Let's think logically about Crow ...
1. The Hawks really have no succession plan for Crow. We're going to to have to pay a lot or use a high draft pick for a goalie next year if Crow is traded. So trading Crow is not as easy from a long term strategic perspective. The Hawks need to have a Plan B.
It's worse than that: goaltenders as a rule develop the slowest. A big issue on D for us right now is we got old worn-out vets and our top D prospects are so green they need mowing--i.e. a few years out at best. Even Joker is a few years out from being a force--if he ever makes it there; and he's further along than Boqvist, Mitchell, & Beaudin. Delia & Nalimov are in all likelihood even further back. Keith & Seabs took years to become forces. Crawford and Anderson: even longer. Thus, the "high draft pick" route is a non-starter IMHO. Odds are strongly against getting an NHL-ready netminder in the top-10 in the draft--much less one that can play behind this team D.
2. Crow only has 1.5 years left on his contract @$6mn per. His contract is not paralyzing for the Hawks. The Hawks have some leverage.
Exactly, but this works both ways per my reply to @b1e9a8r5s : There are teams out there who would look to jettison their starter--like Howard. Crawford could fetch more, but that cuts both ways--the receiving team doesn't have to dish out as much to get Howard, and with good enough defense the difference in assets needed between Howard and Crawford might not be worth it.
3. Crow has a NMC. Although there is only 1.5 years left, he will probably only waive it for a contender. So let's forget about the crappy teams who might have interest.
Speculation and rumor--but at one point one thing mentioned in the media about one of Crawford's NMC clauses was, "only if he's the starter". So, that could further complicate matters. Sure, we never know what a player will waive for--or even if they will. But consideration has to be paid to that fact--Crawford may not waive to go to a contender if he has to play second banana.
4. The return for Crow is volatile. It only takes one team to give up a 1st rounder. That said, who is the opposing GM? Are they desperate to win? Will Crow push them over for a Cup? Does the GM have a track record for trading young asssets? Are their jobs on the line this year? For example, who is Philly's GM and what's his deal?
Again: if a team is a contender would they want to part with (hypothetically) a 1st for Crawford--a late 1st, or possibly a 2nd for Howard? If the team is a contender, you can expect them to have good, if not great defense. Behind that defense is the difference that great. Crawford may steal more games than Howard but a good team would need less games stolen for them.
5. Does the opposing team have cap space? What contract will we have to take back if not? No long term bad contracts.
Exactly. The 'hawks have to be picky about the return for Dr. Craw...or anyone for that matter. If we (hypothetically) find a taker for Seabs that has a similar cap hit, but is only one year less--is it worth it? IMHO they need to be keeping the cap open for guys like Debrincat and (if they develop) Joker, Boqvist, etc.--not kicking the can down the road.
6. Trading Crow in order to secure more lottery balls might be the bigger incentive. Lose for Hughes.
No lottery ball is ever guaranteed. see also: Cam Ward. Se also: Kyle Beach. See also: Jack Skille Our picks have to actually pan out for it to be worth it.
7. Belichick never distinguishes the value of a draft pick by first or second round. He assigns the value by number. The 24th pick is not much different than the 36th pick. If a first round pick is top 10 protected ... it's not hugely different from a 2nd round pick.
Hockey not being football notwithstanding, picks have to pan out as I mentioned. If you take Crawford and trade him for a late 1st, you'll need that quality of player to come back at least for enough time to do damage. In Crawford you got a top-10 goalie...easy. That value has to be equaled or bested in terms of what comes out of it. In recent memory: The jury is out on Joker. El Gato would be decent in terms of acquisition. Schmaltz wouldn't be worth it. Hartman wouldn't be worth it. T²? Maybe but we didn't hang onto him. Hartman wasn't worth it. Danault didn't stay and Clendening IMHO wouldn't be worth it. McNeil wasn't worth it. Have you heard *anything* from Rensfeldt? Kevin Hayes never stuck. Olsen wouldn't be worth it. Beach was higher but arguably the 2nd worst draft pick we've had in recent memory. Lalonde was a bust. Makarov was a bust, Blunden was a bust. Bolland was good for awhile then fell off the face of the earth. Bickell had his moments. Garlock was a nobody.
Those are the picks the 'hawks have done in the realm of a late 1st/early 2nd. IMHO more misses than hits. That has to be taken under consideration: Moving Crawford for a pick that doesn't pan out can be as bad as losing him for nothing in the UFA market. Not every trade-for-a-pick works out to be Dr. Karpotszev for the pick that brought us Hjammer.
8. Is Crow fully healthy? Our defense sucks so I wouldn't take too much stock in his goals against this year.
Crawford is not as sharp this year in a vacuum. Maybe not 2012 bad but not 2015, 2017, and definitely not 2013, 2016 or 2018 good. The team D may suck like MegaMaid™ but it's definitely not like last year where the team D sucked and still Crawford was lights-out. There may be some consideration but on the flipside he's not as sharp as before his concussion.
