We'll see what happens over the season into next summer, but I think Crawford will be going before Hjalmarsson goes.
- EKolb13

Goalies like crawford are much more readily replaceable than a sound defenseman like Hammer

Look, I think we all agree Niemi is better than Crawford, and look how quickly we replaced him with an inferior goalie like Crawford to win a second cup in four years

The writing might already be on the wall for Crawdiddly

I don't see the Hawks parting ways with Crawford. He is clearly the goalie going forward. I see us getting rid of Hammer way before getting rid of Crawford. We already lost one goalie to Hammer, I don't think we can stomach two. Hammer is good, don't get me wrong, but he can be replaced. Especially when we have so much depth in defense in Rockford right now.
- cm359531

The Hawks' FO didn't "lose" Niemi to Hammer. They chose Hammer over Niemi. They will make that choice again because it is their organizational philosphy. We as fans might not like it, but that's how Bowman & Co roll. I, for one, think it is a sound plan.

Hahaha, a goalie debate. Crawford won a Cup which means he is kind of good. I doubt the Hawks spend big on a goalie. Pretty sure they don't need to either. You want to throw the marketing hodgepodge in there and this is a team built on speed to score a lot of goals and play entertaining hockey.

Spending big on a goalie seems like the opposite of that philosophy.

That being said. I think the organization realizes the start to this season could be bumpy. During that time I also think they are willing to deal with the rookie mistakes and hope they pick up the system and "find themselves" around the Olympic break. If not they probably look to deal for veterans to fill those holes.
- fattybeef

We really are lucky to be fans of This team. Like Kane said, this is hockey, baby. They are fast, skilled, and always attacking trying to get the puck up ice and score. Built for attacking and there will be guys like Shaw, danault, hartman, and hopefully Mcneill who play a very tenacious and skilled style to add to mix

It's all about who can be replaced easier and cheaper. If it comes down to Hammer and Crawford then Crawford goes because he can be replaced a lot easier than Hjalmarsson. Stan already has Crawford's replacement lined up - Raanta. If we lose Hjalmarsson there is no replacement from within and Stan would be forced to overpay on the free agent market.
- DarthKane

You forgot to add the words "in theory." Return of the Roar said it yesterday, is Raanta another Niemi, or is he another Hannu Toivonen? I guess we'll find out this season.

You forgot to add the words "in theory." Return of the Roar said it yesterday, is Raanta another Niemi, or is he another Hannu Toivonen? I guess we'll find out this season.
- EKolb13

But as JJ points out Raanta has more "skins on the wall" (I love that saying) than Niemi.

Idiot Oilers! With their current lineup Gagner rates as the number 3 center. $4.8 M for a third line center and they gave him a NTC and NMC. As I said, Idiot Oilers!
- paulr

Kind of mind boggling with those contracts coming up with those power house forwards.

You forgot to add the words "in theory." Return of the Roar said it yesterday, is Raanta another Niemi, or is he another Hannu Toivonen? I guess we'll find out this season.
- EKolb13

If its more like Niemi, then all is good.

If its more like Hannu, oh oh. There isn't much in the AHL, then what do they do? Pay someone cheaper than Crawford, uhmmmmm like who? Theodore? Nabakov?

Crawford might just be getting money from the Hawks if Raanta doesn't make it.

Goalies like crawford are much more readily replaceable than a sound defenseman like Hammer

Look, I think we all agree Niemi is better than Crawford, and look how quickly we replaced him with an inferior goalie like Crawford to win a second cup in four years

The writing might already be on the wall for Crawdiddly
- FourFeathers773

If Hjalmersson comes in looking for a huge raise he'll be gone too.

If Hjalmersson comes in looking for a huge raise he'll be gone too.
- paulr

That might be it. But it wouldn't surprise me if Seabs were the one and Hammer takes his spot.

and Rask was plain not elite at the end....lost his composure got caught in an awkward position making the first save and couldn't defend the next shot that tied the game...

and them wandered when he should have stayed home on the winner.

I love all elite talk and rankings

didn't elite Kings goalie score one in the blues series? for the blues?

next season in the first night where MANY teams are playing (AND HAWKS ARE NOT)all of us with access should get assigned a golaie and the job will be to count shots to the glove area....
I will bet my slot hockey game you will see that is where most shooters go there no matter which goalie they face...
- wiz1901

This may come as a shock to some, but all NHL goalies are elite.

This may come as a shock to some, but all NHL goalies are elite.
- TrueGrit

To an extent. How so?

You forgot to add the words "in theory." Return of the Roar said it yesterday, is Raanta another Niemi, or is he another Hannu Toivonen? I guess we'll find out this season.
- EKolb13

And further to that point, if the guy pans out, no reason why at worst it is just downward pressure on Crawford's future salary demands. C2 may take a discount to stay, making the Finn a backup until he can prove he can handle the NHL game, load and pressure..

Quite frankly, no matter how many "skins on the wall" that Raanta may have in Europe, it is a different game across the pond, and a good part of the a year in Rockford will start to tell the story. He would still have to further demonstrate the ability to start 75% of the games at the NHL level after just one year in the AHL to be considered as the starter. And who would his backup be? I don't think Simpson or Carruth will be ready either.

I still think you see C2 at $3.5MM on a four year deal, and Raanta around $1.5MM for two to give him time to demonstrate he can succeed in the NHL, and keeping the tandem cost around $5MM.

That might be it. But it wouldn't surprise me if Seabs were the one and Hammer takes his spot.
- robhawks

That wouldn't surprise me too much either however the one huge intangible Seabrook brings is leadership. One could argue that it was Seabrook's leadership in getting Toews to regain his focus was the reason the Hawks were able to get past Detroit.

If Hjalmersson comes in looking for a huge raise he'll be gone too.
- paulr

You sure? Hjalmarsson was the Hawks best defenseman from game 1 through the Stanley cup finals. Check out his zone starts. Q had him on every defensive draw. And usually had him out against top lines. This is a league where Dennis Wideman gets 5.5. If Hjalmarsson is deemed as a #1 blue liner, and the answer from Q is a big fat "YES", then I could see him wanting that kind of money and possibly getting it from the Hawks.

But as JJ points out Raanta has more "skins on the wall" (I love that saying) than Niemi.
- DarthKane

"Skins on the wall." It's a good line. I can see why you like saying that.

However, it all depends if he can translate his game to North America? If he can't do that, it doesn't matter how many "skins on the wall" he has.

From what I read about him, I'm fairly certain that he will be okay. After seeing Salak meltdown in Rockford, perhaps I'm a little gun shy when it comes to newly transplanted goalies coming over from Europe.

That wouldn't surprise me too much either however the one huge intangible Seabrook brings is leadership. One could argue that it was Seabrook's leadership in getting Toews to regain his focus was the reason the Hawks were able to get past Detroit.
- paulr

True. But you never know. Still plenty of leadership. Maybe "Seabrooks name" gets a solid 3-4 damn, a young power forward, and a high draft pick. Who knows, just spitballing.

How about this:

Brookbank and a pick or prospect

For

T.J. Galiardi

CGY gets a much need physical blueliner who is not Shane O'Brien. CHI gets Frolik replacement with upside.

True. But you never know. Still plenty of leadership. Maybe "Seabrooks name" gets a solid 3-4 damn, a young power forward, and a high draft pick. Who knows, just spitballing.
- robhawks

Man oh man

"Spitballing"

"Skins on the wall".

We are a bunch of metaphoric machines on this blog.

"Skins on the wall." It's a good line. I can see why you like saying that.

However, it all depends if he can translate his game to North America? If he can't do that, it doesn't matter how many "skins on the wall" he has.

From what I read about him, I'm fairly certain that he will be okay. After seeing Salak meltdown in Rockford, perhaps I'm a little gun shy when it comes to newly transplanted goalies coming over from Europe.
- EKolb13

The other issue with Raanta is that he is a flopper, very much in the Hasek mold with respect to style, as Wiz noted a while back. On its face that may seem to be a good thing, but conventional wisdom in the NHL has tremendously shifted from athleticism to pure size and stationary net coverage. Maybe data prove out that is a better model...who knows.

Bottom line - many variables all have to line up for this guy to be an NHL caliber goalie let alone a starter within a year.

You throw attitude often, chief. My attitude in my last post was an exact quote of the language you used toward me - how's it attitude when I do it? Since your earlier post there have been many who agree that Crawford deserved the CS, but I still haven't found anyone saying that Crawford is as good as Rinne, Rask, Quick or King Henry, as you have alleged several times.

Yesterday you said I was wrong about Crawford's cap hit compared to others. When I gave you the evidence to support my point you compared me to a drunk. Now today you totally misrepresent my (and others') position on Crawford's skill level (as others above have pointed out, too). And I need an attitude check? That is rich...
- mohel

Done with this argument. And you.

Apparently you are one of these emotional 12 year olds who takes no responsibility for what he says, puts words in my mouth, etc., all to be an internet message board attorney/tough guy.

Whatever.

You and a few of your buddies keep fawning over Corey Crawford. The rest of the hockey world is and has been taking a pass.

This may come as a shock to some, but all NHL goalies are elite.
- TrueGrit

OH come on TG don't start being the devil's advocate just to be the devil's advocate. You know very well that once you get to the NHL goalies are re-catagorized against their peers as below average, average, above average and elite. And I personally think Crawford falls in between average and above average.

To an extent. How so?
- robhawks

To get into the NHL, you have to be the best of the best. It is rather simple logic. Many will argue with it, but go and apply to be a goalie tomorow at Hawk Human Resources, tough gig to get.

I said this a few times before as well. This whole grading guys out, I understand to an extent, but at the NHL level or the top of any professional sport, the margins many speak of are razor thin. To suggest in this day and age that there is some huge chasm between guys is ridiculus. The only logical place for the debate is to ask if you had to pick a goalie for a big game, that is where it would be fun and reasonable to kick around and debate who is a big game goalie. As we see year to year, many big game goalies do not get to play in big games. Another irony.

I for one have been most baffled by the idea that the 2010 team was head and shoulders above this team, yet CC totally outplayed Niemi from start to finish. That explanation is the great defense. Which is it?

To rationalize CCs play and discount him now is beyond ridiculus. If one wants to say they don't like him, or he is not their kind of guy. Fine I respect that. To split hairs on a whole bunch of other stuff, especially the plain review of his statistics, regardless, just does not add up in court.

Now before we get all the you love CC and he is going to hall of fame responses by the CC skeptics, relax. Where in any of this did I state this?

You sure? Hjalmarsson was the Hawks best defenseman from game 1 through the Stanley cup finals. Check out his zone starts. Q had him on every defensive draw. And usually had him out against top lines. This is a league where Dennis Wideman gets 5.5. If Hjalmarsson is deemed as a #1 blue liner, and the answer from Q is a big fat "YES", then I could see him wanting that kind of money and possibly getting it from the Hawks.
- yahoodi

I hear you but the Detroit and Bowman MO is not to overpay defensemen who are weak offensively. If Hjalmersson is in facT asking for $5M + I can't see the Hawks signing him.

You sure? Hjalmarsson was the Hawks best defenseman from game 1 through the Stanley cup finals. Check out his zone starts. Q had him on every defensive draw. And usually had him out against top lines. This is a league where Dennis Wideman gets 5.5. If Hjalmarsson is deemed as a #1 blue liner, and the answer from Q is a big fat "YES", then I could see him wanting that kind of money and possibly getting it from the Hawks.
- yahoodi

I wonder if Hammer's gonna go for market rate. He did place the Hawks in a difficult position in 2010 by actually signing the SJ offer sheet. This is a pretty rare event and suggests that he might be a guy who wants to maximize his $$$. I don't blame him one bit for this, and I think his market is pretty big (in the $5+M range on the open market). If they have to pay him a lot to keep him (and I do hope they keep him), they will not have the money to pay a goalie much at all (no matter the name on the back). If that scenario occurs our hopes will fall to a guy who has never played a game in North America, because $2-$3M goalies in the FA market are not good players.

If that scenario occurs our hopes will fall to a guy who has never played a game in North America, because $2-$3M goalies in the FA market are not good players.
- mohel

This.

They are as a group, certainly not all, either washed up, have injury issues, or good as a backup only.

I think the captain will set the tone for contract talks. Let's hope winners want to stay winners.