I'll have to try and find it at some point. But I do remeber reading that in 2013 Stan was close to a deal in the middle of the season on Bicks 2mil/2years and McD wanted to hold off until summer for more media attention over the summer months. No one would have had a problem with Bicks remaining on this team at 2x2. Regardless I would bet McD had alot to do with Bickell being brought back aswell. I'm sure he diddnt want a playoff hero walking in free agency.
That was also with the impression that the cap was supposed to go up alot more than it did. Pretty ****** timing honestly.
Uh what? Crawford is in a 3 way tie for the 8th highest paid goaltender in the league and makes only 250k more than leauge starting goaltender median. That was also coming off a Stanley Cup season where he got robbed of a Conn Smythe. That's really not bad. I have zero problem with Crawford getting paid like an average starting goaltender but I guess you're right in the fact that it could have been a year shorter though.
As a comparable:
MAF's hit is 250k less and one more year.
Lehtonen is 100k less and one less year
Cam Ward is 300k more and same length
Mike Smith is 333k less and same length
Jimmy ****ing Howard is 700k less and same length
I'll take Crow at his contract over all of the above. I don't know what you're basing this statement on...
There was just no way we were going to be able to afford Leddy and just about everyone knows that. Tell me how we would be able to afford Leddy's 5.5AAV right now? I mean we won the cup the year we traded him. Who would you have prefered we traded? Sharp? Maybe we don't win the cup if Sharp isn't a part of this team and Leddy is...
Easy.
We had Hayes ready and willing to fill Bickell's spot and while he didn't hit like Bickell, he was a better skater (better fit in transition) and would have saved 3 million right there. You don't lock up a replaceable, expendable player, for a #3-#4 elite PMD defensemen that fills a need. You don't wait for his ELC to expire, you lock him up earlier on a bridge deal on a team friendly cap hit.
When you are an elite team I think you need to get out ahead of things a bit and take some risks on some of your younger guys. Give them some extra coin before the ELCs expire and get them on 4-5 year $3 million deals. Leddy likely could have been had for 2-3 million at that rate.
With T and K I think Stan had all the leverage while Brisson had ****. They are the faces of this franchise and make a **** ton of money in local endorsements. You can't tell me that Stan couldn't have had Toews for $9.5 million and Kane for 8.5-9.0. At 10.5 Kane likely provides overall negative value (slightly) as he isn't as valuable as Toews to justify 13% of the overall cap hit. Obviously the Hawks are willing to spend as much as they can, but that ~1 means a hell of a lot less to them than the 2-2.5 means for icing the best team conceivably possible. The Hawks didn't even get market value let alone a hometown discount.
The Seabrook deal is the worst of them all though. He's declining, a big and slow dman, and on the wrong side of 30. The Hawks also have several intriguing possibilities with TVR, Panarin, TT, etc. that may be better values/players now and going forward. Why would you prematurely spend money on an 8 year deal instead of waiting until the offseason? Not only are the numbers terrible, but Stan may have ****ed himself out of better, younger players in the process. And for what? To lock up the most overrated player on the team until he's 39? The move was terrible and there is absolutely no grounds for defense.
Crawford's contract doesn't look horrendous....now. At the time? He hadn't had consistency at the NHL level and was widely regarded as a mediocre goalie playing in front of an elite defense. Not only had he not proved to be worth that money, I highly doubt teams were lining up to sign Crawford for that term and price. Judging by many of the articles from industry "experts" (at the time), it seemed to be the prevailing feeling as well.
