Chicago Blackhawks Offseason Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

[apete6]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

 

Perfect summary. You don't let Kane walk away to keep either Crawford or Hammer.

[Banedon]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

 

Perfect summary. You don't let Kane walk away to keep either Crawford or Hammer.

 

Do you seriously think that Stan plans on letting Kane walk away? That the Toews and Kane situations aren't a factor in every signing they make?

[UMFan83]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

 

Perfect summary. You don't let Kane walk away to keep either Crawford or Hammer.

 

Do you seriously think that Stan plans on letting Kane walk away? That the Toews and Kane situations aren't a factor in every signing they make?

 

No I'm sure that is a factor in every signing. I think they are planning on Hossa and/or Sharp not being on the team when it comes time to resign Kane and Toews.

[SABR Gamer]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

 

Perfect summary. You don't let Kane walk away to keep either Crawford or Hammer.

 

Do you seriously think that Stan plans on letting Kane walk away? That the Toews and Kane situations aren't a factor in every signing they make?

 

No I'm sure that is a factor in every signing. I think they are planning on Hossa and/or Sharp not being on the team when it comes time to resign Kane and Toews.

 

I don't think Hossa will be going anywhere for a very long time, unfortunately. Kane and Toews will most definitely be extended. There's no way that Stan would do any of this if it had any impact whatsoever on his ability to re-sign those two.

[apete6]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not upset with the Hjalmarsson deal at all. It's a small bump in salary, and it locks up a great, highly-underrated defenseman.

 

 

I'm concerned about the commitments being made to guys who aren't the difference makers on this team. Taken by itself this signing isn't disappointing, but giving Crawford and Hjalmarsson a combined $10+m per year is a little perplexing to me.

 

Perfect summary. You don't let Kane walk away to keep either Crawford or Hammer.

 

Do you seriously think that Stan plans on letting Kane walk away? That the Toews and Kane situations aren't a factor in every signing they make?

 

No I'm sure that is a factor in every signing. I think they are planning on Hossa and/or Sharp not being on the team when it comes time to resign Kane and Toews.

 

Agreed, say goodbye to Sharp and one of Keith/Seabrook unless the cap gets a HUGE bump or they plan on having 8 guys make over $4m and everyone else on the roster be a minimum salary guy.

[seanimal]

I think the Hawks are wise to not jettison Crawford just because of the system of that they may have someone else who can do a competent job. That being said, this deal really only makes sense if they believed that Crawford would be worth more next off-season. I have a hard time seeing that. I do not think anyone thinks Crawford is some sort of elite game/series stealing goalie. They only thing that I think could happen is that he has less value next off-season...which of course will make this deal look bad.

 

have you seen the deals that goalies have been signing in the last few years? goalies are getting top-line forward deals now. that's just the reality of the situation. the organization felt like crow is enough of an asset to invest in. the years are a little long, but i'd eat my hat if crow didn't get this much or more next summer anyway

[seanimal]

alright kids, let's not [expletive] our pants here. crow's deal is kind of ugly in terms of years. however, if the growth in the cap pans out the way people expect, then there will be plenty of room to keep the core intact

[jersey cubs fan]

alright kids, let's not [expletive] our pants here. crow's deal is kind of ugly in terms of years. however, if the growth in the cap pans out the way people expect, then there will be plenty of room to keep the core intact

 

It's not just years, I just don't think he's anything special. I don't really care if he would have gotten more from somebody else, that is a terrible way to justify moves. Sports management types are notoriously foolish with money. Goalies come and go and aside from a very select few, do not impact the team all that much.

 

The Blackhawks don't just have to keep Toews/Kane intact, they will need to bring in more talent from outside the organization, not to mention pay the next wave of talent when those raises are due.

[kujay]

One thing about Hammer's deal is that we aren't stuck with it. Unless he just totally tanks, which I don't see happening, in a year or two that contract will be moved very easily.

 

There's just too much of a microscope on goalies. If he tanks, we're boned.

 

The farm system is generally considered to have a ton of depth, especially considering the lack of high draft picks the team has had in the last few years. So if this is setting up to move a Seabrook or Sharp to get more pieces, then fine. That's how this has to work in a salary cap system. Then you need the young guys to pan out. So far, so good.

[UMFan83]

Just for reference, some of the big goalie extensions given out in recent years:

 

Ryan Milller, BUF (7/08) 5 years 31.5 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Cam Ward, CAR (9/09) 6 years 37.8 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Roberto Luongo, VAN (9/09) 12 years 64 million ($5.33m cap hit)

Pekka Rinne, NAS (11/11) 7 years 49 million ($7m cap hit)

Ondrej Pavelec, WIN (6/12) 5 years 19.5 million (3.9m cap hit)

Jonathan Quick, LAK (6/12) 10 years 58 million ($5.8m cap hit)

Carey Price, MTL (7/12) 6 years 39 million ($6.5m cap hit)

Kari Lehtonen, DAL (9/12) 5 years 29.5 million ($5.9m cap hit)

Jimmy Howard, DET (4/13) 6 years 31.8 million ($5.3m cap hit)

Niklas Backstrom, MIN (6/13) 3 years 10.25 million ($3.42m cap hit)

Mike Smith, PHX (7/13) 6 years 34 million ($5.67m cap hit)

Tuukka Rask, BOS (7/13) 8 years 56 million ($7m cap hit)

Corey Crawford, CHI (9/13) 6 years 36 million ($6m cap hit)

[kujay]

Just for reference, some of the big goalie extensions given out in recent years:

 

Ryan Milller, BUF (7/08) 5 years 31.5 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Cam Ward, CAR (9/09) 6 years 37.8 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Roberto Luongo, VAN (9/09) 12 years 64 million ($5.33m cap hit)

Pekka Rinne, NAS (11/11) 7 years 49 million ($7m cap hit)

Ondrej Pavelec, WIN (6/12) 5 years 19.5 million (3.9m cap hit)

Jonathan Quick, LAK (6/12) 10 years 58 million ($5.8m cap hit)

Carey Price, MTL (7/12) 6 years 39 million ($6.5m cap hit)

Kari Lehtonen, DAL (9/12) 5 years 29.5 million ($5.9m cap hit)

Jimmy Howard, DET (4/13) 6 years 31.8 million ($5.3m cap hit)

Niklas Backstrom, MIN (6/13) 3 years 10.25 million ($3.42m cap hit)

Mike Smith, PHX (7/13) 6 years 34 million ($5.67m cap hit)

Tuukka Rask, BOS (7/13) 8 years 56 million ($7m cap hit)

Corey Crawford, CHI (9/13) 6 years 36 million ($6m cap hit)

 

And how many of those have turned out to be good decisions? Seems about 50/50 at best.

[Guest]

Just for reference, some of the big goalie extensions given out in recent years:

 

Ryan Milller, BUF (7/08) 5 years 31.5 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Cam Ward, CAR (9/09) 6 years 37.8 million ($6.3m cap hit)

Roberto Luongo, VAN (9/09) 12 years 64 million ($5.33m cap hit)

Pekka Rinne, NAS (11/11) 7 years 49 million ($7m cap hit)

Ondrej Pavelec, WIN (6/12) 5 years 19.5 million (3.9m cap hit)

Jonathan Quick, LAK (6/12) 10 years 58 million ($5.8m cap hit)

Carey Price, MTL (7/12) 6 years 39 million ($6.5m cap hit)

Kari Lehtonen, DAL (9/12) 5 years 29.5 million ($5.9m cap hit)

Jimmy Howard, DET (4/13) 6 years 31.8 million ($5.3m cap hit)

Niklas Backstrom, MIN (6/13) 3 years 10.25 million ($3.42m cap hit)

Mike Smith, PHX (7/13) 6 years 34 million ($5.67m cap hit)

Tuukka Rask, BOS (7/13) 8 years 56 million ($7m cap hit)

Corey Crawford, CHI (9/13) 6 years 36 million ($6m cap hit)

 

And how many of those have turned out to be good decisions? Seems about 50/50 at best.

 

I don't really see that much harm. Crawford turned into another face of the franchise with his stellar play that helped result in a Stanley Cup victory. The team is trying to keep that core of franchise faces together for a very long time. If it costs them one of the star players down the road, then it might be time to reconsider. Realistically, it doesn't seem as though it's out of line with most other players and it's probably quite tradeable in a few years.

[Guest]

guys, 5/21 for a 26 year old hjalmarsson is a great deal. he would have gotten more from somebody else. this deal has gotten almost universal praise everywhere else.

[jersey cubs fan]

guys, 5/21 for a 26 year old hjalmarsson is a great deal. he would have gotten more from somebody else. this deal has gotten almost universal praise everywhere else.

 

I think the focus has been on Crawford's deal.

[kujay]

guys, 5/21 for a 26 year old hjalmarsson is a great deal. he would have gotten more from somebody else. this deal has gotten almost universal praise everywhere else.

 

I think the focus has been on Crawford's deal.

 

Well, I admit to bugging out a little about this one too, though not nearly as much as Crow's deal.

 

I just don't like these longer deals when there are bigger issues that will need to be dealt with down the road. And I'm not comfortable with the argument that we needed to give him this because he would have gotten more somewhere else. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for this team to give him that contract.

 

He's a very solid stay-at-home defenseman, a good #3-4 guy. But with our high-end money guys, a $4/yr #3-4 defenseman may not be something we can afford. As someone else said, if the cap goes up as people expect it to, in two years we'll probably look at this signing as a great move.

[Guest]

the thing is, as long as he stays healthy the contract should be movable at any time... especially with the cap going up.

[seanimal]

alright kids, let's not [expletive] our pants here. crow's deal is kind of ugly in terms of years. however, if the growth in the cap pans out the way people expect, then there will be plenty of room to keep the core intact

 

It's not just years, I just don't think he's anything special. I don't really care if he would have gotten more from somebody else, that is a terrible way to justify moves. Sports management types are notoriously foolish with money. Goalies come and go and aside from a very select few, do not impact the team all that much.

 

The Blackhawks don't just have to keep Toews/Kane intact, they will need to bring in more talent from outside the organization, not to mention pay the next wave of talent when those raises are due.

 

has anyone actually argued that we should have signed him because he would have gotten more elsewhere? because i haven't, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up. i'm guessing the organization felt confident in signing him to the deal knowing that there might be a couple of junk years at the end because he's relatively injury-free, has responded well to coaching, believe he hasn't peaked, and was the best goalie when it mattered

 

of course you can let him walk, but you're more likely to end up with a marty turco than a tuukka rask. goalies aren't as important as these big top-line forward type contracts are making them seem at the moment, but it's easy to want to gamble when you have a good one. it's a much different story when you have a [expletive] one. to say that they don't impact the team "all that much" is nonsense. they're one of the most important

[Banedon]

Toews doesn't love the Team Canada jersey. Don't blame him.

 

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/S2UrFNKplh3lazro0OZQ.A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusnhlexperts/179600832.jpg

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/team-canada-olympic-jersey-photo-010748899--nhl.html

[jersey cubs fan]

 

has anyone actually argued that we should have signed him because he would have gotten more elsewhere? because i haven't, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

 

yes, you for one

 

the years are a little long, but i'd eat my hat if crow didn't get this much or more next summer anyway

[RynoRules]

Hammer's contract seems movable to me. He's a young, second pair D-man with significant playoff experience. The only way he could be more valuable is if he were a clear first-pair guy or scoring fwd.

 

Craw's is dependent on whether he plays close to last year's level consistently over the next several years. I'm not confident yet that he can, mainly because few goalies are consistent year-over-year. That said, if they maintain defensive talent in front of him (including defensive fwds) they can mask some of his issues (glove!).

[jersey cubs fan]

the thing is, as long as he stays healthy the contract should be movable at any time... especially with the cap going up.

 

doubtful. There aren't many teams desperate to press the high end of the cap. If he plays to a level that you will want to trade him, you won't be able to trade him, except in a take back some other junk situation.

[seanimal]

 

has anyone actually argued that we should have signed him because he would have gotten more elsewhere? because i haven't, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

 

yes, you for one

 

the years are a little long, but i'd eat my hat if crow didn't get this much or more next summer anyway

 

that's not what that is. i was responding to what newusername said about crow getting less on the open market next summer if we didn't re-sign him

[seanimal]

Hammer's contract seems movable to me. He's a young, second pair D-man with significant playoff experience. The only way he could be more valuable is if he were a clear first-pair guy or scoring fwd.

 

Craw's is dependent on whether he plays close to last year's level consistently over the next several years. I'm not confident yet that he can, mainly because few goalies are consistent year-over-year. That said, if they maintain defensive talent in front of him (including defensive fwds) they can mask some of his issues (glove!).

 

hammer played up this year. him and keith really had improved years all around. seabrook sucked, not sure why anyone would miss him, man crushes aside

 

i don't think crow's main issue is his glove. i think he just tends to drift a little to far forward in the crease, leaving him more ground to cover if a quick-developing play gets deep and requires him to go post-to-post

[biittner77]

I'm not so sure Hammer isn't a first pair guy right now. Seabrook brings more offensively but he started and ended last season with some very questionable (if not downright bad) play.

 

I get that it's wrong to use "someone else would have paid him that or more" argument to rationalize a bad signing. That's not what's happening here. This move is insurance against the up and coming defensemen not panning out. Olsen took several steps back last season. Johns might try to become a FA once he leaves ND. Stanton looks to be more of a puck mover.Others might be more than a couple years away or plain old not as good.

 

The Hawks paid less than market value for a known commodity and an effective contributor. If they need to, they could move Hammer in a matter of seconds.

 

The Crawford signing is like giving a "proven closer" with a 1.50 WHIP $10 million for 5 years.