The Crawford Dilemma: Sign or Walk Away?

[LordKOTL]

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.

I never said Crawford was the only option, What I did say is that he's a viable option given what the team is and what it's makeup is--especially on D. That is the problem: finding a goalie that is serviceable on the 'hawks--a team who's team D sucks like Pamela Anderson at a Motel 6, doing so on a budget, and keeping some semblance of stability in net while the next long-term starter is found since the 'hawks don't have anyone currently tapped for that position. That will take more than a year in my opinion--2-3 in my estimation.

If the 'hawks don't have someone marked to take over the net by the end of this season, we'll need more of the same next season In that case you want some stability for 2-3 years--think like Emery. If the 'hawks would have the next guy tapped then maybe you can bounce between vet backups, but until that happens a rotating list of transitional vet goalies doesn't help--especially if were showing a lot of rookie skaters the ropes as well as rookie goalies acclimating to the net.

In my opinion Elliott is a significant downgrade (.900 vs .917). It would be like going back to Ward in net. Ditto with guys like Smith, & Howard. Unless they were willing to sign on for substantially less or Crawford was being unreasonable, I'd give them a miss. They'd have to play behind one of the most porous D's in the league (Team D--let's be clear there). If that's a path worth exploring then I'd be looking at Greiss--who's at least in the ballpark of Crawford. Khudobin would be a long shot--since I think he's too rich for the 'hawks blood but he would be an option (especially with Bishop logjamming the Stars)--and that's getting into Holtby/Lehner territory where you'd be paying a premium for a ready-made starter--which the 'hawks can't afford.

My take is if the 'hawks downgrade in net, they're going to lose a hell of a lot more until the team D is turned over or a starter is developed. 2M is not much for a seasoned goalie who can mentor a young one--it's what Elliott is making right now and he's a worse goalie than Crawford. If you can tuck in Crawford at that amount to mentor the next gen, I think that's a viable move. If you can find better at the same price, you go better. If you're stuck with worse you better be getting a better deal on it.

 

[Granada]

I never said Crawford was the only option, What I did say is that he's a viable option given what the team is and what it's makeup is--especially on D. That is the problem: finding a goalie that is serviceable on the 'hawks--a team who's team D sucks like Pamela Anderson at a Motel 6, doing so on a budget, and keeping some semblance of stability in net while the next long-term starter is found since the 'hawks don't have anyone currently tapped for that position. That will take more than a year in my opinion--2-3 in my estimation.

If the 'hawks don't have someone marked to take over the net by the end of this season, we'll need more of the same next season In that case you want some stability for 2-3 years--think like Emery. If the 'hawks would have the next guy tapped then maybe you can bounce between vet backups, but until that happens a rotating list of transitional vet goalies doesn't help--especially if were showing a lot of rookie skaters the ropes as well as rookie goalies acclimating to the net.

In my opinion Elliott is a significant downgrade (.900 vs .917). It would be like going back to Ward in net. Ditto with guys like Smith, & Howard. Unless they were willing to sign on for substantially less or Crawford was being unreasonable, I'd give them a miss. They'd have to play behind one of the most porous D's in the league (Team D--let's be clear there). If that's a path worth exploring then I'd be looking at Greiss--who's at least in the ballpark of Crawford. Khudobin would be a long shot--since I think he's too rich for the 'hawks blood but he would be an option (especially with Bishop logjamming the Stars)--and that's getting into Holtby/Lehner territory where you'd be paying a premium for a ready-made starter--which the 'hawks can't afford.

My take is if the 'hawks downgrade in net, they're going to lose a hell of a lot more until the team D is turned over or a starter is developed. 2M is not much for a seasoned goalie who can mentor a young one--it's what Elliott is making right now and he's a worse goalie than Crawford. If you can tuck in Crawford at that amount to mentor the next gen, I think that's a viable move. If you can find better at the same price, you go better. If you're stuck with worse you better be getting a better deal on it.

The Hawks would only need to lock down the position if they were actually contenders, but they're far from that. Signing a goalie on a one to two year deal would be smarter because you would not be tying up much-needed cap space to actually improve your team over the next 3 years, be it through re-signings or free agency. A one-year deal gives you the flexibility as a GM to better allocate those resources, rather than invest in a 36 year old goalie with an injury history.

Even if Elliott is a downgrade, it would only be one year; and it still makes more sense than signing Crawford to a 3 year contract. I'm sorry but that's lunacy. Plus, again, the goal isn't necessarily to win in a rebuild year. Elliott would be a stop-gap to prevent the team getting blown out every night -- I think he's capable of at least that.

 

[MassHavoc]

I'm not trying to make any kind of point here, I'm just trying to remember honestly, what was the last full season Crow played without getting hurt? It's been at least 2 right?

 

[Granada]

I'm not trying to make any kind of point here, I'm just trying to remember honestly, what was the last full season Crow played without getting hurt? It's been at least 2 right?

Yeah 2, not including this year. 2017 was the last year he played more than half a season. 2018 he missed the majority of the year and in 2019, he basically split time with Ward (33 games; Crow 39)

 

[Raskolnikov]

The Hawks would only need to lock down the position if they were actually contenders, but they're far from that. Signing a goalie on a one to two year deal would be smarter because you would not be tying up much-needed cap space to actually improve your team over the next 3 years, be it through re-signings or free agency. A one-year deal gives you the flexibility as a GM to better allocate those resources, rather than invest in a 36 year old goalie with an injury history.

Even if Elliott is a downgrade, it would only be one year; and it still makes more sense than signing Crawford to a 3 year contract. I'm sorry but that's lunacy. Plus, again, the goal isn't necessarily to win in a rebuild year. Elliott would be a stop-gap to prevent the team getting blown out every night -- I think he's capable of at least that.

I mean I am with you, I think you have to either sign a long term answer like Lehnar if he would have us, or go for a bargain tradable asset like Elliot or Crow on a reasonable deal.

I think it benefits us to sign a tradeable goalie, and even pay Crow more because he has earned it...(with not one but two goddamn fucking cups!!)

so like...whats the harm in paying Crow 5 million a year? Seriously...if he will sign to be the #1 guy, get 75% of starts he is healthy for, and sign without a no-trade clause? How is that not perfect? We can eat half of that on a trade and get huge value for him right?

Lets keep our guy, over-pay him, and there is not reason to grant a no-trade clause and explain that to him. Hey...we are going to give you 35% more than you are worth on the open market, and IF you can make a viable run WITH THIS HAWKS god bless you!! Seriously...and if you can't...we are going to eat half the contract and trade you to a contender that loses their goalie for first and/or second round picks!!

Win win win win...for fans, Hawks, Crow AND his next team . THATS HOW YOU REWARD YOUR OWN IMO!!

No reason to grant a no-trade clause with this defense....but tons of future thinking reason to solidify the position, buy trade bait, and enhance our future.

If anyone has any rationale that makes me wrong please debate.

Give the man 5,000,000 without a no trade clause for two years, and prepare to eat half of it for picks.

 

[Granada]

I mean I am with you, I think you have to either sign a long term answer like Lehnar if he would have us, or go for a bargain tradable asset like Elliot or Crow on a reasonable deal.

I think it benefits us to sign a tradeable goalie, and even pay Crow more because he has earned it...(with not one but two goddamn fucking cups!!)

so like...whats the harm in paying Crow 5 million a year? Seriously...if he will sign to be the #1 guy, get 75% of starts he is healthy for, and sign without a no-trade clause? How is that not perfect? We can eat half of that on a trade and get huge value for him right?

Lets keep our guy, over-pay him, and there is not reason to grant a no-trade clause and explain that to him. Hey...we are going to give you 35% more than you are worth on the open market, and IF you can make a viable run WITH THIS HAWKS god bless you!! Seriously...and if you can't...we are going to eat half the contract and trade you to a contender that loses their goalie for first and/or second round picks!!

Win win win win...for fans, Hawks, Crow AND his next team . THATS HOW YOU REWARD YOUR OWN IMO!!

No reason to grant a no-trade clause with this defense....but tons of future thinking reason to solidify the position, buy trade bait, and enhance our future.

If anyone has any rationale that makes me wrong please debate.

Give the man 5,000,000 without a no trade clause for two years, and prepare to eat half of it for picks.

I don't know, I think 10 million for 2 years is too steep. The Hawks already gave Crawford a fantastic deal with his last contract; this time, it should be Crow who returns the favor -- kind of like how Hammer did it after signing SJ's offer sheet, then taking just 4 million when he could have gotten much more on the open market.

The highest I would go is 2.5 for 2 years with a potential bonus of 500,000 per year if he plays a certain amount of games, but that amount needs to be high, like 50. I like Crawford, but there are other options out there, and he is not your goalie of the future anymore. If the plan is to rebuild, we only need a stop-gap, there's no need to invest that amount (5 mill) in him for two years.

 

[LordKOTL]

The Hawks would only need to lock down the position if they were actually contenders, but they're far from that. Signing a goalie on a one to two year deal would be smarter because you would not be tying up much-needed cap space to actually improve your team over the next 3 years, be it through re-signings or free agency. A one-year deal gives you the flexibility as a GM to better allocate those resources, rather than invest in a 36 year old goalie with an injury history.

Even if Elliott is a downgrade, it would only be one year; and it still makes more sense than signing Crawford to a 3 year contract. I'm sorry but that's lunacy. Plus, again, the goal isn't necessarily to win in a rebuild year. Elliott would be a stop-gap to prevent the team getting blown out every night -- I think he's capable of at least that.

I disagree. The hawks are developing and will be developing several players moving forward and that requires some level of consistency. The D isn't providing it--and hasn't in years. The 'hawks should be providing that consistency not just for Boqvist, Kubalik, Dach, and to a lesser extent Nylander, Strome, and Debrincat, but also Beaudin and Mitchell coming up. Couple that with needing a the next gen goalie and the 'hawks are going to want someone in net that that can transition to backup on the cheap--and $2M is right in the sweet spot for a transitional goaltender.

Any transitional goaltender for a single year--Crawford, Elliott, Smith, Howard, etc. would be lunacy. You'd be paying more up front for the lack of certainty in their careers especially with the stagnant cap, and you're absolutely gambling that Lankinen, Delia, Subban, or whoever would land the starting job resoundingly--especially behind our horrible team D.

2 years IMHO is minimum for any transitional goaltender. 3 years is doable--especially at $2M. You're not going to get a serviceable goaltender for much less than $1M so that "allocation" would be ~1M, which is a bottom-feeder. We're wasting more cap in the pay vs play differential of Shaw, Maata, DeHaan, Seabrook, Nylander, and if is play doesn't improve next season, Debrincat. That 1M is swalloawble--especially if they get Seabrook off the books and/or move one of DeHaan or Maata.

P.S. If the 'hawks could get Crawford on a 2.5 over 2 with a bonus for games played, I'd be down with that. If the 'hawks go with Elliott, Smith, or Howard over 2 years...I'd want them sub 2M. Crawford at 35 can play at .917 which is above average--can't say the same for the rest of them. and In my opinion, that could be a difference maker in development.

@Raskolnikov :
The big problem going into this coming season is that the 'hawks are stuck with ~7M in free cap and they'll need to tuck Koob in. The 'hawks don't want to be spending a ton of money in net unless they get plenty of Cap relief--which would necessitate moving one of our expensive contracts out--that would mean Toews, Kane, Saad, Debrincat, Shaw, Seabrook, Keith, Maata, DeHaan, or Murphy.

@Granada is right in that Crawford is in the twilight of his career, and shouldn't get a ~5M payday. He should be transitional which means transition from Stater to backup over the course of a few seasons--same with any goalie of his ilk (Smith, Howard, and Elliott). If the 'hawks were going to give out a 5M+ goalie contract it would have to be for a long-term starter--like Khudobin, Murray, Holtby, or Lehner, and that would mean the 'hawks would be on the hook for moving a high-priced player, and if the rest of the league knows that they'll bend the 'hawks over a barrel.

 

[Granada]

I disagree. The hawks are developing and will be developing several players moving forward and that requires some level of consistency. The D isn't providing it--and hasn't in years. The 'hawks should be providing that consistency not just for Boqvist, Kubalik, Dach, and to a lesser extent Nylander, Strome, and Debrincat, but also Beaudin and Mitchell coming up. Couple that with needing a the next gen goalie and the 'hawks are going to want someone in net that that can transition to backup on the cheap--and $2M is right in the sweet spot for a transitional goaltender.

Any transitional goaltender for a single year--Crawford, Elliott, Smith, Howard, etc. would be lunacy. You'd be paying more up front for the lack of certainty in their careers especially with the stagnant cap, and you're absolutely gambling that Lankinen, Delia, Subban, or whoever would land the starting job resoundingly--especially behind our horrible team D.

2 years IMHO is minimum for any transitional goaltender. 3 years is doable--especially at $2M. You're not going to get a serviceable goaltender for much less than $1M so that "allocation" would be ~1M, which is a bottom-feeder. We're wasting more cap in the pay vs play differential of Shaw, Maata, DeHaan, Seabrook, Nylander, and if is play doesn't improve next season, Debrincat. That 1M is swalloawble--especially if they get Seabrook off the books and/or move one of DeHaan or Maata.

P.S. If the 'hawks could get Crawford on a 2.5 over 2 with a bonus for games played, I'd be down with that. If the 'hawks go with Elliott, Smith, or Howard over 2 years...I'd want them sub 2M. Crawford at 35 can play at .917 which is above average--can't say the same for the rest of them. and In my opinion, that could be a difference maker in development.

@Raskolnikov :
The big problem going into this coming season is that the 'hawks are stuck with ~7M in free cap and they'll need to tuck Koob in. The 'hawks don't want to be spending a ton of money in net unless they get plenty of Cap relief--which would necessitate moving one of our expensive contracts out--that would mean Toews, Kane, Saad, Debrincat, Shaw, Seabrook, Keith, Maata, DeHaan, or Murphy.

@Granada is right in that Crawford is in the twilight of his career, and shouldn't get a ~5M payday. He should be transitional which means transition from Stater to backup over the course of a few seasons--same with any goalie of his ilk (Smith, Howard, and Elliott). If the 'hawks were going to give out a 5M+ goalie contract it would have to be for a long-term starter--like Khudobin, Murray, Holtby, or Lehner, and that would mean the 'hawks would be on the hook for moving a high-priced player, and if the rest of the league knows that they'll bend the 'hawks over a barrel.

Crawford isn't the only goalie who would provide consistency though. That's my point. If he can't be had at a reasonable price and term, he isn't worth it.

A goalie for a year would be less lunacy than a 36 year old one at 3 years. Just saying. At least the GM is in control, and will not be hamstrung by yet another ridiculous contract. Again, there are always options.

Kubalik's re-signing is a prime example of why you can't tie up money in Crawford for 3 years. Not only that, but Debrincat's contract kicks in beginning next year too. So why anyone would want to tie up 2+ million for a non-movable goalie for 3 years -- who is not a young, long-term solution -- is beyond me, in all honesty.

You (i.e. Bowman) need flexibility first and foremost. Signing Crawford for 3 years would provide absolutely none.

 

[LordKOTL]

Crawford isn't the only goalie who would provide consistency though. That's my point. If he can't be had at a reasonable price and term, he isn't worth it.

A goalie for a year would be less lunacy than a 36 year old one at 3 years. Just saying. At least the GM is in control, and will not be hamstrung by yet another ridiculous contract. Again, there are always options.

Kubalik's re-signing is a prime example of why you can't tie up money in Crawford for 3 years. Not only that, but Debrincat's contract kicks in beginning next year too. So why anyone would want to tie up 2+ million for a non-movable goalie for 3 years -- who is not a young, long-term solution -- is beyond me, in all honesty.

You (i.e. Bowman) need flexibility first and foremost. Signing Crawford for 3 years would provide absolutely none.

The only way Crawford's signing would be unreasonable and prevent roster movement is if the amount was too high--and $2M in my estimation is not too high simply because the cost of the lowest of the low goalies is ~$750k That means the "overage" between a .917 Crawford (career and last season performance) and someone like Anton Forsberg is ~$1.25M max. That would apply to 2 years or 3 years.

And how would Crawford be immovable? I think the biggest mistake would be giving him any sort of clause. If he gets hurt, you LTIR him and take the cap savings. If he gets 100% superseded, you try to move him--especially to a team that might be looking for a vet cup-wining netminder to make a playoff run. $2M, even under a stagnant cap, is not a lot of money (It's like ~2.5% of the cap). Plus, it's not a lot of money to leave on the table so there's also a retirement incentive (Unlike Seabrook). Be it Lankinen or Delia (or otherwise), the 'hawks would be paying $3M total in net. That is not a lot of money at all--and that doesn't matter if It's Crawford or someone else. That's the money situation the 'hawks are looking at.

The issue with lack of flexibility is the nonperforming FWDs. Seabrook, Shaw, Maata, DeHaan, etc. Debrincat could be added to that list if he doesn't start playing better. That's where the flexibility needs to come from--jettisoning one or more of them (especially on D if we're to get the younger guys in there). Otherwise you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besdies, if one of the aformentioned skaters doesn't move, we might not be able to keep Koob irrespective of resigning Crawford (or another non-shit goalie). Lankinen and Delia are $1.8M together...which brings our capspace down to ~5M. Chances are we're not going to be able to tuck in Koob & Strome (or another center that can play line 2 or 3) for $5M total. Koob himself will probably be ~4M.

 

[Granada]

The only way Crawford's signing would be unreasonable and prevent roster movement is if the amount was too high--and $2M in my estimation is not too high simply because the cost of the lowest of the low goalies is ~$750k That means the "overage" between a .917 Crawford (career and last season performance) and someone like Anton Forsberg is ~$1.25M max. That would apply to 2 years or 3 years.

And how would Crawford be immovable? I think the biggest mistake would be giving him any sort of clause. If he gets hurt, you LTIR him and take the cap savings. If he gets 100% superseded, you try to move him--especially to a team that might be looking for a vet cup-wining netminder to make a playoff run. $2M, even under a stagnant cap, is not a lot of money (It's like ~2.5% of the cap). Plus, it's not a lot of money to leave on the table so there's also a retirement incentive (Unlike Seabrook). Be it Lankinen or Delia (or otherwise), the 'hawks would be paying $3M total in net. That is not a lot of money at all--and that doesn't matter if It's Crawford or someone else. That's the money situation the 'hawks are looking at.

The issue with lack of flexibility is the nonperforming FWDs. Seabrook, Shaw, Maata, DeHaan, etc. Debrincat could be added to that list if he doesn't start playing better. That's where the flexibility needs to come from--jettisoning one or more of them (especially on D if we're to get the younger guys in there). Otherwise you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besdies, if one of the aformentioned skaters doesn't move, we might not be able to keep Koob irrespective of resigning Crawford (or another non-shit goalie). Lankinen and Delia are $1.8M together...which brings our capspace down to ~5M. Chances are we're not going to be able to tuck in Koob & Strome (or another center that can play line 2 or 3) for $5M total. Koob himself will probably be ~4M.

Length would make it unreasonable too. Two to three million isn't a small amount of money to invest per year over a 3 year period, especially on a team as cash-strapped as this one.

No one will want Crow if he goes down with another injury -- which is quite possible, considering his age and history -- or if his play starts to decline, which again, is quite possible -- particularly over a long-term contract.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The point is we can still pay guys, still roll the dice at a run, while covering our ass and planning well to turn free agents into draft picks, rather than free agents into anchors that make shaping a viable team impossible (Bowman with Seabrook).

I get the promises that were made, I don't get the inclusion of no-trade clauses when you are that tight against the cap, and one that relies on the canadian adp and price of oil for god sake.

Its in the past, I actually like Stan Bowman and think he builds a good culture and thinks well...I'll be fine if I see a learning curve on the bad contracts and team of mini-me's.

You can have mini-me's...but you have to fortify them with giants like the Bruins and Lightning have done.

Dach was a step in that direction and its already paying dividends. There is little Strome can do that Kurashev cannot, so thats a guy you have to step away from. Not because he isn't good, but he doesn't balance problems we already have and their is a cheaper guy behind him that brings speed and skill.

 

[Diehardfan]

The point is we can still pay guys, still roll the dice at a run, while covering our ass and planning well to turn free agents into draft picks, rather than free agents into anchors that make shaping a viable team impossible (Bowman with Seabrook).

I get the promises that were made, I don't get the inclusion of no-trade clauses when you are that tight against the cap, and one that relies on the canadian adp and price of oil for god sake.

Its in the past, I actually like Stan Bowman and think he builds a good culture and thinks well...I'll be fine if I see a learning curve on the bad contracts and team of mini-me's.

You can have mini-me's...but you have to fortify them with giants like the Bruins and Lightning have done.

Dach was a step in that direction and its already paying dividends. There is little Strome can do that Kurashev cannot, so thats a guy you have to step away from. Not because he isn't good, but he doesn't balance problems we already have and their is a cheaper guy behind him that brings speed and skill.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

@TalkinHawkey

1h

Pending UFA goaltender Corey Crawford has been offered a one-year, ~$3.5 million contract from Stan Bowman and the #Blackhawks

according to @ByScottPowers
“The ball is now in [Crawford’s] court.”

 

[Granada]

Glad Bowman is offering just the one year. Not crazy about the price, but I could live with it. I would think there is a NMC being offered, since it's just for the year -- Bowman did the same thing with Kunitz, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[JimAKABlkhwks918]

Go year by year, then?

Does this mean:

A. Stan thinks he will have someone else ready to take over by 2021-22?
B. Stan is taking one more run at it with the core and thinks he will shore up the D to Cup level by the end of summer?
C. The Cup winning players are Stan's woobies?
D. I'm reading too much into it?

 

[Granada]

Go year by year, then?

Does this mean:

A. Stan thinks he will have someone else ready to take over by 2021-22?
B. Stan is taking one more run at it with the core and thinks he will shore up the D to Cup level by the end of summer?
C. The Cup winning players are Stan's woobies?
D. I'm reading too much into it?

Yup.

A. Not necessarily. I just think Stan wants to take it one year at a time with Crow, because of his age and injury history, which is smart. He knows there are always other options out there in free agency for a stop-gap veteran goalie.

B. Impossible to know, but I think the D is pretty well "shored" in Bowman's mind (hint: it isn't). Murphy, Maatta, de Haan are all signed for the next two years. I could be wrong, but I feel like he'll keep Keith. I'm sure he'll try to move Seabrook to open up space, but that's a long shot. So point being, he'll probably add another KoekKoek type or two for cheap if he doesn't just re-sign KoKo himself. I doubt he'll give up on Boqvist just yet. It would be nice if Stan landed a 1-2 D-man in the off-season, but I'm not counting on it, because 1: it's Stan and 2: he'll have to open up a lot of cap space to do it.

C. Maybe, at least for ticket sales. They certainly aren't his security blanket in terms of on-ice success anymore, but if he wants to avoid a full rebuild and not lose ticket sales, then they probably are.

D. Might as well over-analyze it, we got nothing else to talk about

 

[hawkinmontreal]

Crawford offered 3.5 for one year.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Crawford offered 3.5 for one year.

No way that happened....

 

[hawkinmontreal]

No way that happened....

Thanks for the sarcasm, but let’s be honest no one gives a **** what you have to say about the Hawks, hence why I reposted it.

 

[Granada]

Thanks for the sarcasm, but let’s be honest no one gives a **** what you have to say about the Hawks, hence why I reposted it.

Scott Powers also wrote in the Athletic that supposedly, Bowman is in a holding pattern until Crawford decides if he's coming back or not. Not sure if that's accurate, but found it interesting. There's a stupid paywall but you can read it in the first couple paragraphs: What I'm hearing about the Blackhawks' offseason so far