Crawford has retired!

[Granada]

Guess you guys are right........we're better off with Suban.

I wouldn't say that, and I don't think anyone has. Crawford wasn't the only option available over the off-season; Bowman could have acquired a goalie via free agency or trade (which I was for by the way). Either way, I would say the team as a whole is "better" from a financial standpoint without Crawford for 2 more years.

 

[HSBOB]

I wouldn't say that, and I don't think anyone has. Crawford wasn't the only option available over the off-season; Bowman could have acquired a goalie via free agency or trade (which I was for by the way). Either way, I would say the team as a whole is "better" from a financial standpoint without Crawford for 2 more years.

Crawford at near half price for two more years would have been a deal IMO.......JMO. Crawford's play all of last year was stellar and he's been concussion free for two years now.......his play in the PO's was outstanding.
Maybe he shoulda took the one year offer but SB knew he wouldn't........either way the guy's out of our hair now.

 

[Granada]

Crawford at near half price for two more years would have been a deal IMO.......JMO. Crawford's play all of last year was stellar and he's been concussion free for two years now.......his play in the PO's was outstanding.
Maybe he shoulda took the one year offer but SB knew he wouldn't........either way the guy's out of our hair now.

In the end, it was the right decision (for a change) by Bowman. I was glad he held firm then and I'm glad he did now.

 

[HSBOB]

In the end, it was the right decision (for a change) by Bowman. I was glad he held firm then and I'm glad he did now.

I'll wait to see how his replacements play before I call it the right decision. Did you just want him gone?

 

[LordKOTL]

I'm the first in line to shit on Bowman but it all could also be they saw this in him and didn't want to re-sign him because of it. He's been around a long time with lot's of injuries and lingering concussion issues. Nothing is to say he doesn't retire today as they get into camp if he's still with the Hawks.

Perhaps. Maybe I'm just being a bloody ray of fucking sunshine here but I think maybe Crawford wanted to play...even for NJ, but maybe while his mind was willing his body wasn't able. Aside from the air-conditioner-ballast fans it sounds like NJ was at least okay with his decision to retire. Who knows if that would have happened here.

Still, a hell of a career by one of the most underrated goaltenders of the 2010's.

 

[KBIB]

I wouldn't say that, and I don't think anyone has. Crawford wasn't the only option available over the off-season; Bowman could have acquired a goalie via free agency or trade (which I was for by the way). Either way, I would say the team as a whole is "better" from a financial standpoint without Crawford for 2 more years.

My take was they were hoping Askarov fell in the draft, then they could have bleated "we got these guys right now, but helps on the way in two years".

I also think they gave their own team no chance to beat the Oilers in the buy in and were mad when the Hawks beat them.

 

[Granada]

I'll wait to see how his replacements play before I call it the right decision. Did you just want him gone?

Nope, I would have been fine with him for one year at 3.5 -- but nothing more. Personally, I wouldn't judge this decision based on how Subban/Delia/etc. plays -- I'd judge it from a managerial and fiscally responsible standpoint.

We rag on Bowman for all the "over-the-hill" players he always signs to inflated contracts. In this case, he made the hard choice, but the right choice.

 

[Granada]

Perhaps. Maybe I'm just being a bloody ray of fucking sunshine here but I think maybe Crawford wanted to play...even for NJ, but maybe while his mind was willing his body wasn't able. Aside from the air-conditioner-ballast fans it sounds like NJ was at least okay with his decision to retire. Who knows if that would have happened here.

Still, a hell of a career by one of the most underrated goaltenders of the 2010's.

If Bowman signed Crawford to two years only for the latter to retire before playing a single game, the Bowman haters (myself included) would have flipped their shit. It would have been yet another folly in a long list of Bowman follies.

 

[HSBOB]

Nope, I would have been fine with him for one year at 3.5 -- but nothing more. Personally, I wouldn't judge this decision based on how Subban/Delia/etc. plays -- I'd judge it from a managerial and fiscally responsible standpoint.

We rag on Bowman for all the "over-the-hill" players he always signs to inflated contracts. In this case, he made the hard choice, but the right choice.

Crawford looked 'over the hill' to you in the PO"s?

 

[Granada]

Crawford looked 'over the hill' to you in the PO"s?

He looked good but so do a lot of players in the year prior to their last year.

This is what happens -- it's a tough business. This isn't a Roenick/Chelios type of scenario where they were jettisoned when they were in their primes. This happens on every team -- there are endless amounts of examples but look at Boston with Chara most recently.

It's the nature of the business. I know we'd all love to believe that guys like Crow, Toews, Kane, Keith will play every single game in their careers for the Blackhawks but that rarely happens.

With his injury history and age, Crawford at two years would have been a gamble the Hawks really couldn't afford with their cap situation, that would not have been worth the risk -- that's really what it boils down to.