the Goalies thread

[squishy24]

Didn't see a thread for CC, Lehner or the goalies. The discussion seems to be everywhere in this board. Discuss them here.

The tandem and switching back and forth between CC and Lehner is working. But if CC is willing to waive for trade at TDL, would you trade him? or would you consider trading Lehner (and keeping CC) instead?

[T-man2010]

CC waiving for a trade confuses me about his contract.
His contract is "Modified NTC, NMC." So which is it?
Usually Modified means there is a list of where he will or will not go to.

[squishy24]

Nov 18, 2019 14:43:12 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

CC waiving for a trade confuses me about his contract.
His contract is "Modified NTC, NMC." So which is it?
Usually Modified means there is a list of where he will or will not go to.

lets pretend, for discussion sake, that CC is willing to be traded on TDL, would you trade him for picks and assets? or do you hold on for the PO and might lose him for nothing in the offseason?

[hawkinmontreal]

Nov 18, 2019 15:48:02 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

Nov 18, 2019 14:43:12 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

CC waiving for a trade confuses me about his contract.
His contract is "Modified NTC, NMC." So which is it?
Usually Modified means there is a list of where he will or will not go to.

lets pretend, for discussion sake, that CC is willing to be traded on TDL, would you trade him for picks and assets? or do you hold on for the PO and might lose him for nothing in the offseason?

Depending on where the team stands at the TDL, if the Hawks are in the running for a playoff spot, you have to hold on to CC, I like Lehner, he is outstanding, but for me CC was the reason the Hawks were able to win the cup in 2013 and 2015, he stood on his head game in game out, if the Hawks are able to make another run my faith is in CC to play as we all know and have seen what he is capable of in the playoffs and down the stretch in very meaningful games.

[LordKOTL]

Nov 18, 2019 14:43:12 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

CC waiving for a trade confuses me about his contract.
His contract is "Modified NTC, NMC." So which is it?
Usually Modified means there is a list of where he will or will not go to.

From Capfreindly:

What is a No-Move Clause (NMC)?
A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:

• Player cannot be traded without his consent (however, the clause can specify a modified no-trade clause that limits the NTC to a certain number of teams)
  
• Player cannot be placed on waivers without his consent
  
• Player cannot be assigned to the minors without his consent
  
• Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
  
• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  
• -This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  
• -If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
  
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause
  

What is a No-Trade Clause (NTC)?
A No-Trade Clause (NTC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:

• Player cannot be traded without his consent
  
• Consent is not required to be placed on waivers
  
• Consent is not required for assignment to the minors
  
• Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
  
• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  
• -This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  
• -If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
  
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

What is a Limited, or Modified No-Trade Clause (M-NTC)?
A limited, or modified no-trade clause (M-NTC) is less restrictive than a full no-trade clause (NTC), and can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:

• The player's contract includes specific terms in respect to being traded without their consent where the player must:
• -In a specified timeframe or window:
  
• --Specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would be willing to be traded to, or:
• --Specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would not be willing to be traded to
• Consent is not required to be placed on waivers
• Consent is not required for assignment to the minors
• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  
• -This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  
• -If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
  
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause
  
  Example: Modified No-Trade Clause: Within 48 hours of request, the player must submit a list of 18 teams they are willing to be traded to without consent. If the list is not received within 48 hours, the player can be traded to any team without consent.

I believe that adding an NMC onto an NTC makes it so consent is required to be placed on waivers, and consent is required for assignment to the minors.  Plus the usual obligation to protect the player in expansion.

From what I gather' about Crawford's deal--some of it hearsay, some of it confirmed it that he has a 10-team Trade-to list.  So if the 'hawks wanted to trade him he submits 10 teams he's willing to go to.  If the 'hawks can't, he can't be traded. Plus they can't waive or send him to Rockford without his consent.  I also heard, sometime around 2016, that a "Clause" in his deal is that he has to be traded to a team which will make him a starter.  I cannot confirm this but if rumors are ture that Keith's deal has provisions for him being on the PP, it wouldn't surprise me.

As for the trade possibilities?  I think it depends.  Both goalies have been playing lights out and seeing a butt-tonne of rubber.  I think Lehner has the edge, though.  Lehner is also a bit younger.  I think for long-term Lehner has to be the future.  There's not much in the FA goalie market and our team D at this point is no way capable of  pulling along a lesser netminder--and likley won't be for seasons...multiple seasons.  We're closer to 2006 than we are 2010.  That being said a guy like Lehner can definitely help ease the transition--kinda like a Khabibulin, but has a better shot of actually producing.

As for Crawford...it depends on him and his outlook.  Does he hang 'em up after this year?  He's hitting a nice groove when errs towards, "Maybe Not", even though it looked almost certain early on.  Does he want to keep playing as the starter beyond this season?  Is he cool with a transition out as a lesser-paid backup for a few years?  If the 'hawks manage to find a tenable level of D--like 30-ish SA as opposed to 40-ish, Their could be a force--and it might be a good swan song if Crawford tags along for a playoff push and then maybe tried the FA market.  Who knows?

I think Crawford does hold a lot of the cards with respect to movement this season.  It would not be hard for him to load a 10-team list with teams that are in no way, shape, or form willing to accept him as a netminder even at the TDL if he doesn't want to go anywhere.

[jacksalmon]

It would seem that the only way both of them are here next year is if Crawford is willing to take a short term contract to play as back up to Lehner. They won't be able to pay them both to do what they are doing this year, if Crawford still wants to be a first line GT. Between the two of them because of the age factor, the team would want to go with Lehner if it had to spend serious money on one of them. But, if Lehner prices himself out of the first line goalie position here in Chicago, then Crawford might get another two to three years as the starter with decent money and the back up would be the Rockford goalie. Ideally, Crawford would like to stay as a back up because he is ready to spend less time out there but still keep himself in the game in a lesser role for less money and Lehner can be signed as #1.

[acesandeights]

I thought T-man made a pertinent point in another thread about Corey and his wife had a baby a few months ago. By next season the baby will be about 1 yr. old. To me, with a 1 yr. old at home, it's hard to see Corey playing anywhere except Chicago next season. Assuming he still wants to play and doesn't decide to retire. He doesn't exactly need the money.

[acesandeights]

I don't subscribe but in the Chicago Tribune's "Blackhawk Q&A", a fan asked if the Hawks should explore trading Crawford. It was just in the headline so I don't know if the fan meant trading CC at the deadline or at any point during the season. 

One problem with trading CC is who would replace him? The only candidates in the system are Delia and Lankinen; and Lankinen has zero NHL experience while Delia has only 18 NHL games himself. Lankinen has much better numbers than Delia but it is in the AHL and doesn't necessarily mean he's ready to be an NHL backup. If it isn't one of these two, then Stan would have to go out and get someone, which means giving up assets.

[LordKOTL]

Nov 19, 2019 10:53:04 GMT -6 acesandeights said:

I don't subscribe but in the Chicago Tribune's "Blackhawk Q&A", a fan asked if the Hawks should explore trading Crawford. It was just in the headline so I don't know if the fan meant trading CC at the deadline or at any point during the season. 

One problem with trading CC is who would replace him? The only candidates in the system are Delia and Lankinen; and Lankinen has zero NHL experience while Delia has only 18 NHL games himself. Lankinen has much better numbers than Delia but it is in the AHL and doesn't necessarily mean he's ready to be an NHL backup. If it isn't one of these two, then Stan would have to go out and get someone, which means giving up assets.

I would think if the 'hawks do end up trading Crawford (if they can), then signing Lehner is paramount.  With how utterly bad the team D is (we're talking right now 37.1 SA/GP--which is the *worst* anyone has done since the 1975 Caps) and no real help on the horizon for a long time, we need a solid presence in net.  Lehner qualifies.  

If Crawford is traded, or doesn't re-sign at the end of this year I have no problem with running either as a backup.  After all, it's not like Anderson, Crawford, etc. didn't get their shots behind Khabi under the bad-but-still-better-team-defense of 2006.

But in that same vein would it have done any good to have Crawford or Anderson as the full-time goalie behind that squad?  Nope.  So in that vein the 'hawks need a solid presence in net--one that can play behind a team D that lets in a imperial buttload of shots.  There isn't many who can do that and right now, we know Lehner and Crawford can, and Lehner is the more solid option moving forward.  But, if he prices himself out, it might fall on Crawford's shoulders.

That also being said, given Crawford's injury history, his NMC/M-NTC, he may not be that movable.

[jimakablkhwks918]

Looks like CC plans on staying a while...

www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/blackhawks-goalie-corey-crawford-drops-dollar41m-on-west-loop-condo/ar-BBX0HnD

[T-man2010]

Nov 20, 2019 12:45:55 GMT -6 jimakablkhwks918 said:

Looks like CC plans on staying a while...

www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/blackhawks-goalie-corey-crawford-drops-dollar41m-on-west-loop-condo/ar-BBX0HnD

I'm hoping that this might mean he will take a back-up role for cheap next year and Lehner signs with the Hawks.

Or CC will retire and work for the Hawks after the season. My 2 guesses. 

[squishy24]

Nov 20, 2019 13:50:18 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

Nov 20, 2019 12:45:55 GMT -6 jimakablkhwks918 said:

Looks like CC plans on staying a while...

www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/blackhawks-goalie-corey-crawford-drops-dollar41m-on-west-loop-condo/ar-BBX0HnD

I'm hoping that this might mean he will take a back-up role for cheap next year and Lehner signs with the Hawks.

Or CC will retire and work for the Hawks after the season. My 2 guesses. 

I would prefer the latter. I doubt CC re-sign for cheap (less than 4m).

lets not have 11m+ on two goalies

[acesandeights]

Since Stan has both the starter and backup goalie spots to sort out for next season, how much effect will Dcat's deal plus a new deal with Srome have on what the g's get paid? I thought Strome would be an RFA after this season.

[hsbob]

I'm tryin' to figure out why either would want to stay since they basically see 40+ shots or get little to no offensive support or both. CC played well enough to get the W last night......he's far from through!

[hsbob]

Nice to get that first shutout of the year! Trade him or get him to retire.....nah....just play him.

[T-man2010]

Nov 26, 2019 23:26:53 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nice to get that first shutout of the year! Trade him or get him to retire.....nah....just play him.

This tandem has been working really well.
Neither seem to mind it so far.

[hsbob]

Nov 26, 2019 23:36:23 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

Nov 26, 2019 23:26:53 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nice to get that first shutout of the year! Trade him or get him to retire.....nah....just play him.

This tandem has been working really well.
Neither seem to mind it so far.

They both seem good with it and that's smart on their part IMO. They're both UFA's and if they stay fresh,they have a better chance of keeping up their play. 
Does this level of goaltending give the team enough of a shot to make a move here? A top six forward who can play both ways would help a lot! 

[squishy24]

Nov 26, 2019 23:45:02 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nov 26, 2019 23:36:23 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

This tandem has been working really well.
Neither seem to mind it so far.

They both seem good with it and that's smart on their part IMO. They're both UFA's and if they stay fresh,they have a better chance of keeping up their play. 
Does this level of goaltending give the team enough of a shot to make a move here? A top six forward who can play both ways would help a lot! 

unfortunately, teams that have a top six forward to give does not need goalies. Im looking at NYR (Kreider), OTT (Pageau) maybe? and probably Minnesota. Edmonton might want CC for a cup run?

[hsbob]

Nov 27, 2019 9:49:21 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

Nov 26, 2019 23:45:02 GMT -6 hsbob said:

They both seem good with it and that's smart on their part IMO. They're both UFA's and if they stay fresh,they have a better chance of keeping up their play. 
Does this level of goaltending give the team enough of a shot to make a move here? A top six forward who can play both ways would help a lot! 

unfortunately, teams that have a top six forward to give does not need goalies. Im looking at NYR (Kreider), OTT (Pageau) maybe? and probably Minnesota. Edmonton might want CC for a cup run?

The team will have to have a handle on what both GT's will need to re-up before the TDL squish,if Lehner wants a fortune and fetches a better return,that could be an option as well. I don't see many teams that have a good shot AND the space to add 5-6M either BUT if a top team's tender goes down during the year,our two guy's values change too and that team would have to shed salary so maybe a decent return......one can hope!

[squishy24]

Nov 27, 2019 9:57:34 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nov 27, 2019 9:49:21 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

unfortunately, teams that have a top six forward to give does not need goalies. Im looking at NYR (Kreider), OTT (Pageau) maybe? and probably Minnesota. Edmonton might want CC for a cup run?

The team will have to have a handle on what both GT's will need to re-up before the TDL squish,if Lehner wants a fortune and fetches a better return,that could be an option as well. I don't see many teams that have a good shot AND the space to add 5-6M either BUT if a top team's tender goes down during the year,our two guy's values change too and that team would have to shed salary so maybe a decent return......one can hope!

either goalie definitely will fetch a good return, im just thinking who will do that. TOR might, or maybe Vancouver? im just spitballing here, who would be good to acquire from them?

[hsbob]

Nov 27, 2019 10:12:11 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

Nov 27, 2019 9:57:34 GMT -6 hsbob said:

The team will have to have a handle on what both GT's will need to re-up before the TDL squish,if Lehner wants a fortune and fetches a better return,that could be an option as well. I don't see many teams that have a good shot AND the space to add 5-6M either BUT if a top team's tender goes down during the year,our two guy's values change too and that team would have to shed salary so maybe a decent return......one can hope!

either goalie definitely will fetch a good return, im just thinking who will do that. TOR might, or maybe Vancouver? im just spitballing here, who would be good to acquire from them?

I realize it's not quite as easy as I make it out to be,I don't see the perfect candidate on either team. If JT Miller wasn't signed for three more after this one,I'd consider him.
The perfect situation would be a top team losing their GT to injury with the right forward coming back to make space I guess.

[squishy24]

Nov 27, 2019 10:27:38 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nov 27, 2019 10:12:11 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

either goalie definitely will fetch a good return, im just thinking who will do that. TOR might, or maybe Vancouver? im just spitballing here, who would be good to acquire from them?

I realize it's not quite as easy as I make it out to be,I don't see the perfect candidate on either team. If JT Miller wasn't signed for three more after this one,I'd consider him.
The perfect situation would be a top team losing their GT to injury with the right forward coming back to make space I guess.

oh no, im with you. I want one of them traded by TDL if possible. (Im not for riding them both for PO -that's another debate). ^ and im sure were both not hoping an injury on anyone lol but that would definitely be a great situation

[hsbob]

Nov 27, 2019 11:36:48 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

Nov 27, 2019 10:27:38 GMT -6 hsbob said:

I realize it's not quite as easy as I make it out to be,I don't see the perfect candidate on either team. If JT Miller wasn't signed for three more after this one,I'd consider him.
The perfect situation would be a top team losing their GT to injury with the right forward coming back to make space I guess.

oh no, im with you. I want one of them traded by TDL if possible. (Im not for riding them both for PO -that's another debate). ^ and im sure were both not hoping an injury on anyone lol but that would definitely be a great situation

If the team was able to acquire a top six forward without moving one of the GT's,I'd be good with that and platooning them. Platooning GT's in the PO's is almost never done so I appreciate that concern but I'll worry about it if and when I guess. 

[hsbob]

www.nhl.com/blackhawks/longread/crawford-lehner-better-together

[T-man2010]

Nov 27, 2019 12:07:04 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nov 27, 2019 11:36:48 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

oh no, im with you. I want one of them traded by TDL if possible. (Im not for riding them both for PO -that's another debate). ^ and im sure were both not hoping an injury on anyone lol but that would definitely be a great situation

If the team was able to acquire a top six forward without moving one of the GT's,I'd be good with that and platooning them. Platooning GT's in the PO's is almost never done so I appreciate that concern but I'll worry about it if and when I guess. 

Hawks were in the same pickle in 2013 with the Crow-Emery question. They platooned the first 2 months till Emory got hurt and it was Crows net after that.
We just have to wait to see how this all shakes out come Feb./March.

[T-man2010]

Nov 27, 2019 12:55:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

www.nhl.com/blackhawks/longread/crawford-lehner-better-together

That's a great read.

[squishy24]

Nov 27, 2019 12:55:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

www.nhl.com/blackhawks/longread/crawford-lehner-better-together

I think if everything goes well, sb should offer lehner something like 7x7 or 8x6 by tdl. If lehner says he wants to see the market, then trade for assets

[squishy24]

Nov 27, 2019 13:34:33 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

Nov 27, 2019 12:55:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

www.nhl.com/blackhawks/longread/crawford-lehner-better-together

That's a great read.

Tman! We should have a thread where we can post links or twitter feeds! That way there is a place where theyre all together for other posters to visit

[hsbob]

Nov 27, 2019 13:35:18 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

Nov 27, 2019 12:55:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

www.nhl.com/blackhawks/longread/crawford-lehner-better-together

I think if everything goes well, sb should offer lehner something like 7x7 or 8x6 by tdl. If lehner says he wants to see the market, then trade for assets

I like Lehner a LOT but if 6X6 was unacceptable for a cup winner a short time ago,how is 7X7 or 8X6 acceptable now? Lotta hockey left to make this assessment I guess but I still wouldn't dismiss Crawford's return either.

[squishy24]

Nov 27, 2019 13:40:51 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Nov 27, 2019 13:35:18 GMT -6 squishy24 said:

I think if everything goes well, sb should offer lehner something like 7x7 or 8x6 by tdl. If lehner says he wants to see the market, then trade for assets

I like Lehner a LOT but if 6X6 was unacceptable for a cup winner a short time ago,how is 7X7 or 8X6 acceptable now? Lotta hockey left to make this assessment I guess but I still wouldn't dismiss Crawford's return either.

^ inflation, lol. just so you know, I had no issues with CCs contract when it was signed. Im a CC fan, but I wouldn't mind if he gets traded for assets, as long as Lehner is here. (so basically I can go with one or the other)

If they do decide that CC is still the goalie in the next years to come, I would be fine with 6m x 3y. my biggest concern with him is health and age