The reason why they haven't talked about Crawford is because of his enrollment in a drug recovery program with the league for alcoholism. As they are not at liberty to talk about players in that program, that is why they are staying hush just using the concussion and broken vertebrate that happened over last Christmas break as a way to drag out not saying anything about the drinking problem. I believe Crow will be back (and should be healthy by now), but the drinking is a serious issue and that is why Stan unfortunately is going to have to acquire a more suitable 1B than Forsberg because they need a good insurance policy for Crow.
- Budi1782

Curious how you know this, you just throw it out there without any sources or ways to verify the veracity of your claim.

Ah, so you're totally okay with potentially missing out on improving other areas in the roster because they waited too long. Got it.
- L_B_R

I think your answer is "yes". Then get mad after the fact and ridicule

Justin this was an excellent blog in that it unpacks the situation as a whole, and a very confusing situation it is due to the uncertainty of Crawford's health. From there we go and no matter how hard one tries to dissect the situation and options it's a guess due to Crawford.

Justin's observation here is accurate and important:

"The fact of the matter is that Corey Crawford has been the backbone of this team for the last 3 years as he personified a 23-man life preserver in the sea of a sinking team.

The Blackhawks 109 point season in 2016-17 was a mirage and Crawford was that delicious jug of ice water in the desert.

So, when he down last year, yes, it really hurt the team. It did finally highlight a lot of other areas of weakness though. Like the depth and overall team defence. The latter was partially the reason Crawford's multiple understudies looked so bad at times."

Yes, without Crawford the Hawks of the last 3 yrs are mediocre at best and his absence last yr showed the glaring holes the roster has.

Do the Hawks think he'll be back and fine? Then a Lethonen, Ward, Johnson type should be fine to take 20-25 starts at 2.5 per for a yr.

Do they think maybe he's not fine? If so IMO they spend a bit more on a Lehner, Halak even a Mrazak who have shown they can play 50 games and be a reasonable goaltender. Even a guy like the talented Lehner MIGHT blossom into a mid tier starter but is no doubt capable for 25 games should Crow go down.

My point is every goaltender on the list, that the Hawks rate as acceptable for a specific role, fits depending on hew they see Crawford this yr and maybe even longer term if the look at a Lehner or Hutchinson who are talented and young enough not to be considered a bust as a starter, YET.

IMO if they sign 34 yr old Ward or Lethonen they think Crow is gonna play 55 games. If not I think they sign a Hutton, Halak or a Lehner or even Mrazak.

What's lost in this is Forsberg. Still young, talented, not a bust or proven not to be a #1, resources used to acquire him he would have to clear waivers if they sign any goalie.

In a perfect world, and I'm assuming StanBow will never allow himself to be in the same position as last yr with embarrassing options forced to pay NHL games, they have an established #1, a Ward type #2 and a Forsberg developing on the farm. 3 legit NHL goaltenders not people brought up from the ECHL forced into NHL games.

That was bad GMing by StanBow by any measure.

Great topic Justin and a good discussion.

It's a really interesting riddle. You would think depending on how Crawford actually is doing would determine what type of backup they'll pick up. Hutton or Bernier vs. Ward. Whether Ward would be somewhat decent or Turco 2.0 (another one of Stan's best moves...yikes) remains to be seen. But after Stan's disaster backup plan last season they'll spend a bit more on the backup/starter...?

How the defense shapes up in front of that goalie would certainly help to determine this as well. Is Stan planning to bring in two vet dmen to help shore up the back end?
Should be interesting to see how this pans out in the next few days.

Ah, so you're totally okay with potentially missing out on improving other areas in the roster because they waited too long. Got it.
- L_B_R

Cam Ward? Is not improvement. He's a veteran and thats it. He has been Ehhhh for several years now. And the D unit in Chicago is prolly worse then the one he had in Carolina. There are other options, but most of us agree Ward is not the best choice. Forsberg can be a very good goal tender. He had some rough moments last year, but you can tell the skill is there. CC had very rough times when he first started out.

Its my opinion that the Hawks from a PR standpoint are focusing on net because nobody wants to admit 2 and 7 have fallen off the edge and are no longer effective. The D needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Stan is now stuck with 7 and that contract for a long time. I love Seabs, but that is a bad contract.

Am I the only one here who would gladly take Conor Sheary for a fourth round pick? Surprised that's all PIT required.

STAN - PLEASE DO SOMETHING ALREADY!!!
- Trammelt

So just do something for the sake??

No- do something to help this team contend NOW. We have seen no trades, no immediate help at the draft, and the only rumor of a possible signing is an aging backup Cam Ward, who has been nothing short if NOT GOOD the last 4 seasons. This team is NO BETTER than it was last year. DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IT.

3mil for Sheary and his 30pts? Where is he/that needed on this team??

I'm not sure you watch much of Pittsburgh, regardless he is 26yo and signed through 2020. He had 23 & 18 goals respectively in his first two NHL seasons, along with 60 pts in his first. He can play PP & PK. His offensive numbers dipped a bit last season, IMO due to his primary center being Riley Sheahan and opposite wing - Dominik Simon and Bryan Rust. Not sure if you care much for advanced stats but his CF% is a career avg at 60%, and his goals for while on ice is almost 2 to 1 vs Goals against.

Nonetheless, a 4th round pick would be a small price to pay for a smart, quick, 2 way winger who can put up 60 pts, especially when we need help at W. Especially given the draft pick prices we have paid for players like Jurco, Rundblad, etc..

Sigh
- PatShart

That's just a guess ya.

They have a lot of defencemen that I suspect could be dealt alongside a Forsberg. There is always the picks/prospects angle too.
- Justin Lowe

How do you see Forsberg? I'd love to see if he can develop into a true #1 but do the Hawks take a chance that Crow goes down again and he has to carry the mail for 40-50 starts?

If Boston is looking to move on from Khudobin is this someone Chicago should look at???

Thanks for the responses everyone. Not trying to start rumors or get into a players personal life. But the comments from Stan and Joel in regards to Crow, are frustrating, at best. Was just wondering what everyone else had heard.

It's a really interesting riddle.
- DK002

This is certainly true. I think who they sign, for how much and how long we as fans will get a clue to help solve the riddle. How the Hawks feel about Crow will come from the moves they make not from their mouths.

Took me a bit to remember where I read this, it was Powers:

“I don’t really have an update, per se,” Bowman said. “What I said at the end of the year is still the case now, which is we expect Corey to be back. We don’t have any reason to think that’s not going to happen. But as far as any other things at this point in the summer, all of the players are preparing for next season. Corey’s in that same preparation mode. I guess when you get to the convention he can speak more specifically about himself. But nothing has changed. We expect him to be back and ready to go in training camp.”

Interesting quote in bold.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Not trying to start rumors or get into a players personal life. But the comments from Stan and Joel in regards to Crow, are frustrating, at best. Was just wondering what everyone else had heard.
- HoldenCaulfield

A pin drop.

If Boston is looking to move on from Khudobin is this someone Chicago should look at???
- BlackhawkMike

Have been a fan of this guys for many yrs now as a legit #2.

Oh, okay so because he wasn't the worst on his team, that means we should ignore the fact that he hasn't been good since the Hawks won their first cup. Playing a lot does not = good.

Over the last 5 seasons, Cam Ward has been the worst goalie in the NHL in terms of GSAA.
- L_B_R

And like the last place Hawks of last yr the non playoff Canes were top 5 in team Corsi, correct? Hawk and Cane goalies saw many less shots than the opponent?

A pin drop.
- powerenforcer

I know. I heard it too!

The reason why they haven't talked about Crawford is because of his enrollment in a drug recovery program with the league for alcoholism. As they are not at liberty to talk about players in that program, that is why they are staying hush just using the concussion and broken vertebrate that happened over last Christmas break as a way to drag out not saying anything about the drinking problem. I believe Crow will be back (and should be healthy by now), but the drinking is a serious issue and that is why Stan unfortunately is going to have to acquire a more suitable 1B than Forsberg because they need a good insurance policy for Crow.
- Budi1782

If you have some proof or some source, that's another story, but you don't. So, honestly, stop trying to promote the same narrative over and over again.

Cam Ward? Is not improvement. He's a veteran and thats it. He has been Ehhhh for several years now. And the D unit in Chicago is prolly worse then the one he had in Carolina. There are other options, but most of us agree Ward is not the best choice. Forsberg can be a very good goal tender. He had some rough moments last year, but you can tell the skill is there. CC had very rough times when he first started out.

Its my opinion that the Hawks from a PR standpoint are focusing on net because nobody wants to admit 2 and 7 have fallen off the edge and are no longer effective. The D needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Stan is now stuck with 7 and that contract for a long time. I love Seabs, but that is a bad contract.
- z1990z

I have no problem with Cam Ward on a one year "prove yourself" contract. There would be little risk for us and at this point Ward may not get any better offers. He gets a chance to revive his career on a pretty decent team in front of him. And he has made enough money in his career to walk away from it all at the end of the season if things don't work out.
If the money is beyond $2M with movement clauses, then Bowman needs to look elsewhere.

Cam Ward? Is not improvement. He's a veteran and thats it. He has been Ehhhh for several years now. And the D unit in Chicago is prolly worse then the one he had in Carolina. There are other options, but most of us agree Ward is not the best choice. Forsberg can be a very good goal tender. He had some rough moments last year, but you can tell the skill is there. CC had very rough times when he first started out.

Its my opinion that the Hawks from a PR standpoint are focusing on net because nobody wants to admit 2 and 7 have fallen off the edge and are no longer effective. The D needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Stan is now stuck with 7 and that contract for a long time. I love Seabs, but that is a bad contract.
- z1990z

I'm in no way advocating for Ward - I've actually been doing the exact opposite - but think that just because the Hawks are looking at options to fix one areas of weakness does not mean they aren't looking at other problem areas as well. They're looking at everything, goalie could just be the easiest to cover in UFA class.

And idk how you can say the Hawks PR is focused on goalies only when we've been hearing about the Hawks being interested in d-men and forwards as well. Today's blog and focus is just on goalies so that's the topic but they're not focusing on one area over another.

Pierre -

Agree with @ByScottPowers that Cam Ward is a good possibility for the Blackhawks, in fact I'd say a strong one

Are you suggesting that STL and COL were not fair with Q and did not give him a fair chance so they can be spited? Seems weak. It is also weak to suggest that “armchair coaches and GMs” can’t have insightful critical analysis. Who can then? - just other real coaches and GMs? I think Rocky would disagree. I think Q coached like a Clown last year. I don’t have to be a Chef in a restaurant to recognize poor food. I can be independently knowledgable about food. In the same way I don’t have to be a Coach in the NHL to recognize poor coaching - and whew were the Hawks ever poorly coached last year.
- Z3Hawk


Same as the idiotic thought that Kempny wants to rub it in Q or anyones face they won the cup after they get traded.

It's a business. And they're pros. They can handle being traded.

So Q was a "clown" last year with a mish mash of players. Fine. What was he the year before when he won the west with what was called "smoke and mirrors"? How can he not get credit for 50 wins and winning the west with "smoke and mirrors"? Isnt that good coaching?

Of course not. Or his 3 cups....because "anyone can win with those rosters" argument

Anytime credit is due to Q or Stan, then some BS excuse comes with "anyone can win" or "smoke and mirrors", or it was Dale's team. Some moronic immeasurable excuse or reasoning MUST be the reason they won. But Kempny is now some Norris candidate or Daley was amazing and Q screws poor, poor players then yeah...I think just because everyone can watch the game doesnt mean everyone knows the game. I eat for but would be a horrible food critic. I'm aware of that and wouldn't pretend to know that. So, not a good analysis. Sorry

Pat Shart

So your premise is that a player who is treated poorly by one team to the point that the player’s very confidence is shaken has no thoughts about showing the first team they were wrong by doing well with the second team? - because “It’s a business. And they’re pros. They can handle being traded.” Can you give me details of where this total fantasy world of your’s exists for any job. I know intrinsically that you are wrong but I also know specifically that you are wrong - know how? Rather than simply adopting an entrenched, untenable position that Q is right about all things I actually listen to what Kempny might say on the issue.

Q was NOT mistreated by either STL or COL. These teams gave him ample and fair opportunity to have success. There is no correlation possible between this situation and Kempny’s obvious self-described mistreatment.

Who said that Kempny became a Norris candidate upon being traded? It certainly wasn’t me. Same for Daley. I actually said that getting a 3 for Kempny was a good trade, especially in the circumstances where Q had made Kempny’s life so miserable that there was no possible way he was re-signing with the Hawks.

Also who said that the Hawks being First Seed in the West in 2016-17 was done with “Smoke and Mirrors?” Again it certainly wasn’t me. I actually point to that season as evidence that the Hawks are not far away from competing and that last year was an aberration. The 2016-17 season is less evidence of “good coaching” that season and is more evidence that there was bad coaching last season. Remove the bad coaching and bad luck of last season and the Hawks are much better.

Regarding Bowman I am completely objective. I analyse the moves he does make, and also the moves he does not make, on a case by case basis. Examples - This Draft? Great picks. Panarin trade? Great move. Ladd trade? Horrible move. Danault trade? Horrible move.

Your statement that you eat but obviously couldn’t be a Food Critic and that you wouldn’t “pretend” to be one is a statement about yourself only and you should limit it to that. You shouldn’t try to extrapolate and impose this view of yourself on others. I could certainly be a Food Critic - I have extensive knowledge about food and food preparation and have eaten in many great restaurants across North America. The fact that I am a Lawyer by Profession does not preclude me from having knowledge, even extensive knowledge, about other areas of life. For example, although I am a Lawyer by Profession, I have written articles and been published numerous times in Fishing magazines based upon my knowledge of Fishing.

I have absolutely no problems with anyone disagreeing with my statements or opinions about Q or any hockey topic. For heaven’s sake my very Profession is adversarial in nature. What I do have problems with is someone telling me that I cannot make my statements or have my opinions because I couldn’t possibly have enough knowledge to do so as I am not myself a Coach or GM. That is ludicrous. Pretzel Logic. You may not realize it but you are also saying that you yourself cannot make such statements or have such opinions.

If someone like yourself wishes to say that Q is a bad Coach, a good Coach, a great Coach, even a genius Coach I may disagree with you but I would always hold that you are certainly entitled, and have the knowledge, to have that opinion.

Do the Hawks think he'll be back and fine? Then a Lethonen, Ward, Johnson type should be fine to take 20-25 starts at 2.5 per for a yr.

Do they think maybe he's not fine? If so IMO they spend a bit more on a Lehner, Halak even a Mrazak who have shown they can play 50 games and be a reasonable goaltender. Even a guy like the talented Lehner MIGHT blossom into a mid tier starter but is no doubt capable for 25 games should Crow go down.

My point is every goaltender on the list, that the Hawks rate as acceptable for a specific role, fits depending on hew they see Crawford this yr and maybe even longer term if the look at a Lehner or Hutchinson who are talented and young enough not to be considered a bust as a starter, YET.

IMO if they sign 34 yr old Ward or Lethonen they think Crow is gonna play 55 games. If not I think they sign a Hutton, Halak or a Lehner or even Mrazak.

What's lost in this is Forsberg. Still young, talented, not a bust or proven not to be a #1, resources used to acquire him he would have to clear waivers if they sign any goalie.
- Mr Ricochet

I think you're absolutely correct. How much the Hawks spend on another backup will indicate Crawford's status. And I wouldn't pitch Forsberg to the curb yet either, because if Crawford can't go next year, they're going to need a backup to the backup. He'd be a $750K insurance policy for the Hawks.

(frank) is with everyone writing damn page long posts? Short & sweet people, consolidate your thoughts haha.

I'm in no way advocating for Ward - I've actually been doing the exact opposite - but think that just because the Hawks are looking at options to fix one areas of weakness does not mean they aren't looking at other problem areas as well. They're looking at everything, goalie could just be the easiest to cover in UFA class.

And idk how you can say the Hawks PR is focused on goalies only when we've been hearing about the Hawks being interested in d-men and forwards as well. Today's blog and focus is just on goalies so that's the topic but they're not focusing on one area over another.
- L_B_R

I'm just a little frustrated with this team right now. Alot of holes to fill, but the D is a total train wreck and needs fixing in a major way. As does the coaching on how those guys are utilized.

It’s Marty Turco all over again.
- TommyHawk

Maybe I am totally in the minority, but Cam Ward is a decent nhl goalie, as a starter, then back-up.
Has age and that entire teams defensive coverage helped his game, ever?
No

I am not sure any of those names but Ward are lockscif Crow is not good to go.
Ward at least played big work load goaltender like Barrington’s Craig Anderson.
If CC is out I am not sure any option fills the bill.
I think you try and get Forsberg signed to a two way getvhim to the farm because although I thought he was terrible in all games, he HAS THE POTENTIAL IS O FIGURE THAT T OUT FOR A YEAR....