HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Chicago Blackhawks cap situation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2010, 09:15 PM
  #526
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
I wasn't comparing them, just noticed that the numbers are same.

But what comes to comparing, and "not fair to compare at all": Crawford is also at entry-level salary like Howard and Turco is old goat like Osgood.

If Turco fails like Ozzie at last season, Crawford could be the saving angel like Jimmy was at last season for us.

And even though which one of them will succeed, he will get a big raise, because Hawks will have more cap space for that raise after next season. They won't have bargain goalies forever.
Crawford could be their Niemi next year.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 09:43 PM
  #527
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
Crawford could be their Niemi next year.
He could just as easily be their Jeff Deslauriers.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 10:29 PM
  #528
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
He could just as easily be their Jeff Deslauriers.
15-26-3?

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 10:33 PM
  #529
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
15-26-3?
Something like that, yes, that was my point.

When you have a young unproven, untested goalie, you might get a solid season and a Cup run. Or you might get growing pains, a sub-.900 sv%, and a GAA over 3.00. The latter happens a lot more frequently.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 10:41 PM
  #530
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
Something like that, yes, that was my point.

When you have a young unproven, untested goalie, you might get a solid season and a Cup run. Or you might get growing pains, a sub-.900 sv%, and a GAA over 3.00. The latter happens a lot more frequently.
That's not limited to just goalies. You and I understand that, good luck getting the guys that this thread is about to understand it.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 10:44 PM
  #531
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
That's not limited to just goalies. You and I understand that, good luck getting the guys that this thread is about to understand it.
I don't think they have a lot of choice. They could have gone with Niemi and Crawford but they would have lost Hjalmarsson or Sharp or Bolland or Brouwer. It wasn't a great choice either way.

I can understand letting Niemi walk when they're cap strapped and there are some other veteran options out there. I'm just baffled by the Turco move. Maybe he'll turn back the clock to 2004, but I doubt it.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2010, 10:48 PM
  #532
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
I don't think they have a lot of choice. They could have gone with Niemi and Crawford but they would have lost Hjalmarsson or Sharp or Bolland or Brouwer. It wasn't a great choice either way.

I can understand letting Niemi walk when they're cap strapped and there are some other veteran options out there. I'm just baffled by the Turco move. Maybe he'll turn back the clock to 2004, but I doubt it.
Well it looks like the DRW will now have the insider on Turco weakness. Not they needed it, but it won't hurt.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2010, 06:14 AM
  #533
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
He could just as easily be their Jeff Deslauriers.
He could be their Jimmy Howard too... since we can't know how good a player is until they play in the NHL

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2010, 01:20 PM
  #534
TOPGUN
I Am Terrible!
 
TOPGUN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Holland
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
He could be their Jimmy Howard too... since we can't know how good a player is until they play in the NHL
After all those discussions with Sarcastro & co, are you admitting that you...

Nah, don't think so.



TOPGUN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2010, 02:35 PM
  #535
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
He could be their Jimmy Howard too... since we can't know how good a player is until they play in the NHL
Well, he hasn't dominated the AHL and only had 45 and 47 appearances the last 2 years, so we know he can't possibly hold up as an everyday NHL starter.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2010, 05:53 PM
  #536
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
Well, he hasn't dominated the AHL and only had 45 and 47 appearances the last 2 years, so we know he can't possibly hold up as an everyday NHL starter.
I think it's incredibly unlikely Crawford is much of an NHL goalie, because I'm willing to look at what he has done previously and allow it to show me something about the player. He's had one good AHL year of performance, and been an average AHL goalie the rest of the time.

Heck, the parallel's between him and Howard are really rather startling when you look at them, performance wise.

You, on the other hand, have to completely refrain from making any negative assessments of Crawford, at least if you are going to be consistent considering how stout you were in defending Howard against any criticism before he played a bunch at the NHL level.

Look, I know it sucks... but that's kind of what happens when you cling to asinine positions. You sort of have to stick to them.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2010, 06:17 PM
  #537
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
I think it's incredibly unlikely Crawford is much of an NHL goalie, because I'm willing to look at what he has done previously and allow it to show me something about the player. He's had one good AHL year of performance, and been an average AHL goalie the rest of the time.

Heck, the parallel's between him and Howard are really rather startling when you look at them, performance wise.

You, on the other hand, have to completely refrain from making any negative assessments of Crawford, at least if you are going to be consistent considering how stout you were in defending Howard against any criticism before he played a bunch at the NHL level.

Look, I know it sucks... but that's kind of what happens when you cling to asinine positions. You sort of have to stick to them.
I'm more than happy to let the Hawks roll the dice on Crawford and Turco as their goalie tandem this year. If he plays like crap, I get to criticize just like everyone else. He's probably going to get plenty of starts, so "rust" won't be a factor.

If he's good, it doesn't prove or disprove anything about goalies' AHL stats versus their NHL success, and the same goes if he's bad. He just becomes one more statistic in the fog like every other goalie out there.

Talking about possibilities is a lot wiser than talking about absolutes. I.E. a guy that doesn't dominate the AHL is absolutely never going to cut it in the NHL.

But we've had that argument too many times, and nothing ever comes of it. Not every thread has to turn into an appendage measuring contest, sport. So let's just sit back, relax, and watch the HindenHawks go down in flames.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 03:31 AM
  #538
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
I'm more than happy to let the Hawks roll the dice on Crawford and Turco as their goalie tandem this year. If he plays like crap, I get to criticize just like everyone else. He's probably going to get plenty of starts, so "rust" won't be a factor.

If he's good, it doesn't prove or disprove anything about goalies' AHL stats versus their NHL success, and the same goes if he's bad. He just becomes one more statistic in the fog like every other goalie out there.
...and that's largely why I chortle at your 'position' on this issue. It essentially boils down to 'Since nobody can know anything with 100% surety, the obvious conclusion is that nobody can know anything with any degree of surety, ergo it's all random chance, ergo we just have to start any goalie project who looks even marginally competent 30 games in the NHL to see how good they are.'

Cue 's

Quote:
But we've had that argument too many times, and nothing ever comes of it. Not every thread has to turn into an appendage measuring contest, sport. So let's just sit back, relax, and watch the HindenHawks go down in flames.
That's sort of the point. If you were being consistent you'd have to allow that there was just as good of a chance for the Hawks to have a franchise-altering goaltender in Crawford as there was of him not being good.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 08:42 AM
  #539
aqsw
PM
 
aqsw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,258
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Henkka;27210507]Bowman already said that they will go with Turco and Crawford and will split the games quite even at next aseaon.

Link!!

aqsw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 08:43 AM
  #540
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
That's sort of the point. If you were being consistent you'd have to allow that there was just as good of a chance for the Hawks to have a franchise-altering goaltender in Crawford as there was of him not being good.
Exhibit A:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
Something like that, yes, that was my point.

When you have a young unproven, untested goalie, you might get a solid season and a Cup run. Or you might get growing pains, a sub-.900 sv%, and a GAA over 3.00. The latter happens a lot more frequently.
I think you're just not much of a reader.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 09:30 AM
  #541
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
Exhibit A:



I think you're just not much of a reader.


Yes, it's amazing how beneficial and important it is for the Wings to get an untested goalie on the roster as soon as possible... but when Chicago does it, suddenly it's a harbinger of impending doom.

As a point of note, however, your 'The latter happens a lot more frequently' modification there seems to be a fairly recent addendum to your previously-held goaltenders position. I can't seem to recall you postulating that the odds were much greater that Howard would struggle than that he would succeed.

An interesting... 'adjustment'. Convenient, too!

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:52 AM
  #542
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post


Yes, it's amazing how beneficial and important it is for the Wings to get an untested goalie on the roster as soon as possible... but when Chicago does it, suddenly it's a harbinger of impending doom.

As a point of note, however, your 'The latter happens a lot more frequently' modification there seems to be a fairly recent addendum to your previously-held goaltenders position. I can't seem to recall you postulating that the odds were much greater that Howard would struggle than that he would succeed.

An interesting... 'adjustment'. Convenient, too!
As a Wings fan, I wanted to see what Howard had before throwing him away for nothing. I advocated doing that in a year when they had some room and could give him some time, but they waited until they were out of alternatives. Luckily, Howard swam. I'm sure a lot of Hawks fans would have preferred it if the team had found out about Crawford earlier, rather than having to roll the dice on him with no alternatives.

No rookie goalie is a sure thing, and I never said otherwise. Most rookie goalies don't pan out, and I never said otherwise. Wanting to see what a player has is not the same thing as expecting that player to be the next Ken Dryden.

As a Wings fan, I'm happy to see Crawford in there instead of Niemi. I would rather see Huet in there, because he's expensive and terrible. Hawks fans are probably split - some think that Crawford is the real deal and just needs a chance to prove it, and some are probably scared ****less thinking he'll be terrible. Time will tell. But just as it was for the Wings last year, goaltending will be a huge question mark for the Hawks this year.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:39 PM
  #543
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
No rookie goalie is a sure thing, and I never said otherwise. Most rookie goalies don't pan out, and I never said otherwise. Wanting to see what a player has is not the same thing as expecting that player to be the next Ken Dryden.
-beep beep beep-

Nice to see you installed the backup warning on your computer. Much safer.

The 'most rookie goalies don't pan out' thing was not a comment I can ever recall you making with regards to Howard. Not once. Your position, IIRC, was consistently that 'we don't know whether he'll be good or not until he plays' without any further modification, which obviously carries a much different implicit meaning... namely, that Howard (and by extension most if not all rookie goaltenders) was a coin flip.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 03:24 PM
  #544
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
-beep beep beep-

Nice to see you installed the backup warning on your computer. Much safer.

The 'most rookie goalies don't pan out' thing was not a comment I can ever recall you making with regards to Howard. Not once. Your position, IIRC, was consistently that 'we don't know whether he'll be good or not until he plays' without any further modification, which obviously carries a much different implicit meaning... namely, that Howard (and by extension most if not all rookie goaltenders) was a coin flip.
No matter what the odds were, the Wings had so much invested in Howard that throwing him away for nothing would have been stupid. Also, I had watched his development myself and believed him to be a better than average bet to make it. I don't know Crawford, and when you're dealing with goalies you don't know, you have to look at the averages.

My position, BTW, is still that we don't know whether Crawford will be good or not until he plays. The difference in this case is, I don't know Crawford well enough to have an opinion on him and I don't particularly care if the Hawks dump him without checking him out and waste the resources they've used developing him.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 07:40 PM
  #545
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
No matter what the odds were, the Wings had so much invested in Howard that throwing him away for nothing would have been stupid. Also, I had watched his development myself and believed him to be a better than average bet to make it. I don't know Crawford, and when you're dealing with goalies you don't know, you have to look at the averages.

My position, BTW, is still that we don't know whether Crawford will be good or not until he plays. The difference in this case is, I don't know Crawford well enough to have an opinion on him and I don't particularly care if the Hawks dump him without checking him out and waste the resources they've used developing him.
This thread is about their cap issues. They still only 17 players signed with 1.8m in space. And 9-10 of those players weren't full time Hawks last year.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 09:22 PM
  #546
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
No matter what the odds were, the Wings had so much invested in Howard that throwing him away for nothing would have been stupid.
Like... what, exactly? A second round pick? All that time he took from... the other mediocre goalie prospects around the Griffins then like MacDonald or Liv? The 49.95 a night they spent on his room at the Super 8 during roadies?

Quote:
Also, I had watched his development myself and believed him to be a better than average bet to make it.
This is another interesting, after-the-fact revelation that somehow never came up in any of your previous discussions about Howard, IIRC.

It also seems to be somewhat discordant with the notion that what a player does at the AHL level doesn't matter. Clearly, if you are watching him play, gathering information based on that performance, and then allowing that information to impact your assessment it would certainly seem to imply that you must give some relevance to pre-NHL performance, yes?

Quote:
My position, BTW, is still that we don't know whether Crawford will be good or not until he plays.
We don't know, obviously. Heck, I doubt too many people know, as in are sure beyond reasonable doubt of the outcome.

But, just like you have finally admitted above, I'm sure others have looked at what Crawford's done over his career to date and have formed what they feel to be some fairly informed opinions on what the likely outcomes of his play may be.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:18 PM
  #547
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 106,821
vCash: 500
Interesting conversation you are having

I am a Hawk fan that actually thinks Toivonen will win the #2 spot in camp

Crawford is the favorite but Toivonen is more skilled and seems to have gotten over the injury issues that hurt his development with Bruins

Went back to Finland and worked on his game and played solid in AHL last year behind mediocre Peoria D

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:26 PM
  #548
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
This is another interesting, after-the-fact revelation that somehow never came up in any of your previous discussions about Howard, IIRC.

It also seems to be somewhat discordant with the notion that what a player does at the AHL level doesn't matter. Clearly, if you are watching him play, gathering information based on that performance, and then allowing that information to impact your assessment it would certainly seem to imply that you must give some relevance to pre-NHL performance, yes?

But, just like you have finally admitted above, I'm sure others have looked at what Crawford's done over his career to date and have formed what they feel to be some fairly informed opinions on what the likely outcomes of his play may be.
I could point out how inaccurate, childish, and shallow your supposed "counterpoints" are, but I'm not doing this anymore. It was a mistake to stop ignoring you. And here I thought we had made some progress. Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
This thread is about their cap issues. They still only 17 players signed with 1.8m in space. And 9-10 of those players weren't full time Hawks last year.
True enough. They'll fill in those last 3 spots with minimum wage filler and we'll see if the talented top half of their roster is good enough to carry the mickey mouse bottom half - or if that bottom half is better than some of us think it is.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:30 PM
  #549
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
I could point out how inaccurate, childish, and shallow your supposed "counterpoints" are, but I'm not doing this anymore. It was a mistake to stop ignoring you. And here I thought we had made some progress. Oh well.



True enough. They'll fill in those last 3 spots with minimum wage filler and we'll see if the talented top half of their roster is good enough to carry the mickey mouse bottom half - or if that bottom half is better than some of us think it is.
They will they're best in the NHL. And their prospects are better than we'll ever know.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:41 PM
  #550
petesrw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 407
vCash: 500
Anyone think Chicago might claim Ritola if we waive him?

petesrw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.