Make or break season for Crawford?

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I think whether you agree or disagree with the terms of the contract you gotta be happy for Corey Crawford. He might have been a platoon goalie but he looked solid in the games he was called upon, especially in big playoff games. Yes, he had a great team around him but so has every Stanley Cup winning goalie (except maybe Charlie Gardiner, remember him Hawk fans? Probably not, ask your great great great grandparents tho).

 

[JBM73]

Agreed, B-nut (hope you don't mind the nickname of your nickname. ;-).

Yeah Doob, regardless of how I feel about the contract I'm happy for Crawford. I started watching the Hawks in the 80's, so those years of frustration definitely help me to keep an appreciative perspective on what this team has accomplished. While I disagree with both the length and $$$ of the contract given to a goalie who was TERRIBLE just 2 years ago, the current front office has made far more good moves than bad, so I'll trust that they know what they're doing.

 

[gmalis1]

Not a Crawford hater either but 6 million for him is nota good deal at his point when you consider 6 years. could have easily done 4 years instead. But at least now we will see what he does with that contract in tow. If he falters with that D in front of him, the thud will be heard all the way to canada

I'm sure if the Hawks could have gotten him for four years instead of six, they would have. You think the Hawks wanted to throw six years at Crawford just because they thought it was cool? Negotiating goes on both ways. Crawford's people wanted the security of a longer term contract...and they got it. Good for them. Obviously the Hawks felt they got a good deal because they agreed to the term.

Personally, I would have liked four years too. But it is what it is. When I looked at the list of goalies paid more than CC, I didn't feel all that bad at the cost and the term.

 

[gmalis1]

The guy just had the lowest GAA and highest save percentage in the playoffs and in Blackhawks playoff history.

And some are still hating on him? That's why I get pissed at some posters on here.

The guy was undoubtedly the MVP of the playoffs and he just won his team the Cup.

And still doubters. Give him a break already and show him some love.

 

[Baseballnut77]

sorry bud this is a what have you done for me lately world. And this contract says is you were good last year.Make no mistake i want him to do well and i want him to prove he is worth this contract. When he does that then and only then will i give him anything more than my respect

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Agreed, B-nut (hope you don't mind the nickname of your nickname. ;-).

Yeah Doob, regardless of how I feel about the contract I'm happy for Crawford. I started watching the Hawks in the 80's, so those years of frustration definitely help me to keep an appreciative perspective on what this team has accomplished. While I disagree with both the length and $$$ of the contract given to a goalie who was TERRIBLE just 2 years ago, the current front office has made far more good moves than bad, so I'll trust that they know what they're doing.

Al Secord, Denis Savard, Darren Pang era?

Yeah, I remember them just throwing away goalies like Dominic Hasek, Ed Belfour, Jocelyn Thibault, but what really bugged me was how they just let Niemi go. If they had done the same to Crawford, one would have to wonder if they had any respect for their goalies. Glad they gave Crawford the respect he deserves. If he develops like how Niemi developed, Crawford could very well be worth every penny of that contract and some.

 

[HockeyDoug]

Not a Crawford hater either but 6 million for him is nota good deal at his point when you consider 6 years. could have easily done 4 years instead. But at least now we will see what he does with that contract in tow. If he falters with that D in front of him, the thud will be heard all the way to canada

He was going to get the money or the years. 4 years may have cost 7.5 or more, and probably wasn't even an option yet. Crawford was going to get his money.

 

[HockeyDoug]

One of the reasons Niemi was let go was because Crawford was very likely "their guy" the whole time. The current assistant gm of the CLB club was Niemi's agent and contract negotiations broke down long before Niemi solidified the starting spot in large part because Crawford was their guy (Bowman's) from what I understand based on the statements and some of the more reliable rumors.

Crawford had lost his waiver exemption in 2010, so that played a major part in the decision to use the slightly older and slightly more experienced at the pro level, Niemi, as the backup. Crawford was only a "black ace" in 2010, otherwise he would have had to pass through waivers, which wouldn't have worked out well.

I don't think the Niemi situation was ever as simple as paying him a certain amount in a contract. He/they (his agent) wanted to set him up for the next contract too and that meant finding a spot with a big payday or lots of ice time. Niemi was not assured of the clear starting job in Chicago before the 2010 playoffs, and by the end of the run, it may have been too late to come to any agreement anyway and Crawford was going to be competing for the job in 2011.

 

[HockeyDoug]

About the contract, I don't like the 6x6, I would have preferred it a 6x5.

6x6 is good market value. He paid his dues in the system and played very well overall and has the ring, jennings, bouncing back from a down year and excelling under pressure and expectations. He's done everything you want from a starter and he's in his prime so I don't think the contract is bad at all.

I would have been okay if they let him go for this amount but I'm not too upset about it, the extra cap hit may sting in 2015 but they were going to waste cap space on a UFA goalie anyway since the system isn't like to produce reliable help for a while and a starter for probably longer.

Bickell's contract makes me more uncomfortable than Crawford. Nothing suggests he can't handle 50+ starts and postseason pressure. I'm not sure what good alternatives are out there anyway so it is better to do this extension now rather than later. I think next summer will be a terrible time to get in a bidding war for talent so it is very possibly the best of the not-so-good options out there. I think he's getting 1 million more than Chicago should pay for the number 1, but it isn't like he's getting an unfair contract.

We'll see what happens with contracts the next 11 months and I'll have a better idea of how comfortable or uncomfortable I am with this contract.

New goalie coach, cup hangover, new backup, new expectations, so I'm expecting a drop off in his play next year but I'm expecting a better year the following season. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[anotheridiot]

I would be ok with the 36, but go 5-6-6.5-7-6.5-5 in some way so its a lighter hit when its trade time. Most other teams do this, the hawks want to go straight across both with bicks and crow. you gotta wonder what he will do with toews and kane.

 

[gmalis1]

I don't think the new CBA allows you to have staggered amounts over the term of the contract. This prevents teams from backloading contracts making it easier to have players retire with a lot of cap hit left on the table.

Either the amounts are evenly distributed throughout the contract or the cap hit itself is money divided by length of contract. Either way the cap hit is $6 million a year regardless of how it would be structured.

 

[HockeyDoug]

They can have a maximum 50% variance on the contract. I'm in favor of more money up front and less at the end. Lots of teams, at least a dozen, will be on an internal budget for quite a while. I would have preferred a different structure as well.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I think the problem with giving money up front is that in a way it defies the purpose of the salary cap. A lot of teams don't have the money to offer up front, so the teams that do can in a way outbid for free agents. Personally think that contracts should be constant throughout their duration.

 

[JBM73]

I think the problem with giving money up front is that in a way it defies the purpose of the salary cap. A lot of teams don't have the money to offer up front, so the teams that do can in a way outbid for free agents. Personally think that contracts should be constant throughout their duration.

So says the fan of a small market team...

 

[gmalis1]

Just for grins, here are the longest NHL deals regarding goaltenders:

Rick DiPietro 13 years
Roberto Luongo 12
Jonathan Quick 10
Ilya Bryzgalov 9
Tuuka Rask 8
Pekka Rinne 7
Marc-Andre Fleury 7
Henrik Lundquist 6
Carey Price 6
Cam Ward 6
Mikka Kiprusoff 6
Mike Smith 6
Jimmy Howard 6
Corey Crawford 6

Still think Crawford's contract length is out of line?

 

[JBM73]

#NHLrank: Goaltenders - ESPN

 

[HockeyDoug]

I think the problem with giving money up front is that in a way it defies the purpose of the salary cap. A lot of teams don't have the money to offer up front, so the teams that do can in a way outbid for free agents. Personally think that contracts should be constant throughout their duration.

This is true, but because most of these smaller teams make money off of the bigger teams, it's entirely justified to give the larger teams an advantage. It's much better than it was.

Nashville collects a ton of tv and league sponsorship money, and revenue without giving back a whole bunch in return. I don't think it's right to put MTL and NAS on completely equal footing. Without adjusting contract structures, the only advantage a big team has is the amount of front office staff and geography (in some cases).

 

[anotheridiot]

Just for grins, here are the longest NHL deals regarding goaltenders:

Rick DiPietro 13 years
Roberto Luongo 12
Jonathan Quick 10
Ilya Bryzgalov 9
Tuuka Rask 8
Pekka Rinne 7
Marc-Andre Fleury 7
Henrik Lundquist 6
Carey Price 6
Cam Ward 6
Mikka Kiprusoff 6
Mike Smith 6
Jimmy Howard 6
Corey Crawford 6

Still think Crawford's contract length is out of line?

After what happened with Luongo becoming a backup and handcuffing the organization, 6 years is long.

I say 70% of that list is not the #1 goaltender on their team during the length of the contract.

 

[gmalis1]

After what happened with Luongo becoming a backup and handcuffing the organization, 6 years is long.

I say 70% of that list is not the #1 goaltender on their team during the length of the contract.

Hey, I'm not sure any Hawks fans think the length is correct. Pretty much we all agree that six years is too long. But as I pointed out, it's not out of line in the NHL.

Now, negotiations are a two way street. Corey's agent and every agent is working towards getting the most money for the longest term. Obviously Stan B and his front office feel that Corey will be the Hawks goaltender for a long time to come. Who's to say. If he has another year even close to last season, we will all be more than happy the Hawks signed him to an extension. If he has a mediocre season, then it will look like a bad deal.

Only time will tell.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

So says the fan of a small market team...

LOL I don't think we've been a small market team since we got Sid tho.