Speculation: Crawford
- Thread starter echlfreak
- Start date
Kaners PPGs
Registered User
You have a very different idea of what "they didn't do sh#t" means compared to me. Now the Hawks haven't done Sh$t since their last Cup.
I've heard the same thing.
But even if I had not -- if the Hawks are saying he will be ready for camp, how could it be a head injury?
Blue Liner
Registered User
No one here on this board who may have sources or contacts within the hockey world give one iota of shit that they have them. Not one. No one’s stating they have a bit of inside information for the sake of “nana I know something you don’t know” and seeking attention from it or thinking they’re better than anybody else here. I can say that with 100% certainty, whatever the subject matter.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
Normally people don't correct others and follow up by pretty much saying "but I'm not going to tell you what the real issue is". At least say what it is in that case. That's the only thing I take issue with.
Blue Liner
Registered User
It’s a tricky endeavor because website rules do not allow for things to be posted without citation or sources.
Which is pretty ridiculous in reality. Like no one here EVER posts anything but fact backed up by credible links to that specific argument. Sure.
BK
"Goalie Apologist"
This is a bit different. We are not talking about a player being unhappy and someone hearing about it because they sat at the table next to them at Chicago Cut as we are not valid sources. Insiders like Bobby Mac, DD, and even our local guys like Scott Powers are valid sources for a reason.
These rule help eliminate the garbage that sites like reddit and hockeybuzz have. I would rather have the rules and not have to deal with the cesspool of trolls.
deytookerjaabs
Johnny Paycheck's Tank Advisor
I know this is a Crow thread but regarding the difference between us and the Pens, some of our top players declining considerably doesn't help, meanwhile Crosby and Malkin are still pretty good players compared to our top two and that's been the difference, imo of course.
IF all of you here were given a choice right now would you swap Toews & Kane for Malkin & Crosby? easy choice and were right back on track. Who knows we still might get back there but our D needs an over haul and more salaries need to be dumped, we got old fast it seems.
Back to Crow, just a shame and if he's not able to play i wonder if the guys will feel that small seed of doubt if our backups do not get the job done. Hope things get rectified soon or this could be a very long season.
Blackhawks
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,679
- 1,137
Ranta. Darling. Emery. Just to name a few. There's always a competent backup goalie here. Last year was the first year in a long long time. Not dwelling in the past?You talked about the past by saying stan hasn't done a good job keeping a competent backup goalie in the ranks... when it has literally been one single season since 2008 that there wasn't one.
Keep that ridiculous Stan is garbage narrative going though, Bobby.
How on earth can people still think Stan is a good GM? As Bobby said, wake up and smell the coffee my friend.
While it's good news Crow is progressing, I don't think we can count on him on Oct. or even in 2019. It's time to look for a young replacement going forward.
There's no reason the spread any rumors. So from Crow's interview, we know it's a medical condition and serious enough prevent him from practice. In fact, Crow seemed to imply that he can't be with his teammates much due to this medical condition.
If Crow can't go, who do we pick up in UFA next year?
There's no reason the spread any rumors. So from Crow's interview, we know it's a medical condition and serious enough prevent him from practice. In fact, Crow seemed to imply that he can't be with his teammates much due to this medical condition.
If Crow can't go, who do we pick up in UFA next year?
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
Bad hockey opinions are one thing. Potentially libelous statements are something else entirely.
Stop with the "libel" thing. Proving defamation for a public figure is almost impossible on an anonymous board. If HF PURPOSELY publishes a report on Crow that's patently false and REFUSES to take down the article after being asked to due to the evidence, then the site is exposed to libel.
This is what happened to Rolling Stone in the UVA Rape Hoax. If they immediately retracted the story and issued an apology after the more than likely inaccuracies, it might have been not as bad. However, they kept the story up their site for weeks.
In regards to Crow's story, it's more about ethics and privacy issues. I don't think it's wrong to wonder out loudly about Crow's medical issues. That's fair game. Crow and the team have talked in public about it. However, the poster should make it known that they are guessing.
That said, when a poster starts "sourcing" the medical issue, that's violating doctor - patient privilege. It's a privacy issue. It's NOT illegal for the poster, but there's a question of ethics. Adam Shefter got hit with journalism ethic questions when he divulged the hand damage of JPP. However, no one was going to sue him for libel.
ChiHawks10
Registered User
He's simply speaking to libel as it pertains to board rules... not legally speaking. AFAIK.
Thanks ... I didn't know.
I never practiced law, just stayed at a Holiday Inn and might have graduated law school YEARS ago ... however, I HATE the words libel, slander, defamation, etc. It's thrown around way too easily in today's society.
This is a message board. This is more about managing our community. It's more about the community keeping ourselves accountable. IN MY OPINION, I don't see anything wrong with posters wondering out loud about a HOCKEY injury. That's fair game.
The question is what information are we allowed to use? Obviously, we shouldn't use any sources from the medical / trainer profession. That's protected under doctor - patient privilege. However, if you hear rumors around the stadium or from other journalists, that's fair game. You just have to say so. Disney does it all the time. However, they source the rumors to a site. They allow the listeners to judge the credibility of the source (TMZ, etc.)
That's why I make fun of "Twitter" sources ... not the person who linked it (unless the source is absolutely ridiculous).
That's just my opinion. I'm sure HF has other guidelines ... which is fine because it's their site.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Okay, let's simplify things. If you want to post a major statement about a hockey personality's health, character, or general off-ice life, you need to have a verifiable source with a recognizable name backing that up. I don't think that's too imposing of a standard for discussion versus random internet sources that are impossible to verify or hold the person possibly making a false statement accountable.
We're all worried about Crow and we're all frustrated at how little we've heard on the record on his health given how staggeringly important he is to us, but at the very least I'd hope that Crawford would be given the benefit of the doubt that whatever issue he's dealing with that he's doing so to the best of his ability and that we'd respect him if there are any more underlying health issues that haven't been made public yet. If a major report comes out about something, we can absolutely suggest that. But nameless sources that random posters trust? Sorry, that's not passing a sniff test.
We're all worried about Crow and we're all frustrated at how little we've heard on the record on his health given how staggeringly important he is to us, but at the very least I'd hope that Crawford would be given the benefit of the doubt that whatever issue he's dealing with that he's doing so to the best of his ability and that we'd respect him if there are any more underlying health issues that haven't been made public yet. If a major report comes out about something, we can absolutely suggest that. But nameless sources that random posters trust? Sorry, that's not passing a sniff test.
ChiHawks10
Registered User
My sources aren't nameless. But if I told you them, I'd have to kill you.
Joking aside, I get it. My whole thing is I'm not going to ever divulge the name of my sources publicly, as then they become former sources, and I don't get inside info anymore. And it would affect me on a more personal level as well. These are people I talk to/see weekly, basically. I'm sure they'd also like to stay in the good graces of their contacts/connections within the organization, also.
LordKOTL
Abuse of Officials
Crawford and to a lesser extent Darling masked an imperial buttload of issues with respect to the team defense over the past 3-4 seasons. Anyone could realistically expect that losing a top-6 goalie would cause the team to plummet down the standings. But the fact of the matter remains that losing Crawford exposed all of the defensive issues with the skaters.
As for Crawford's situation I'm fatalistic about it. If he's done we're done. We don't have the D-prowess anymore to carry a subaverage goaltender--and we haven't since 2014--thus Ward isn't the answer (We'd need someone at the level of Crawford--like Holtby and you're not getting that for 3M). If not, we should have a fighting chance. But, whatever his issue is he should look out for himself #1. Since the 'hawks haven't really improved vs. last season no reason for him to go unless he is 100%.
I know it's reckless speculation ... but the emotion Crow displayed in the interview makes me wonder if he'll ever come back. At this point, I'm more concerned about his health post hockey. I wish Crow the best.
Having the feeling CC will not be 100% and playing to start the season and probably not 100% and ready to play by mid-season at best, or perhaps ever again at worst,what happens to all this doom and gloom if Delia or Lankinen "surprise" at main camp andbore-seasonand show they are "ready" to stop the puck at the NHL level sufficient to become a goalie star in the league? Goalies are x factors on any team ...you cannot predict success for them which is why so few get picked in round one or sometimes even in round two of the draft ...Then it takes several years ...longer than most draftees to develop to be NHL ready if they have the talent to do that except for the rare few who can make the show within a yearcirctwo after drafted..Then you get college stares or perhaps older euro goalies who finally come over who come into the league to star ...we see it in collegecundrafteds like Belfort ..so maybe Delia can..or perhaps some no name "who"?like Lankinen surprises and then voila the worries about goaltending vanish. INA short time it very well ell could be Crawford who ...as the new guy turns into a star in net ..
Point is w e simply do not know..The candidates will get a chance ..it is up to them to seize the opportunity. .Can you bank on this happening?Of course not..but to write them off before their test by trial is also foolish..Goalies are strange x factors and you just never know ..So we shall see ..but it may not be as bad as you think ...we shall find out.
Point is w e simply do not know..The candidates will get a chance ..it is up to them to seize the opportunity. .Can you bank on this happening?Of course not..but to write them off before their test by trial is also foolish..Goalies are strange x factors and you just never know ..So we shall see ..but it may not be as bad as you think ...we shall find out.
EdzosCrayon
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2013
- 404
- 258
Is this also supposed to apply to the main board when they accuse Hossa and league doctors of committing felony level insurance fraud?
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
If you see accusations of outright criminal activity, then yeah, that would be against site rules. That being said, there's a mild difference between fans erroneously accusing Hossa/the Hawks of overstating the severity of his condition for cap circumvention reasons versus accusing them of criminal activities. That's more akin to people that claim that a draft lottery is rigged, for instance. Yes, if you follow the accusation to the logical extreme, that would be illegal fraud, but I highly doubt many, or any, are actually going that far with a baseless statement. Plus, it'd also be another thing to claim an unnamed source outright saying that that's a thing that's happening.
Last edited:
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
Yes, proving it is very tough. Suing for it isn’t. The rule is almost entirely to prevent potential headaches.
