Confirmed with Link: Elliott traded to CAL for 35th (& Cond. 3rd)

[Davimir Tarablad]

This. Don't be shocked to see him exposed in the draft over Darling.

He's not going to waive his NMC to be exposed.

 

[KingBran]

Your post was about him getting a starting job somewhere and you listed the Oilers as the only possibility.

"I can't imagine he gets a starting job anywhere. MAYBE Oilers? Maybe the Oilers go all in on Bishop?"

It wasn't about him getting a starting job at all.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

This. Don't be shocked to see him exposed in the draft over Darling.

Isn't it impossible for him to be exposed? He'd have to choose to be...and I don't think the team could pressure him to do so. I think you're way off here.

 

[Brian39]

This. Don't be shocked to see him exposed in the draft over Darling.

I would be absolutely stunned. He has a NMC and a partial NTC, so he would have to waive his NMC in order to be exposed. There is absolutely zero reason for him to waive his NMC to go to an expansion franchise. The cap is catching up to the Hawks, but they are still a pretty god spot for an NHL goalie. They are certainly more attractive than an expansion franchise. If (and this is a huge if) the Hawks try to strongarm Crawford into waiving, he will almost certainly say, "here is the list of teams I will refuse a trade to. Vegas is on it along with X, Y, Z. If you want me gone, trade me to a team not on my list."

From Crawford's perspective, he would be better off using his NMC and modified NTC to ensure he lands in a better short term situation than Vegas. The Hawks almost definitely won't buy him out and even if they did it wouldn't be a bad thing for Crawford (he would just need to land a 3 year deal at $2.25 mil per in order to break even).

Even if the Hawks need to get rid of him, he still has positive value in a trade. He wasn't very good in the payoffs this year, but he is still a 2 time Cup champ that is unquestionably an above average starter in the NHL. Even if he has a 15 or 20 team no-trade list, one of the other 11-16 teams would trade a 4th round pick for him in a heartbeat (I think his value is higher, but this is just to illustrate that they could easily be rid of him if they are willing to take nearly nothing in return).

Everyone knows there is basically zero chance that the Hawks pay $6 mil to play him as a backup. They don't have the space to give Darling anything close to a fair contract as a starter and they have other needs to address, so they absolutely will not pay a backup $6 mil. If they are hell bent on getting rid of him, they will do it. But everyone knows the threat of benching him if he doesn't waive a NMC is hollow.

Exposing him would be a waste of an asset, would be viewed negatively by potential free agents or RFAs that are looking for a NMC or modified NTC, would probably cause hard feelings among the core, and makes little to no sense for the player who would have to waive the NMC.

 

[MissouriMook]

Lost in the Crawford / Darling conversation is that Darling is a UFA. There is no point in protecting him unless he signs an extension before the E.D. My guess is that the Hawks will try to reach a tentative agreement with Darling on an extension but wait until after the E.D. to have him sign it. They can then focus on whether or not it makes sense to try to trade Crawford. According to CapFriendly he only has a modified NTC, so there very well may be a number of teams they can trade him to without his permission.

 

[Brian39]

Lost in the Crawford / Darling conversation is that Darling is a UFA. There is no point in protecting him unless he signs an extension before the E.D. My guess is that the Hawks will try to reach a tentative agreement with Darling on an extension but wait until after the E.D. to have him sign it. They can then focus on whether or not it makes sense to try to trade Crawford. According to CapFriendly he only has a modified NTC, so there very well may be a number of teams they can trade him to without his permission.

It has never been released, but I'd guess it is a list of 7-12 teams. However, even a 7 team no trade list is a big deal for a goalie. Half the league has a starter already and can only take on $6 mil in net if they send back a goalie making $4+ mil. Chicago can't really do that, so the field is already a lot more narrow than it is for a top 6 forward or top 4 D man.

For example, say Crawford has a 7 team no trade list. Put Vegas, Calgary, Vancouver, Buffalo, Philly, Carolina and Winnipeg on that list and you have included basically every team that could afford to take on Crawford without also moving a goalie making $4+ mil. Montreal, Boston, NJ, NYR, Washington, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Ottawa, LA, San Jose, Edmonton, Minnesota, and Nashville all have established goalies and clearly don't have interest in burning an asset for Crawford. Toronto, St Louis, Detroit, Tampa, and Anaheim have identified an early-mid 20s goalie as #1, given him an extension, and committed so it probably doesn't make sense for any of those teams to go after Crawford. Colorado, Florida, Dallas, Arizona, and the NY Islanders may be looking at Crawford as an upgrade, but they have big money tied up in goaltending already and would need to find a way to shed salary. That 7 team list excludes all the teams that would immediately make sense, so there is a very small market to work with and any trade needs to get creative with salary. Factor in the UFA class this year (Bishop, Elliott, maybe Darling, Miller, Bernier, Mason) and the availability of Fleury and it isn't exactly a seller's market for Chicago.

At the end of the day, I think it will be very difficult to get anything close to fair value for Crawford. Unless they truly believe that Darling is a better goalie than Crawford, I don't think the asset coming back is enough to entice them to give Darling the #1 job without a safety net. The cost to keep Darling and acquire an adequate safety net will likely be as much or similar to Crawford and a cheap backup, so I think their decision will need to come down to who they believe gives them a better chance of winning.

I'm really high on Darling and am in the camp that thinks Crawford is somewhere in the 8-15 range of starting goalies. I'd probably try to move Crawford if I can extend Darling, but I think Chicago management truly feels that Crawford is in the tier just below the league's elite.

 

[stl76]

Well FWIW I was wrong about Darling and CHI.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Well FWIW I was wrong about Darling and CHI.

Eh, it could have gone either way. Probably would have been smarter to keep Darling and expose Crow.i wouldn't be surprised to see them be pretty aggressive in trying to get Oetinger or DiPietro in this year's draft now tho