View Single Post
Old
09-05-2013, 04:52 PM
  #977
hawksfan79
Registered User
 
hawksfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
I guess I would look at these three things. I'll stick to the regular season for now, as there is more data and it's evenly distributed across a more even segment of competition:

1.) Crawford was undoubtedly excellent this season, posting a 934 EV SV%. It was in only 28 starts (30 games), however.

2.) In 2011-2012, Crawford posted a pedestrian .915 EV SV% at even strength over 55 starts (57 games). Those are "good backup" numbers but not much more.

3.) In 2010-2011 over 55 starts (57 games), he posted an above average .924 EV SV%.

If you showed me those numbers without any context but his age (so ignoring whether he's won a Stanley Cup, or what team he played for, or whether his teammates like him), I'd have a few questions:

Were his improved results this year an increase in true talent/ability? That is to say, I'd want to know if he looked better, or whether goalie scouts are convinced he was playing materially better. Lots of goalies get hot for a half season of hockey, but that's not indicative of expected future results.

Further to that point, he was very average the preceding season. Two seasons ago, he was good but not elite, probably a bit better than a James Reimer type goaltender. I'm not sure I look at that body of work and conclude that he'll be better than the good-but-not-great camp of goaltenders, guys who bounce around 920-925 at EV play each season.

On a team like the Hawks, that's more than enough. My issue would be that with the term they gave him, they're paying him like a guy who you would expect a 927-928 EV SV% out of year to year, and I don't know if I see that there, but goaltending is part voodoo magic anyway, and the Hawks can afford to make a few mistakes. It does seem like an overpayment to me. I would have expected something like 3-4 years at 5m per, max.
Totally fair analysis, and that's why like I said while I don't hate the deal, it does have the possibility of busting big time if Crawford doesn't play at or near his level of last season.

In CC's defense, the Hawk defense was pretty bad in 2011, average in 2012, and superb in 2013 so he's a guy whose performance will depend primarily on the team in front of him for the most part (excepting that 2011 series vs you guys where he was literally the glue holding the team together) Now do you want to give 6X6 to a guy like that? I can understand both sides.

I'm surprised they gave out a contract like that, but he's been a homegrown guy from the beginning so I imagine that factored into the decision as well. In the interim, this contract is probably an overpayment (unless he plays like he did last year, then it's a fair contract+), but as the cap rises, the 6 mil probably won't look as bad so it will be moveable, I guess we'll have to see.

hawksfan79 is offline