HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Crawford signs extension: 6 years

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2013, 10:56 AM
  #51
xX Hot Fuss
HFBoards Sponsor
 
xX Hot Fuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 9,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayBannerman View Post
If he plays well and we sign him next year, we're more than likely looking at 7+ mil.

Not saying I'm happy about this, but there's silver lining.
Or we could have let him walk and found another "system" goalie that would be decent enough to do well in a system that has won 2 cups in 4 years...

xX Hot Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:57 AM
  #52
xX Hot Fuss
HFBoards Sponsor
 
xX Hot Fuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 9,808
vCash: 500
Crawford hasn't played a game yet under his new contract so i won't judge it too much yet. I just don't think he's earned it so far on his 3 years of work. I'll reserve judgement until the appropriate time.

Trust Corey, trust Bowman, trust Q and Co to keep a SCF caliber system in place.

xX Hot Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:59 AM
  #53
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
That being said, don't think it's as bad as some are making it to be, given the universal opinion that the cap is going to go up in a big way in the next few years.
I agree with this. It's more than I want to see on the goalie next year but I only see it as about a million worth of overpayment. It might sting for 2015, but I think there's plenty of time to work around this deal. The only real uncomfortable parts of this contract for me are 2015 and 16' and the length. If they had to go into 2015 with Raanta and a system goalie/FA, I would be much more uncomfortable than I am with this contract.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:59 AM
  #54
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Don't like it. We have had Goalies with these big contracts before and it really puts us in a jam if they don't live up to expectations. This makes him what, the 7th highest paid goalie in the NHL. At least see how he does with the new pads before committing.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:18 AM
  #55
RedBaronIndian
Rest in Peace
 
RedBaronIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
I am extremely disappointed if the term and the caphit are true. WTF is Stan doing?

RedBaronIndian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:20 AM
  #56
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
I am extremely disappointed if the term and the caphit are true. WTF is Stan doing?
Solidifying our goaltending position for the next 7 years

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:27 AM
  #57
RedBaronIndian
Rest in Peace
 
RedBaronIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Solidifying our goaltending position for the next 7 years
by signing him at the absolute worst time possible? I have serious doubts that Crawford would have gotten 6 million as a UFA next year. Why not wait and see how he performs next year and what we have in Raanta before committing big money and term to Craw.

RedBaronIndian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:28 AM
  #58
Judrix
Kruger is our 2C
 
Judrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
A goalie with Crawford's 1st and 3rd season's is a franchise one. I chalk his second year as a sophomore slump. Goal-tending has been solidified for the foreseeable future.

Judrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:31 AM
  #59
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
by signing him at the absolute worst time possible? I have serious doubts that Crawford would have gotten 6 million as a UFA next year. Why not wait and see how he performs next year and what we have in Raanta before committing big money and term to Craw.
Raanta's play should have nothing to do with a decision on Crawford. It will take more than a year to figure out what they really have in Raanta anyway.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:33 AM
  #60
ReLyT
Registered User
 
ReLyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,862
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ReLyT
He Joe Flacco'd... no question about it. But he will always have the Stanley Cup winner tag. So if he starts to lose his job to Raanta or someone else, we will be able to move him no doubt.

I'm not upset. Do I think he is overpaid? Of course. But he hit the jackpot at the right time.

ReLyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:42 AM
  #61
Marina
#freemorin
 
Marina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 17,246
vCash: 1200


Thought it was kind of interesting that he wants to stay 'till his career is over. Could just be media lip of course.

Marina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:43 AM
  #62
HawksFan86
Registered User
 
HawksFan86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 55
vCash: 500
Don't get me wrong I love Crow and will always greatly appreciate what he did for us during the past season but I have a terrible feeling about this.

Lets face it Crow is a solid goalie (capable of stellar play and capable of not so stellar play) but our defense made Emery look stellar as well. If this deal spells the end of Hammer we lose a key piece of our defense and that in turn hurts Crow.

I'm hoping the FO knows the cap is going to jump a lot because if not I really dislike this move, we have already shown this team can win a Cup with Niemi and now Crawford, the common theme was the team in front of them, investing big money in the goalie and potentially weakening the forwards/defense isn't a strategy I'm confident in.

With Hammer, Toews, and Kane all on the horizon for UFA not to mention Shaw, Saad, and Leddy as RFA I really hope Stan knows what he's doing giving Crow 6 mil per.

HawksFan86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:49 AM
  #63
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
by signing him at the absolute worst time possible? I have serious doubts that Crawford would have gotten 6 million as a UFA next year. Why not wait and see how he performs next year and what we have in Raanta before committing big money and term to Craw.
The worst time possible would be next summer when he's an UFA. Crawford had one bad year. There's no reason to think he won't be good next year

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:52 AM
  #64
RedBaronIndian
Rest in Peace
 
RedBaronIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
The worst time possible would be next summer when he's an UFA. Crawford had one bad year. There's no reason to think he won't be good next year
I hope you are right. This is upsetting me much more than it should.

RedBaronIndian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:53 AM
  #65
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 95,189
vCash: 200
It is what it is

I am just gonna trust Bowman on this (He has earned it)

Hawks wanted stability going forward in net and know they can win with Crawford and what he brings to table

Don't like the term + cost combo (A few years too long and 1M too much IMO) but we shall just see how this goes

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:09 PM
  #66
Hawkman
Moderator
#8 Andre Dawson
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,775
vCash: 500
I realize the playoffs are different, but when I see guys such as Bobrovsky and Niemi being 2013 Vezina finalists, I wonder if we could have gotten someone just as good for less $ and less years.

__________________
Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:10 PM
  #67
wladyslaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan86 View Post
Don't get me wrong I love Crow and will always greatly appreciate what he did for us during the past season but I have a terrible feeling about this.

Lets face it Crow is a solid goalie (capable of stellar play and capable of not so stellar play) but our defense made Emery look stellar as well. If this deal spells the end of Hammer we lose a key piece of our defense and that in turn hurts Crow.

I'm hoping the FO knows the cap is going to jump a lot because if not I really dislike this move, we have already shown this team can win a Cup with Niemi and now Crawford, the common theme was the team in front of them, investing big money in the goalie and potentially weakening the forwards/defense isn't a strategy I'm confident in.

With Hammer, Toews, and Kane all on the horizon for UFA not to mention Shaw, Saad, and Leddy as RFA I really hope Stan knows what he's doing giving Crow 6 mil per.
Looking at Capgeek- and Projecting $16M for 19/88, around $5.5M for 20/65, $3.75 Leddy, Clendening under $2M
1.) Cap really needs to go North of $72M by end 2016 season-
2.) We have plenty of young/cheap forward prospects/options to fill forward spots
3.) the key will be how well/good D prospects pan out... Olsen- bust, but Dahlback seems to be doing well in AHL, so Johns, Norell, Press, and Fournier, Dahlstrom will have 2-3 years to blossom.

I personally have not seen enough of these D guys to know how well they can replace Oduya, Rosey, and possibly Hammer.

If Cap goes near $74M+ by then- Hawks should have enough to keep Hammer!
So SB will look pretty smart again.

If Cap is below $72M... BAD DEAL!!!

wladyslaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:14 PM
  #68
topnotch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
It is what it is

I am just gonna trust Bowman on this (He has earned it)

Hawks wanted stability going forward in net and know they can win with Crawford and what he brings to table

Don't like the term + cost combo (A few years too long and 1M too much IMO) but we shall just see how this goes
I agree.

Bowman has earned my trust. I think this contract is an overpayment by about 1 million but it does give the Hawks stability.

The Hawks window for winning more Cups is in the next 5 years. Letting Crawford go and trying to make way with Raanta and other unproven or washed up goaltenders could throw away 2-3 years of Cup chances.

If this signing doesn't cost the Hawks Hjalmarsson then it's a good contract. A possible solution next year is Bowman trading Oduya or Rozsival to fit in Hjalmarsson.

topnotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:24 PM
  #69
zac
Registered User
 
zac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Solidifying our goaltending position for the next 7 years
You don't sign an unproven commodity, especially one between the pipes, for 6 years.

Goalies are like relievers in baseball. You have a select few, such as Mariano Rivera and Henrik Lundqvist that are lights out every year. Then you have another handful that are really good most years. Even those good ones can be prone to extreme fluctuations, with injuries being a key concern. There's a reason why relievers aren't signed to long term deals and the same should be said for most goalies (I understand goalie is an infinitely more important position but the paralles between the two are still valid). There's just way too much uncertainty for that kind of commitment.

This is even more mindboggling given that we signed Raanta. Not only should Corey have to prove himself, I think we had pretty good leverage to make him prove himself. How many teams would be willing to shell out big bucks and years for Crawford? I don't think it would be that many and the ones that likely would are mostly ****** teams. Take this year to evaluate Crawford during a FULL season while also seeing what Raanta can do. If both play well then you have a decision to make. If Corey sucks then it seems the right decision was made, and if Corey does well you re-sign him.

Stan jumped the gun on this deal. I see absolutely no reason why he should have pulled the trigger this early.

zac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:30 PM
  #70
MadhouseOnMadison
Man crush on Amonte
 
MadhouseOnMadison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,255
vCash: 500
First Bickell and now this? I trust Bowman but man he's not putting me at ease allocating this kind of money to guys I'm still not convinced are worth their contracts.

MadhouseOnMadison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:32 PM
  #71
stahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zac View Post
You don't sign an unproven commodity, especially one between the pipes, for 6 years.

Goalies are like relievers in baseball. You have a select few, such as Mariano Rivera and Henrik Lundqvist that are lights out every year. Then you have another handful that are really good most years. Even those good ones can be prone to extreme fluctuations, with injuries being a key concern. There's a reason why relievers aren't signed to long term deals and the same should be said for most goalies (I understand goalie is an infinitely more important position but the paralles between the two are still valid). There's just way too much uncertainty for that kind of commitment.

This is even more mindboggling given that we signed Raanta. Not only should Corey have to prove himself, I think we had pretty good leverage to make him prove himself. How many teams would be willing to shell out big bucks and years for Crawford? I don't think it would be that many and the ones that likely would are mostly ****** teams. Take this year to evaluate Crawford during a FULL season while also seeing what Raanta can do. If both play well then you have a decision to make. If Corey sucks then it seems the right decision was made, and if Corey does well you re-sign him.

Stan jumped the gun on this deal. I see absolutely no reason why he should have pulled the trigger this early.
Crawford no longer has the unproven tag anymore. He was pretty much the Conn Smythe winner this year, even Kane says so.

Like it or not, Crawford proved himself this year. Time will tell if this move ends up being a bust, but with any contract, there is potential for it to go either way. We win 2 more cups in the next 6 years and have great goaltending along the way, everyone will be looking back on how this was a steal.

stahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:38 PM
  #72
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 95,189
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by zac View Post
You don't sign an unproven commodity, especially one between the pipes, for 6 years.

Goalies are like relievers in baseball. You have a select few, such as Mariano Rivera and Henrik Lundqvist that are lights out every year. Then you have another handful that are really good most years. Even those good ones can be prone to extreme fluctuations, with injuries being a key concern. There's a reason why relievers aren't signed to long term deals and the same should be said for most goalies (I understand goalie is an infinitely more important position but the paralles between the two are still valid). There's just way too much uncertainty for that kind of commitment.

This is even more mindboggling given that we signed Raanta. Not only should Corey have to prove himself, I think we had pretty good leverage to make him prove himself. How many teams would be willing to shell out big bucks and years for Crawford? I don't think it would be that many and the ones that likely would are mostly ****** teams. Take this year to evaluate Crawford during a FULL season while also seeing what Raanta can do. If both play well then you have a decision to make. If Corey sucks then it seems the right decision was made, and if Corey does well you re-sign him.

Stan jumped the gun on this deal. I see absolutely no reason why he should have pulled the trigger this early.
How is it mindboggling? Raanta is unproven and treating him like 2nd coming is a bit absurd

As for not signing Crawford. Well if they didn't with cap going up and he has another good year then the price will go up as well so it is cheaper to sign him now and not risk it

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:48 PM
  #73
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick hawk View Post
I agree. Last summer he was considered not good enough to start. Now he's a 6 million dollar goalie. I think its jumping the gun. The Hawks showed in their 2 cup wins that you can win without a goalie making huge bucks.

By who?

This peanut gallery, not management.


I'm a little disappointed that this board isn't in FULL meltdown mode like I thought it'd be.


Crow should have won the C.S. He was one of the BIG reasons that we have Cup #2.

This signing doesn't bother me and may end up looking like a bargain 3 years from now - which is what Stan is probably counting on.

Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:55 PM
  #74
wladyslaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
By who?

This peanut gallery, not management.


I'm a little disappointed that this board isn't in FULL meltdown mode like I thought it'd be.


Crow should have won the C.S. He was one of the BIG reasons that we have Cup #2.

This signing doesn't bother me and may end up looking like a bargain 3 years from now - which is what Stan is probably counting on.
CC was the one of big reasons we won cup? Emery had same stats as CC all year long!

The Hawks in front of the Goalies- were the BIG reason they won Cup!!!
And not saving that $6M for future Hawks in front of the Goalie- may be the reason they don't win again!!!

Of course, if Cap $72-$74M in 2016- it won't matter as much!

wladyslaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 12:56 PM
  #75
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
That's a long time. Will wait to see numbers.
It is 6 x 6.

Ha ha ha...I said earlier this summer I thought he would get paid about $6m on his next contract and people laughed and me.

His aav is higher than Quick's (although Quick got a 10 year contract)

UsernameWasTaken 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 04:29 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.