John Jaeckel: The Corey Conundrum

John Jaeckel: The Corey Conundrum
- John Jaeckel

Which then leaves Hjalmarsson. He's not the Hawks' best defenseman, but he might be—might be— their second best defenseman. He's become that good.

Wouldn't be fair to say Hjalmarsson is the Hawks best defenseman some nights?

Good read. I agree that the Hawks overpaid. If the cap doesn't go up considerably they could have to dump someone. Toews is always welcome back home in Winnipeg!

I just cant believe it. It makes me sick to my stomach. I will say Crawford finally looked like he trusted his defense last year (which took him a while to do). But without the strength of that defense Crawford is a significantly worse goaltender (and as we debated last offseason, arguably not worth the $2.66 he was being paid then). I just don't know why there was any sense of urgency to get this deal done. Crawford had ALL the leverage. Why would you not wait a year and see... Even if you still want him, unless he wins another Cup, he's not going to be worth more... I just don't get it.

I just cant believe it. It makes me sick to my stomach. I will say Crawford finally looked like he trusted his defense last year (which took him a while to do). But without the strength of that defense Crawford is a significantly worse goaltender (and as we debated last offseason, arguably not worth the $2.66 he was being paid then). I just don't know why there was any sense of urgency to get this deal done. Crawford had ALL the leverage. Why would you not wait a year and see... Even if you still want him, unless he wins another Cup, he's not going to be worth more... I just don't get it.
- PuckAndSticks

I tend—tend—to share your POV. It's evident, however, the Hawks don't. There could be another shoe yet to drop that no one really knows about. Dunno. Most likely though, this is what it appears to be on the surface—a commitment to a #1 goaltender that they feel is the right one to make at this time.

Could be his agent said that waiting would mean he definitely goes to UFA, and the Hawks did not want to risk that.

I just cant believe it. It makes me sick to my stomach. I will say Crawford finally looked like he trusted his defense last year (which took him a while to do). But without the strength of that defense Crawford is a significantly worse goaltender (and as we debated last offseason, arguably not worth the $2.66 he was being paid then). I just don't know why there was any sense of urgency to get this deal done. Crawford had ALL the leverage. Why would you not wait a year and see... Even if you still want him, unless he wins another Cup, he's not going to be worth more... I just don't get it.
- PuckAndSticks

Exactly. And if he wins another Cup, who cares what he gets paid after a 3rd Hawks Cup in 5 years

Not meant to be a dig at Hawks GM,but that is a stupid contract. Owners and GMs just keep on driving up the prices and handcuffing the team for years to come.

Six million dollar salaries use to be reserved for the elite players but now are being handed to average players. Well at least we can all look forward to another lockout at the end of the CBA and listen to owners cry foul.

Sorry ,don't like the contract at all.

The Hawks front office must be chomping at the bit as another accent-less English speaking "American-ish" core player can be pimped out to Chevy and BMO. Why resign Hjalmarsson if he has no value off the ice...? It drives me crazy.

I just cant believe it. It makes me sick to my stomach. I will say Crawford finally looked like he trusted his defense last year (which took him a while to do). But without the strength of that defense Crawford is a significantly worse goaltender (and as we debated last offseason, arguably not worth the $2.66 he was being paid then). I just don't know why there was any sense of urgency to get this deal done. Crawford had ALL the leverage. Why would you not wait a year and see... Even if you still want him, unless he wins another Cup, he's not going to be worth more... I just don't get it.
- PuckAndSticks

I do not share the doom & gloom over this 6 yr, 6 million dollar deal. I believe it was done by Hawk management looking FORWARD, not backward.

The Cap will go up...ALOT....when Lundquist and other goalies start negotiating in the coming year or two you will see the upper 4-5 goalies getting in the 8-9 million range. Crawford will then settle into his spot with the 2nd level of very good goalies. As the Cap rises, the per year gets more and more favorable. Example Loser-ango's 5.3 million was horrendous 2 years ago...but in another year or so will be much easier to swallow...IF...a big IF....the goalie can DELIVER. And, Corey delivered.

I can see a future where the Hawks can have Corey in net AND keep the Hammer...and sign Toews & Kane. It may not happen But, I believe it will. The rising Cap is being factored into this decision, and I believe if you look AHEAD...you will see this solid core together another 5-7 years MINIMUM!!!

(Just my look ahead...we will see....)

Not meant to be a dig at Hawks GM,but that is a stupid contract. Owners and GMs just keep on driving up the prices and handcuffing the team for years to come.

Six million dollar salaries use to be reserved for the elite players but now are being handed to average players. Well at least we can all look forward to another lockout at the end of the CBA and listen to owners cry foul.

Sorry ,don't like the contract at all.
- VANTEL

Youre right! They should have signed Crawford to a 12 year contract extension instead

I think that Crawford's deal is just crazy. Way too much money, and too many years.

I kind of look at it this way....

Brookbank is off the books after this year....thats 1.25 more that they can give to hammer....tack on another 250-500k and there is your 5m contract for hammer....4 years at 20m sounds fair to me....

thoughts?

They could have waited a year to write this contract. Risks to that would be that Crow has another bang up year and they have to pay him more, or lose him in a year. I would have taken that risk. I mean, they lose roughly 3.5mm this year to extend him. But if they waited a year, and then had to write him on board for 5 years and 7mm per year for 5 instead of 6... that's only a 1.5mm net loss, the present value of which is smaller if you discount the cash flows. So why? they gave up a free option on Crow for a year, and, they paid to do so!

I like Crow. I don't have a problem with the player, the contract, or the position it was written on. But giving up on the free option is something I simply can't abide by. Even if you like the guy.

It's a surprising deal for a variety of reasons---timing, length, dollars. But this FO isn't usually caught off guard. They aren't infalliable, but this is the sort of move that strikes me as preemptive and part of a bigger plan.

Youre right! They should have signed Crawford to a 12 year contract extension instead
- Jaciems

That contract was signed under a different CBA, much the same as the Hossa contract which ends in 2021, when he's 42 years...and...carries a cap hit of $5.275 million per year.

Anyways, IMO the Hawks management are hedging their bets that the cap will increase significantly over the course of the current CBA. Meaning the contract will look great in about four years, but right now, not so much!

Youre right! They should have signed Crawford to a 12 year contract extension instead
- Jaciems

Habs fans should not be laughing at bad goalie contracts. I bet by the end of the year the most common phrase heard around water coolers in Quebec is "Price Tabernac"

That contract was signed under a different CBA, much the same as the Hossa contract which ends in 2021 when he's 42 years...and...carries a cap hit of $5.275 million per year.

Anyways, IMO the Hawks management are hedging their bets that the cap will increase significantly over the course of the current CBA. Meaning the contract will look great in about four years, but right now, not so much!
- LeftCoaster

They aren't the only team doing that, though. For whatever reason, the market trend seems to be that goalies are becoming more expensive. The deals that a number of netminders signed this offseason was fairly shocking. Look at Rask, for example.

The player share of HRR dropped to 50% (from 57%). But the cap for this year is a once only negotiated transition year. I hear people talking about revenues and the cap going up significantly next year. But the full impact of the 7% reduction in player share kicks in and I have seen no evidence of any new large source of revenues (other than for the expansion of the classic games).

Wow, we are getting close to action.

Regarding CC contract. Good for him. I do not like those deals for anyone. 5 year max in my perfect world.

In case it is not obvious to everyone. With all the informed people offering and signing guys to big/long term deals. There is a high degree of certainty that the League KNOWS that the cap will be going up.

Evidenced by all the outdoor games this year, the league is barnstorming and will be on full display from coast to coast. The outdoor games, besides the fan cache, are money makers. The owners and union have a common interest. That is game and revenue growth. When 70 thousand pack soldier field for a home game, that is the equivalent of 50k or 2.5 times more attnedance than UC game.

Needless to say, the quirks in the last cba have been worked out in the new one and the league will march on.

Time is flying...can't wait till the boys are on the ice again.

The player share of HRR dropped to 50% (from 57%). But the cap for this year is a once only negotiated transition year. I hear people talking about revenues and the cap going up significantly next year. But the full impact of the 7% reduction in player share kicks in and I have seen no evidence of any new large source of revenues (other than for the expansion of the classic games).
- spatso

The CBC deal runs through next season. Between the expected increase in that contract as well as a stronger Canadian dollar, I think there are a lot of reasons to expect the revenue to go up next year.

JJ - really well written post! There are many many (that's a lot) angles to this (like most) deal, and focusing on only one or two would do a disservice to the issue. Like a draft pick in any sport, it is usually not possible to assess the value of the deal (or pick) until some time passes.

I totally agree that the biggest issue is whether this deal prevents the signing of Hammer. But it is possible that he leaves and that the leaving isn't fully on the back of Crow's deal. Hammer signed the offer sheet a few years ago, and to do so meant he was ready to go somewhere for the most money. It would not be a shock if he wants as much as he can get and wants to test the UFA market. I haven't looked lately at the recent market for high-end defensive d-men (which is the LEAST he is, IMO), but I'm guessing it will be higher than $5M. If that number is $6M, then the cost of Hammer plus another goalie (assuming no Crow deal) might be too much.

Again, great post!

I can't say that investing that much money and term in a goaltender has ever been a good idea, except maybe Lundqvist or Brodeur. Noone else who got paid in goal has ever really lived up to the deal's expectations.

That, and now the hawks have 70% of next year's cap number invest in 8 players, leaving about 1.2 million bucks to sign 2 guys for a 23 man roster.

I have to think that there is a trade in the works, for somebody who actually earns salary.

Youre right! They should have signed Crawford to a 12 year contract extension instead
- Jaciems

Vancouver would have had him for only 5 mil per, signed until he is 40!

Very well put JJ.

CC is a good, not great goaltender. The contract just signed is both too long and too much for one with his skill set, especially when there are lower priced options that are just as talented, or more so, than CC.

The most obvious option currently toils in Ottawa and can be had for the next 2 years at $3.125 per year.

John Jaeckel: The Corey Conundrum
- John Jaeckel

I get the feeling Hossa will be bought out next summer. And there will still need to be more dealing. The Hawks are screwed on the cap for next year. Anyone thinking the cap will be near 70 are delusional. Revenues would need to be near 4 billion for that to happen. Even with the vaunted 6 outdoor game that some are touting that will only add roughly 180 million to Revenue. This years cap is artificially higher than it should be under the new split. I would bet that we'll see a cap next year in the 65-66 million range. Stan once again messed up. He has so much talent to work with on the team and he will now need to "sell" some of it once again IMO.

This deal just simply does not make sense. I said it when Raanta signed that it made zero sense for him to sign with the Hawks. Now he's definitely screwed. Not sure what he was thinking choosing Chicago. He'll have no opportunity there.