheless), Crawford may not want to stick around for that anyway.

Anyways, not too much to tell from this article -- he says all the right things, but you never know how it will go in the end. Thought it was a decent read all the same.

Crawford says playing time more vital than money in talks with Blackhawks | NHL.com

Goalie can be unrestricted free agent at end of season, hopes to stay with Chicago

www.nhl.com

I want him back but not for 6 million per year.

If he would sign a 2 year deal at 4 million per year i say do it. We do not have a real option between the pipes.

And he played really well vs oilers and vegas.

 

[LordKOTL]

I want him back but not for 6 million per year.

If he would sign a 2 year deal at 4 million per year i say do it. We do not have a real option between the pipes.

And he played really well vs oilers and vegas.

As mentioned in another thread: 3M per for 2 years or 2M per for 3 years. Looking at Mike "Greg Luganis" Smith in Edmonton, he was in a similar deal. Other may disagree with me, but 2M is low enough to be a backup, and low enough to be moved if necessary. 3 is do-able only for a shorter term. I think the only way 4M works is for a single year but unfortunately that doesn't give the 'hawks any time for a succession plan. Chances are this coming season is going to be the one where we identify the successor, not give them the keys to to jag. That would be the following year or beyond.

Now, if the 'hawks managed to get a bonafied starter to bit, like Holtby or Lehner at a decent rate, then by all means, move on. But right now with the D nonexistant you might as well have a well-known quantity in net to help out the aging/young D/men and the potential next netiminder in my opinion.

 

[hawkinmontreal]

Hawks need to work year by year with CC. I would sign him one year 3 million, if he doesn’t like the offer, Hawks need to move on. The reality is, the decor is so bad, it really doesn’t make a huge difference in the end. I want to see CC retire a Hawk but not at a price that will compromise the team moving forward. Kubalik needs to be signed as well, do the Hawks let Strome walk, these will all be variables in the signing of Crawford.

 

[LordKOTL]

Hawks need to work year by year with CC. I would sign him one year 3 million, if he doesn’t like the offer, Hawks need to move on. The reality is, the decor is so bad, it really doesn’t make a huge difference in the end. I want to see CC retire a Hawk but not at a price that will compromise the team moving forward. Kubalik needs to be signed as well, do the Hawks let Strome walk, these will all be variables in the signing of Crawford.

Unfortunately the way the 'hawks are right now they need someone worth at least a squirt of piss in net because of how bad the backend is, and with how it looks like the market has been going that's either paying for a Lehner/Holtby starter who's younger (or maybe someone like Murray, but you're styill paying), or going with an older guy like Crawford and that's going to be 2-3 over 2-3 years.

In terms of Koob, he's about the only must-resign but shouldn't be getting Debrincat money--which was a mistake. Strome should be happy with whatever he gets.

Seabrook complicates matters, but the 'hawks do have one of Murph/deHaan/Maata as "extra", unless they don't plan on using any rookie D-men. I think one of them goes but I don't know what they'd fetch--and ideally we'd want little salary coming back.

Honestly, I don't think a 2 for 3 handcuffs the team in net--as long as there are no clauses. We can sit 2M on the bench if we're paying 800k/1M for the young starter (assuming Lankinen/Delia monies), but I don't think that number is going to change if it's not Crawford. I think a guy like Howard would command as much (and is a lesser netminder), Ditto with Mike Smith--and Crawford's a better goalie than both.

If our D wasn't a Mongolian clusterfuck, maybe we could get away with 2 rookie netminders, but it's a Mongolian clusterfuck. We'll want at least one seasoned vet in there.

 

[Granada]

As mentioned in another thread: 3M per for 2 years or 2M per for 3 years. Looking at Mike "Greg Luganis" Smith in Edmonton, he was in a similar deal. Other may disagree with me, but 2M is low enough to be a backup, and low enough to be moved if necessary. 3 is do-able only for a shorter term. I think the only way 4M works is for a single year but unfortunately that doesn't give the 'hawks any time for a succession plan. Chances are this coming season is going to be the one where we identify the successor, not give them the keys to to jag. That would be the following year or beyond.

Now, if the 'hawks managed to get a bonafied starter to bit, like Holtby or Lehner at a decent rate, then by all means, move on. But right now with the D nonexistant you might as well have a well-known quantity in net to help out the aging/young D/men and the potential next netiminder in my opinion.

If you sign Crawford to 3 years -- and he gets hurt again -- then what do you do? Because no team will want to take him at that point. You'd be stuck with eating 2 million for at least one or even multiple seasons -- and not only that, but you'll need another starting goalie.

I agree more with HIM -- 1 year, 3 million. Not only is that fair for Crawford, but it's fair for the Hawks from a risk perspective. Ideally, I'd do 2.5 for 2 years. I love Crawford, but 3 years is crazy for a goalie with an injury history as long as he has and at the age he is. We have to face reality here: this is a goalie at the end of his career -- signing him for 3 years is simply not a smart business decision.

Bowman already has a penchant for signing swan songs well past their prime (Burnett, Scuderi, Pisani, Kunitz, Turco, Campbell Part 2, Sharp Part 2, the list is endless, I could go on but I think you get it) -- if he signs Crow to 3 years, he'd just be signing yet another player past his prime for waayyy too long.

That said, it would not surprise me at all if Bowman signs him for 3 or even 4 years, lol

 

[LordKOTL]

If you sign Crawford to 3 years -- and he gets hurt again -- then what do you do? Because no team will want to take him at that point. You'd be stuck with eating 2 million for at least one or even multiple seasons -- and not only that, but you'll need another starting goalie.

I agree more with HIM -- 1 year, 3 million. Not only is that fair for Crawford, but it's fair for the Hawks from a risk perspective. Ideally, I'd do 2.5 for 2 years. I love Crawford, but 3 years is crazy for a goalie with an injury history as long as he has and at the age he is. We have to face reality here: this is a goalie at the end of his career -- signing him for 3 years is simply not a smart business decision.

Bowman already has a penchant for signing swan songs well past their prime (Burnett, Scuderi, Pisani, Kunitz, Turco, Campbell Part 2, Sharp Part 2, the list is endless, I could go on but I think you get it) -- if he signs Crow to 3 years, he'd just be signing yet another player past his prime for waayyy too long.

That said, it would not surprise me at all if Bowman signs him for 3 or even 4 years, lol

Every player is at a risk of getting hurt. If Crawford gets hurt you take the 2M on LTIR. If not, you've got a transitional goalie familiar with the system and a good mentor.

The issue I see is this: The 'hawks goalie cupboards are beyond barren--at least with Khabi/Huet the 'hawks had both Niemi and Crawford as promising up-and-comers. Right now we got nothing and that's setting us back--as in it's highly likely that whoever takes over the reins will not be ready for fulltime starter duty without a seasoned 2nd after next season. With the cap being stagnant and Toews, Kane, Keith, and possibly Seabrook immovable, not to mention Debrincat getting paid and Koob needing to be paid the 'hawks are going to need to go inexpensive in net. If they don't, it might cost them Koob or Saad (I don't think Maata, Shaw, Seabrook, or DeHaan would get us cap relief).

Given the UFA goalie market, the stagnant cap, the contracts we have, the general goalie market, and the Crawford interviewers I don't think Crawford would sign a single year for 3M--if he did more power to him. I think a single year for him is more like 4M--and that amount might mean we lose someone worthwhile. If he wants 4M and we let him walk, then the 'hawks are going to need another goaltender who's seasoned and can still be transitional--the 2 names right now are Howard and Smith--and both of them are a significant downgrade from Crawford--not to mention their needed acclimation time. Further, a proven starter is going to be something like 5M+ (think Lehner/Holtby), and that would cost us something good. Anyone else the 'hawks would realistically get for the 2-3M range is either going to be unproven, or in the same boat as Crawford--but lesser goaltenders. There are a few possibility that are less bleak, but I don't think they're probable. I could be wrong, though.

Given Crawford, I think the 'hawks need more stability in net than a single year. There is a very real risk that no one not named Crawford pans out in terms of potential to take over the net--I think 2 years is the sweet spot and 3 is the max I'd go. Beyond that I think keeping cap down (and no clauses!) is important moving forward--be it Crawford or whomever takes over in a vet transitional netminder position (the 'haws would be dumb running multiple unprovens in net with how bad the team D is).

If the 'hawks could get Crawford on a 2 for 2 I'll take back some of the things that I said about Stan. I don't think it'll happen though. I think it'll boil down to a 2 for 3 or a 3 for 2, and in that case I'd prefer a 2 for 3--even though I'd be fine with a 3 for 2. If they did a 2.5 for 2 I'd like it as well. If 3 years is the magic number I wouldn't go more than 2M. If Crawford is willing to do 2 years I wouldn't go more than 3M.

 

[Granada]

Every player is at a risk of getting hurt. If Crawford gets hurt you take the 2M on LTIR. If not, you've got a transitional goalie familiar with the system and a good mentor.

The issue I see is this: The 'hawks goalie cupboards are beyond barren--at least with Khabi/Huet the 'hawks had both Niemi and Crawford as promising up-and-comers. Right now we got nothing and that's setting us back--as in it's highly likely that whoever takes over the reins will not be ready for fulltime starter duty without a seasoned 2nd after next season. With the cap being stagnant and Toews, Kane, Keith, and possibly Seabrook immovable, not to mention Debrincat getting paid and Koob needing to be paid the 'hawks are going to need to go inexpensive in net. If they don't, it might cost them Koob or Saad (I don't think Maata, Shaw, Seabrook, or DeHaan would get us cap relief).

Given the UFA goalie market, the stagnant cap, the contracts we have, the general goalie market, and the Crawford interviewers I don't think Crawford would sign a single year for 3M--if he did more power to him. I think a single year for him is more like 4M--and that amount might mean we lose someone worthwhile. If he wants 4M and we let him walk, then the 'hawks are going to need another goaltender who's seasoned and can still be transitional--the 2 names right now are Howard and Smith--and both of them are a significant downgrade from Crawford--not to mention their needed acclimation time. Further, a proven starter is going to be something like 5M+ (think Lehner/Holtby), and that would cost us something good. Anyone else the 'hawks would realistically get for the 2-3M range is either going to be unproven, or in the same boat as Crawford--but lesser goaltenders. There are a few possibility that are less bleak, but I don't think they're probable. I could be wrong, though.

Given Crawford, I think the 'hawks need more stability in net than a single year. There is a very real risk that no one not named Crawford pans out in terms of potential to take over the net--I think 2 years is the sweet spot and 3 is the max I'd go. Beyond that I think keeping cap down (and no clauses!) is important moving forward--be it Crawford or whomever takes over in a vet transitional netminder position (the 'haws would be dumb running multiple unprovens in net with how bad the team D is).

If the 'hawks could get Crawford on a 2 for 2 I'll take back some of the things that I said about Stan. I don't think it'll happen though. I think it'll boil down to a 2 for 3 or a 3 for 2, and in that case I'd prefer a 2 for 3--even though I'd be fine with a 3 for 2. If they did a 2.5 for 2 I'd like it as well. If 3 years is the magic number I wouldn't go more than 2M. If Crawford is willing to do 2 years I wouldn't go more than 3M.

You can't equate a guy like Crawford to "every player." The risk is substantially greater with a 36 year old goalie with a history of concussions, who has missed substantial portions of the season in recent years. Signing a guy like that for 3 years is a non-starter, even if you give him a NMC because again, if he goes down, no team is going to want to take him anyway.

All we really need is a stop gap -- a vet goalie who can play the majority of the year. We don't need a guy for 3 years. People are acting like Crawford is the only goalie that fits this bill -- he isn't. People did the same thing with Lehner last year -- he wasn't the only backup insurance goalie that was available. Like the names I mentioned before, a lot of goalies will be on the move. Brian Elliot is another option.

My point is, the Hawks should have no problem finding a serviceable vet stop-gap goalie, for better price and better term (assuming Crow doesn't want a 1-2 year deal). He is not the only option.

 

[hawkinmontreal]

You can't equate a guy like Crawford to "every player." The risk is substantially greater with a 36 year old goalie with a history of concussions, who has missed substantial portions of the season in recent years. Signing a guy like that for 3 years is a non-starter, even if you give him a NMC because again, if he goes down, no team is going to want to take him anyway.

All we really need is a stop gap -- a vet goalie who can play the majority of the year. We don't need a guy for 3 years. People are acting like Crawford is the only goalie that fits this bill -- he isn't. People did the same thing with Lehner last year -- he wasn't the only backup insurance goalie that was available. Like the names I mentioned before, a lot of goalies will be on the move. Brian Elliot is another option.

My point is, the Hawks should have no problem finding a serviceable vet stop-gap goalie, for better price and better term (assuming Crow doesn't want a 1-2 year deal). He is not the only option.

The issue here Granada is not CC per say, the issue here is management has no idea what direction this team is going in. Do they blow it up and tear it down, do they keep Toews and Kane happy by keeping CC around that way they can keep the belief there is still false hope of advancing to the playoffs again next year. The team is a real shit storm right now, CC has been a pillar for this team for years, but the reality is, Hawks aren’t winning anything for sometime, so basically he would be kept around so he can retire a Hawk, which is the wrong thing to do, but Stan doesn’t really have a clue what the plan moving forward is. If the Hawks blow things up, does Kane and Toews walk, which would cause a domino effect in many ways, season tixs would drop, fan attendance would drop, marketing the team would be none existent unless Dach is who you are marketing. I certainly don’t envy Stan right now, it time to stop playing games and make a decision or is he afraid because he knows Toews and Kane and CC are his lifeline.

 

[Granada]

The issue here Granada is not CC per say, the issue here is management has no idea what direction this team is going in. Do they blow it up and tear it down, do they keep Toews and Kane happy by keeping CC around that way they can keep the belief there is still false hope of advancing to the playoffs again next year. The team is a real shit storm right now, CC has been a pillar for this team for years, but the reality is, Hawks aren’t winning anything for sometime, so basically he would be kept around so he can retire a Hawk, which is the wrong thing to do, but Stan doesn’t really have a clue what the plan moving forward is. If the Hawks blow things up, does Kane and Toews walk, which would cause a domino effect in many ways, season tixs would drop, fan attendance would drop, marketing the team would be none existent unless Dach is who you are marketing. I certainly don’t envy Stan right now, it time to stop playing games and make a decision or is he afraid because he knows Toews and Kane and CC are his lifeline.

True, this is a team without direction and Bowman doesn't know what to do -- I agree there. But even if it is a rebuild, you will still need a vet goalie as a stop-gap. Crow can always sign a one-day contract and retire as a Hawk.

But I agree overall -- Stan is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if he blows it up and traded Toews/Kane, ticket sales would plummet. That's why he's always done the rebuild on the fly. I almost wish fans would stop going to the games now, so then Bowman would have to blow it up because he'd have nothing to lose anymore.