The Teach Me About Hockey Thread

[LordKOTL]

My knowledge of hockey is far less than everyone else's. I said Crawford isn't great because my impression at the time was that he wasn't a top goalie. Perhaps goalies get nitpicked on or something, but based off of what I saw in the playoffs last year, Crawford wasn't playing like a top 3 goalie. Imo it seemed like Rask was outperforming him in that series (I also have no idea how good Rask is relative to the league).

That said, my impression could be wrong since my hockey knowledge is lacking.

My gauge on Crawford is that he's a Damned good to Great netminder - Not elite. He doesn't make the flashy saves often but he will give the team a fighting chance when the Team D takes a powder (See also: 1st game of the year against the Stars--he was the only reason we won that game).

His pay vs. his play is basically right around market value for goalies in them league; 6M/8.7% of the team's salary cap for the 1st year of his deal. His numbers are definitely respectable and he's got hardware, which for both from a cap standpoint you're gonna have to pay for. Direct-comparison to Miller, Both have hardware (Vezina for Miller, Jennings for Crawford--co-owend by Emery), Both have a career .915 sv% even though Crawford's GAA is higher overall. Both are also making about 6M this year in the 1st year of their deals.

If Crawford was indeed an "elite" golatender, his extension would have reflected that--like 7M+ that Lundqvist, Rask, Rinne, and the like make.

 

[Ares]

Crawford isn't great?

He's won a Cup and is arguably one of the top 3 goalies in the NHL this year.

Keep in mind you are in the "Teach Me About Hockey" thread....

 

[DMelt36]

My gauge on Crawford is that he's a Damned good to Great netminder - Not elite. He doesn't make the flashy saves often but he will give the team a fighting chance when the Team D takes a powder (See also: 1st game of the year against the Stars--he was the only reason we won that game).

His pay vs. his play is basically right around market value for goalies in them league; 6M/8.7% of the team's salary cap for the 1st year of his deal. His numbers are definitely respectable and he's got hardware, which for both from a cap standpoint you're gonna have to pay for. Direct-comparison to Miller, Both have hardware (Vezina for Miller, Jennings for Crawford--co-owend by Emery), Both have a career .915 sv% even though Crawford's GAA is higher overall. Both are also making about 6M this year in the 1st year of their deals.

If Crawford was indeed an "elite" golatender, his extension would have reflected that--like 7M+ that Lundqvist, Rask, Rinne, and the like make.

This is pretty spot on, IMO.

And as time goes on, I think Crawford's $6 million salary hit is going to look pretty damn good.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

This is pretty spot on, IMO.

And as time goes on, I think Crawford's $6 million salary hit is going to look pretty damn good.

Especially after fleury signed for 5.75 mil... haha.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Keep in mind you are in the "Teach Me About Hockey" thread....

:andruw:

 

[LordKOTL]

This is pretty spot on, IMO.

And as time goes on, I think Crawford's $6 million salary hit is going to look pretty damn good.

Unless the cap goes down, it always will. . Still, 8.7% of the total cap for this year is fair and reasonable for Crawford. Amongs his comparables, Lehtonen, Quick, Smith, Bobrovski, Price, & Fleury's current deal all had bigger cap impacts in their 1st year than Crawford's current deal, and of those only Quick, Bobrovski, and Price have better career sv%. Lehtonen, Smith, and Fleury are all worse sv% than Crawford.

 

[Variable]

The biggest difference of course being that, outside of LA, those teams didn't have half the quality (especially defensively with a few of those teams) of a team that the Hawks have had in front of Crawford over the last few years. Thus they relied on their goaltending much more to be solid and to carry them.

 

[LordKOTL]

...and of those only Quick and Fleury have cups. I would say Quick is better than Crawford, but Fleury isn't. Hell: in the stadium Series the 'hawks Scored 5 against Fleury, but the 'hawks only scored 1 against Crawford, but I digress.

Crawford, on the 'hawks, is good enough to get the team a cup. Could other goalies do it? Sure, but if they do indeed become good enough to win a cup with the 'hawks, their career numbers will likley be in the ballpark of Crawford's (unless we're talking bringing back Patrick Lalime), they'll have a cup, and thus will be commanding something between 8.5% and 9% of the total cap on their next payday; it's basically the going rate for the market for any non-elite goalie with hardware. Anything better and you're be paying 9%+ of your total cap, and anything less and the chances of the 'hawks winning a cup get drastically reduced.

The 'hawks need a goaltender who can go long shifts without seeing a shot on goal and still be sharp. They need someone that can be reasonably sharp when the Team D biffs it--which they do. They need someone who can hold the opposition down enough to give the O a fighting chance. Crawford, this year, has done exactly that.

 

[Ares]

...and of those only Quick and Fleury have cups. I would say Quick is better than Crawford, but Fleury isn't. Hell: in the stadium Series the 'hawks Scored 5 against Fleury, but the 'hawks only scored 1 against Crawford, but I digress.

Crawford, on the 'hawks, is good enough to get the team a cup. Could other goalies do it? Sure, but if they do indeed become good enough to win a cup with the 'hawks, their career numbers will likley be in the ballpark of Crawford's (unless we're talking bringing back Patrick Lalime), they'll have a cup, and thus will be commanding something between 8.5% and 9% of the total cap on their next payday; it's basically the going rate for the market for any non-elite goalie with hardware. Anything better and you're be paying 9%+ of your total cap, and anything less and the chances of the 'hawks winning a cup get drastically reduced.

The 'hawks need a goaltender who can go long shifts without seeing a shot on goal and still be sharp. They need someone that can be reasonably sharp when the Team D biffs it--which they do. They need someone who can hold the opposition down enough to give the O a fighting chance. Crawford, this year, has done exactly that.

Don't you think we ought to trade Patrick Kane for Ryan Miller.... dude was amazing in the Olympics....

 

[LordKOTL]

Don't you think we ought to trade Patrick Kane for Ryan Miller.... dude was amazing in the Olympics....

Why? It seems to me Miller went down hill ever since the incident with Regis "Pierre" McGuire during the 2010 finals.

 

[Tjodalv]

Why? It seems to me Miller went down hill ever since the incident with Regis "Pierre" McGuire during the 2010 finals.

He's clearly being facetious; in case the troll face at the end of the post didn't make that clear.

And clean this shit up ladies. This isn't the Crow evaluation thread. Anyone want anything else elaborated on?

 

[Variable]

...and of those only Quick and Fleury have cups. I would say Quick is better than Crawford, but Fleury isn't. Hell: in the stadium Series the 'hawks Scored 5 against Fleury, but the 'hawks only scored 1 against Crawford, but I digress.


The 'hawks need a goaltender who can go long shifts without seeing a shot on goal and still be sharp. They need someone that can be reasonably sharp when the Team D biffs it--which they do. They need someone who can hold the opposition down enough to give the O a fighting chance. Crawford, this year, has done exactly that.

I don't quite understand how that refutes what I'm saying. Guys like Lehtonen are in shooting galleries, Bobvorkosky is on a team that has little chance to even make the playoffs. To base, even partially, a goalie's worth on Cup wins is foolish. Niemi was cleaning the ice in Finland in his spare time, two years later he's a Cup winning goalie. That year and since then he's been basically the textbook case of a league average goalie (outside of that one compressed season which looks more and more like an anomaly) especially with a team like the Sharks who are also very good at controlling the puck. There are more than a few goalies like that who can be good enough for a lot of the teams the Hawks have iced over the last 4 or 5 years now.

I guess my point is, if you're a team like the Hawks you don't need a goalie taking up that percentage of cap hit because it eventually causes you to lose players that make your team what it is that and in effect allows you to not have to rely on great goaltending every single night. Because as time goes on, the salaries for extremely important players like Saad are going to go up.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I don't quite understand how that refutes what I'm saying. Guys like Lehtonen are in shooting galleries, Bobvorkosky is on a team that has little chance to even make the playoffs. To base, every partially, a goalie's worth on Cup wins is foolish. Niemi was cleaning the ice in Finland in his spare time, two years later he's a Cup winning goalie. That year and since then he's been basically the textbook case of a league average goalie (outside of that one compressed season which looks more and more like an anomaly) especially with a team like the Sharks who are also very good at controlling the puck. There are more than a few goalies like that who can be good enough for a lot of the teams the Hawks have iced over the last 4 or 5 years now.

I guess my point is, if you're a team like the Hawks you don't need a goalie taking up that percentage of cap hit because it eventually causes you to lose players that make your team what it is that and in effect allows you to not have to rely on great goaltending every single night. Because as time goes on, the salaries for extremely important players like Saad are going to go up.

I really really like Crawford and think he's in the top echelon. But I have always said a goalie shouldn't take up that big of a percentage of cap.

However, it's just the world we live in now... still glad we have Crawford.

 

[Variable]

Doesn't mean you have to follow suit. There are a lot of goalies that would be capable of playing in the NHL, especially with a team like the Hawks, but there are only so many open spots. The parity at that position has never been higher.

 

[LordKOTL]

He's clearly being facetious; in case the troll face at the end of the post didn't make that clear.

And clean this shit up ladies. This isn't the Crow evaluation thread. Anyone want anything else elaborated on?

I knew he was, that's why I responded with the McGuire incident. Miller's reaction when Regis shoved his ass rightn into Miller's loins was hilarious

Doesn't mean you have to follow suit. There are a lot of goalies that would be capable of playing in the NHL, especially with a team like the Hawks, but there are only so many open spots. The parity at that position has never been higher.

The problem with that mindset, Variable, is that players, all player (goalie or otherwise) will get a boost because of hardware or some other "acomplishment"; like Bickell being a playoff stud.

Atempting to keep this on the "learning something" tack, if the 'hawks next year went with Darling as their primary guy at a sub 1M contract, and within a couple of years Darling won a Jennings and won a cup with the 'hawks, those two pieces of hardware would indeed jack his price up to 8-9% of the cap when he's due for a signing, and either the 'hawks would have to pay it to keep a "known" quantity in net, or they'd again have to gamble on a unknown talent that's "good enough" especially as their D-core ages.

And if Darling doesn't bring the 'hawks a cup, he--and the rest of the team, has failed.

In other words, IMHO if you get rid of Crawford, you're just moving the problem of the goalie making too much down a few years when the D might be too aged to be able to win with a "good enough" netminder. At some point the risk of going with an unknown quantity in net because they are cheap is going to backfire.

Anyhow, I'll shut up about Crawford and the nuances of "is the goalie worth it."

 

[Variable]

They've done the unknown quantity in net twice and have come away Cup winners. Because you're not always going to come away the Cup winner at the end of it all (and to seriously expect that is asking a lot for any team) doesn't mean you failed horribly. They'll be among the best in their conference. That can be done. As long as they continue to draft well, if you have confidence in your drafting ability, you can keep it going.

I just think smart cap management is one of the biggest parts of winning Cups and learning to handle that with the goalie position is going to be the key for GMs. The goalie position is the most dependent position on the ice. To give a big money, long term contract to that player when you've got the team the Hawks do right now, it just doesn't make sense. The style of play they enjoy right now because of their depth in talent is IMMEDIATELY put into danger by a contract like Crawford's (and Bickell's to be fair), rather than maybe 4 or 5 years down the road if you hadn't signed a goalie to that type of deal and you haven't found viable replacements for guys like Hossa or Sharp or Seabrook,etc. I'll take that scenario over the one they face right now. Everything goes in cycles anyways, eventually they'll fall off, but I'll take the one that gives you the longer run at the Cup every day.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Seeing Variable's name as the most recent post in a "Teach Me About Hockey" thread made me laugh... hard.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Seeing Variable's name as the most recent post in a "Teach Me About Hockey" thread made me laugh... hard.

Truth.

 

[mikita's helmet]

My gauge on Crawford is that he's a Damned good to Great netminder - Not elite. He doesn't make the flashy saves often but he will give the team a fighting chance when the Team D takes a powder (See also: 1st game of the year against the Stars--he was the only reason we won that game).

[Crow]'s got hardware, which for both from a cap standpoint you're gonna have to pay for. Direct-comparison to Miller, Both have hardware (Vezina for Miller, Jennings for Crawford--co-owend by Emery), Both have a career .915 sv% even though Crawford's GAA is higher overall. Both are also making about 6M this year in the 1st year of their deals.

Crow should also have a Conn Smythe trophy. Even Kane acknowledged that.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

99% of the posts on this thread are about Crawford.

Knock it off and start teaching some hockey.