I don't like the old ones better, but I don't like the new ones really either. Was hoping for more. These are basically the jerseys from 10 years ago. Most Blues fans already have a jersey very similar hanging in their closet.
- carcus

I was hoping for a more retro look to them but they are ok.

I like hte home one better then the road one.

Carcus

When are the blues going to get a consistent blogger? Cant seem to get two blogs in a month let alone a week.
- sycsam

Well, it is not like Blues fans are around here anyway.

After Andy left, Blues fan traffic did too.

Giggle


- FourFeathers773

That is awsom

That's a fair point, but who goes?

I just don't see the logic in trading Versteeg. yeah, did he have a great year? NO. NO he didn't. However, the low risk/high reward for an ample depth guy at a very friendly cap hit is too much to give up on.

Hawks have zero size so cross off Frankenstein (bickell)

Sharp? I don't see it. Not now. In June? Sure...but unless somebody suffers a major injury, and even then Sharp has to accept, I just don't see it.

Rozsival? Who takes that ENTIRE cap hit? probably have to sweeten with a highly rated prospect, that the hawks are sour on. Cledenning?
- SteveRain

Not sure but you won't get same value for Leddy as earlier in summer.
Like I said Bowman deserves benefit of doubt but if Richards could have been signed for $300k less dealing Rozsival could have done the trick

I do what I can. I LOVE Seabrook and feel like he's always overlooked because of the great Keith. Yet I watch this guy take a pass with a guy bearing down on him and somehow make the correct read and get it out. Keith is VERY lucky to have #7 there. Keith is a great player, but pairing up with Seabrook allows him to elevate his game to another level.
- SteveRain

Seabrook is one of the beat passing dmen in the league and anyone laughing at that isn't watching the same game as me.

Well, it is not like Blues fans are around here anyway.

After Andy left, Blues fan traffic did too.
- carcus

I try but its hard to talk blues hockey when its in a blackhawks comment section

Laughing about a guy knocked out on the ice after a bad headshot is not funny. I don't care if it is a rival.
- carcus

In the dog days of summer this was at least creative. Not much else to comment/recomment about.

We are pretty lucky to have a hands on blogger like JJ. He does dig stuff up and stays hockey active. Really hard to repackage the same old player arguments/discussions.

When I was talking to Stan at an event we held last Thursday he told me they were going to make one move. I asked him of the Nick Leddy rumor and he smirked and said we have to make one move. Take that for what it is.
- Sensdems[/img]

I get nervous when Stanley smirks. He smirked when he said Hjalmarsson and Niemi weren't "going anywhere."

Regardless, call me a neanderthal, but I don't get what that means?

On a go forward basis I much prefer to have Crawford over Halak. Halak is decent, but not at Crawford's level.

Part of the problem in letting Crawford walk is that you have no guarantee on who his replacement will be. There's a risk that guys like Halak are scooped up by other clubs, then we're left with a goalie combo of Raanta and Leighton.

Crawford may not be a top 5 goalie in the league but he's pretty damn solid. He was a big reason we beat St Louis and he was very good against Minnesota. The reality is that we don't have any other goaltending options and were lucky to have a solid netminder like Corey. If cap space is needed Stan can get t by trading forwards were we have more organizational depth.
- DarthKane

Here's the problem with this argument.

Two guys I would look at, who make less money than Crawford, who might well be as good as he is with the Hawks are . . . Halak and Anderson.

Neither of those guys has played behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 27 minutes a game. Much less a second pairing with Hjalmarsson. And a terrific set of defensive forwards.

Yeah, you can argue Halak did in St. Louis, but . . . for the most part over their careers, no.

Crawford benefits from the team he plays behind, just as Chris Osgood did, hugely, in Detroit. Any goalie would.

Carcus

When are the blues going to get a consistent blogger? Cant seem to get two blogs in a month let alone a week.
- sycsam

as soon as they get a fan base! go talk blues somewhere else this is a Hawks blog!

Here's the problem with this argument.

Two guys I would look at, who make less money than Crawford, who might well be as good as he is with the Hawks are . . . Halak and Anderson.

Neither of those guys has played behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 27 minutes a game. Much less a second pairing with Hjalmarsson. And a terrific set of defensive forwards.

Yeah, you can argue Halak did in St. Louis, but . . . for the most part over their careers, no.

Crawford benefits from the team he plays behind, just as Chris Osgood did, hugely, in Detroit. Any goalie would.
- John Jaeckel

Halak at his best is not as good as Crawford at his best. Sure Halak had one great playoff series (MTL vs Caps), but Crow has had at least 4 OUTSTANDING playoff series over the past 2 years. Ill take Crow over Halak and Anderson any day.

as soon as they get a fan base! go talk blues somewhere else this is a Hawks blog!
- EnzoD

as soon as they get a fan base! go talk blues somewhere else this is a Hawks blog!
- EnzoD

And a restaurant and beer blog.

Here's the problem with this argument.

Two guys I would look at, who make less money than Crawford, who might well be as good as he is with the Hawks are . . . Halak and Anderson.

Neither of those guys has played behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 27 minutes a game. Much less a second pairing with Hjalmarsson. And a terrific set of defensive forwards.

Yeah, you can argue Halak did in St. Louis, but . . . for the most part over their careers, no.

Crawford benefits from the team he plays behind, just as Chris Osgood did, hugely, in Detroit. Any goalie would.
- John Jaeckel

Yes, that is true.

Crawford has been really good in the playoffs, but IMO is still too big of a cap hit for him.

That's a fair point, but who goes?

I just don't see the logic in trading Versteeg. yeah, did he have a great year? NO. NO he didn't. However, the low risk/high reward for an ample depth guy at a very friendly cap hit is too much to give up on.

Hawks have zero size so cross off Frankenstein (bickell)

Sharp? I don't see it. Not now. In June? Sure...but unless somebody suffers a major injury, and even then Sharp has to accept, I just don't see it.

Rozsival? Who takes that ENTIRE cap hit? probably have to sweeten with a highly rated prospect, that the hawks are sour on. Cledenning?
- SteveRain

The logic to dumping Versteeg is the Hawks can gain around 1.4M in cap space He can be replaced from within the organization.

I try but its hard to talk blues hockey when its in a blackhawks comment section
- sycsam

Yeah, but I was just talking hockeybuzz in general. Not much traffic from Blues fans on this site.

http://www.thehockeynews....g/category/logo-rankings/

Hawks & Blues should be at the top of the list. Not so sure about the Coyotes though....

Here's the problem with this argument.

Two guys I would look at, who make less money than Crawford, who might well be as good as he is with the Hawks are . . . Halak and Anderson.

Neither of those guys has played behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 27 minutes a game. Much less a second pairing with Hjalmarsson. And a terrific set of defensive forwards.

Yeah, you can argue Halak did in St. Louis, but . . . for the most part over their careers, no.

Crawford benefits from the team he plays behind, just as Chris Osgood did, hugely, in Detroit. Any goalie would.
- John Jaeckel

Anderson has been wildly inconsistent in his career. Plus, he has had a ton of injuries and is older.

Halak had one magical playoff run and has never come close to that level of play again. He is also a bit of a head case. Who wants a guy who says he won't play against his former team?

For all Crawford's "warts", he is pretty damn consistent. Yeah, he isn't outstanding or flashy but he keeps his team in the game except for the rare occasions when he has a totally off night.

Yes, that is true.

Crawford has been really good in the playoffs, but IMO is still too big of a cap hit for him.
- carcus

I would say we are slightly over the "perfect cap dollar" in the goalie position. The Blues are at 3.3 million. That is pretty low, basically two over paid back ups at least dollar wise. The ducks are at 1.9. Point being a backup should not make much over 1 mil, your starter you pay accordingly. Corey is who we brought to the dance.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/category/logo-rankings/

Hawks & Blues should be at the top of the list. Not so sure about the Coyotes though....
- carcus

It loses credibility after number 1. The Coyotes logo is awful.

Anderson has been wildly inconsistent in his career. Plus, he has had a ton of injuries and is older.

Halak had one magical playoff run and has never come close to that level of play again. He is also a bit of a head case. Who wants a guy who says he won't play against his former team?

For all Crawford's "warts", he is pretty damn consistent. Yeah, he isn't outstanding or flashy but he keeps his team in the game except for the rare occasions when he has a totally off night.
- Elbows15

I won't argue with this.

But read what you wrote: all about the warts of the other two, not about Crawford's.

My point is, all three are somewhat interchangeable, and all three will perform about the same over time with the same caliber of defenses in front of them.

If I have to win one game, I play Anderson. Honestly. Further, i recall Halak was AWESOME for Slovakia in the Olympics in 2010 and equally for Montreal up to (and through) the Conference Finals that year.

Both guys have stolen many games. Crawford? Meh, not as much.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/category/logo-rankings/

Hawks & Blues should be at the top of the list. Not so sure about the Coyotes though....
- carcus

I'd put the yotes at 5 agree w Blues Wings and Sabres placement

I get nervous when Stanley smirks. He smirked when he said Hjalmarsson and Niemi weren't "going anywhere."

Regardless, call me a neanderthal, but I don't get what that means?
- John Jaeckel

Well JJ it basically means nothing except that from his body language I felt like I/you were on to something. We all know he has to do something and I think he enjoyed hearing all the ideas that we in the media put out there. It could be that I was really close or way off. It just caught my eye.

Here's the problem with this argument.

Two guys I would look at, who make less money than Crawford, who might well be as good as he is with the Hawks are . . . Halak and Anderson.

Neither of those guys has played behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 27 minutes a game. Much less a second pairing with Hjalmarsson. And a terrific set of defensive forwards.

Yeah, you can argue Halak did in St. Louis, but . . . for the most part over their careers, no.

Crawford benefits from the team he plays behind, just as Chris Osgood did, hugely, in Detroit. Any goalie would.
- John Jaeckel

It's easy to look at the situation after the fact and say Stan should have signed Halak or Anderson (for example). In all honesty they are two good goalies and I wouldn't have an issue with either of them on the team (it would have been funny to have Anderson and Leighton together on the team again).

However, at the time Stan re-signed Crawford what were his options?

1. Re-sign Crawford (as he did).
2. Wait to attempt to re-sign Crawford later.
3. Let Crawford go and find a different #1 goalie.

With each move there is risk. You could end up overpaying for Crawford or not finding a suitable replacement. Say Crawford signed another team, Anderson still re-signed with Ottawa and Halak still ended up in New York. What happens then? It's fun to talk about Crawford vs Halak vs Anderson, but the practical side of the business is something different.

I won't argue with this.

But read what you wrote: all about the warts of the other two, not about Crawford's.

My point is, all three are somewhat interchangeable, and all three will perform about the same over time with the same caliber of defenses in front of them.

If I have to win one game, I play Anderson. Honestly. Further, i recall Halak was AWESOME for Slovakia in the Olympics in 2010 and equally for Montreal up to (and through) the Conference Finals that year.

Both guys have stolen many games. Crawford? Meh, not as much.
- John Jaeckel

Yeah, Halak was awesome 4 years ago. And Anderson was terrible LAST season.

And its always easy to say that any goalie would be good behind a certain D, this is way too simplistic of a way to look at it.