| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2011 : 08:01:00
|
Poll Question:
Ok I'm in a pool where it's 2 points for a win and 1 point for a shutoot. It's a keeper and we can keep 5 players, we can only keep one goalie. Last year I ended the season with Brodeur, Kiprusoff and Crawford. What goalie should I keep. Will Brodeur bounce back and have another 35-40 wins and his regular 5 shutout at his age? Will Kiprusoff keep up the 70 games seasons all his career or is he starting to falther? Will Crawford be THE man in Chicago and will he have a good sophomore season?
I know it's a tough dilema and probably a good one but that's why I'm asking you guys.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 08:27:46
|
Seeing as it's a keeper league, it's a no-brainer for me - I take Crawford. Kipper might have a similar point total at the end of the year as Crawford, but in a year or two, he'll be retired. Brodeur, I just can't see him getting the wins to compete with the other two.
Your point system doesn't give a huge reward for shutouts, so it's mostly about wins . . . and Chicago looks like they might be a very strong contender, while NJ and Calgary will both be life and death to make the playoffs. If all three get the same amount of starts . . . that might be ten more wins right there.
Crawford.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
 |
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 09:09:33
|
| I agree with Slozo based on the teams they play for Crawford seems to be the choice. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 11:01:35
|
yeah, for a keeper pool, hands down Crawford. In that situation, Brodeur doesn't even warrant consideration, and Kipper, while solid, is closer to retirement than Crawford.
Crawford is young, plays for a team thats going to get a lot of points, and is good enough to get those wins. He will almost certainly be THE man in CHI for the forseeable future. |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 12:33:15
|
| I was also leaning towards Crawford especially when considering his age. But I dont see him play often because Im on the east cost. So I was wondering if he truly had the potential to be a legit number one goalie playing more then 60 games a season. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 13:00:47
|
quote:
So I was wondering if he truly had the potential to be a legit number one goalie playing more then 60 games a season
absolutely - he nearly played that last year in his rookie season. He was solid all year long, and was one of the best Hawks vs VAN in the first round last year, especially in game 7. He is the CHI goalie of the forseeable future. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 14:02:10
|
Joel Queneville is not known to have any allegiance to any goalie. He started 2 years ago with Cristobal Huet as his #1 in Chicago and ended up going with Niemi down the wire. The next year he had Turco as his #1 and went to Crawford later in the season. Who will be Chicago's #1 this year??? You can be certain it will be Crawford at the start of the season but who will end the season??
Chicago is going into the season with who appears to be a potential stud in Alexander Salak. He was the #2 ranked keeper in the SEL last season and took his team to the Swedish Finals. Just for insurance, Ray Emery is there on a try-out basis. Rest assured, if Crawford falters at all Queneville will go to an unproven back up.
For that reason, I would be careful about keeping Crawford. Kiprusoff is 34 yrs old and has two more seasons on his current contract. Even after that, who's to say he will be retired in a year or two. I see that guy playing 3-4 more seasons. He is the only thing close to an NHL keeper in Calgary. He has been an ironman for them missing only one game since 2004 due to an illness. He has played 70+ games in 6 straight seasons and his worst season in that time was 35 wins. He has a legit chance at 40 wins if Calgary finds any kind of form this season.
I think I would keep Kiprusoff and look for a replacement keeper next season or even the season after. Crawford has 65 careern NHL games. He has proven an big pile of nothing to this point. Go with what you know is almost a certainty. That is a 70+ games and 35+ wins for the next 3+ seasons from Miikka Kiprusoff. It would be even better for a keeper league if Calgary tanks early and blows up their team. Kipper on a better squad would be even more of a sure thing. |
|
|
|
Guest7601
( )
|
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 21:50:40
|
| Thanks Beans, you read my mind. In addition, Kipper is capable of 6 to 10 shut outs so you can bank on some decent shut out points which can be a difference maker when you're pool is wrapping up. Kipper for a couple more seasons and then when he gets traded to another team he'll be good trade bait. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 05:45:48
|
Good points brought up by Beans - all valid.
And I do agree the potential for shutouts is greater with Kipper perhaps - but as I pointed out, it's only one extra point for a shutout, 2 points for a win.
What I will add about Crawford is that he looked great in last year's playoffs. The guys behind him - a total rookie and a bust - would only be replacements in an absolutely desperate situation. Crawford, even if he totally craps the bed, will assuredly get 40 starts at minimum, but I would wager 60 for sure. Even if his GAA and save percentage is mediocre, he'll get 35 wins, I think.
Is it a risk versus the ever-dependable Kipper? Yes, it is - but a calculated one.
Kipprusoff, remember, almost lost his starters job beginning of the year last season. He played terribly at times, and looked out of sorts. He recovered nicely; but to me, it was a sign of the future, and that is why I think retirement for him will come earlier than most . . . he just plays a heck of a lot of hockey, more than almost any goalie ona consistent basis. I think he starts his decline very soon . . . like, now.
But like I said, fair points by Beans, and he's right - Chicago could go in a different direction quickly if Crawford falters. I just don't think he will, and in a keeper league, the potential for a very good goalie on a great team for the next few years is just too good to pass up.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 06:59:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Good points brought up by Beans - all valid.
And I do agree the potential for shutouts is greater with Kipper perhaps - but as I pointed out, it's only one extra point for a shutout, 2 points for a win.
What I will add about Crawford is that he looked great in last year's playoffs. The guys behind him - a total rookie and a bust - would only be replacements in an absolutely desperate situation. Crawford, even if he totally craps the bed, will assuredly get 40 starts at minimum, but I would wager 60 for sure. Even if his GAA and save percentage is mediocre, he'll get 35 wins, I think.
Is it a risk versus the ever-dependable Kipper? Yes, it is - but a calculated one.
Kipprusoff, remember, almost lost his starters job beginning of the year last season. He played terribly at times, and looked out of sorts. He recovered nicely; but to me, it was a sign of the future, and that is why I think retirement for him will come earlier than most . . . he just plays a heck of a lot of hockey, more than almost any goalie ona consistent basis. I think he starts his decline very soon . . . like, now.
But like I said, fair points by Beans, and he's right - Chicago could go in a different direction quickly if Crawford falters. I just don't think he will, and in a keeper league, the potential for a very good goalie on a great team for the next few years is just too good to pass up.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Hey Slozo, a couple of points in this last post have me scratching my head. Just out of curiousity, could you help me understand what your ' a total rookie' comment means?? What was Crawford when he unseated Turco?? What was Niemi when he unseated Huet??? Secondly, when did Kipper ever come close to losing his starting job?? I don't recall that at all. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 10:30:47
|
Total rookie - an unproven rookie
Crawford was a rookie when he unseated Turco - but not a "total rookie". He had, over the last few years, gathered 9 games of experience - getting called up, getting some experience, etc. He had been in the system for a long time, and was already viewed as a young goalie who could back up the starter if there was an injury - and was slated to start a third of the games last season, when he ended up starting 57 in the end (with 7 stellar games in the playoffs).
Kipper losing his starting job - well, it was an exaggerration, especially since Calgary had no one to step in. But, he did struggle mightily first half of the season, and there was a lot of talk about Kipper being "done", that he had played too much hockey and was just burned out. On a team with a better backup, he would've played far less games.
You'll have to explain your own cooment on Salak being a potential stud, btw.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 10:33:12
|
Great points all around guys. My question to the OP would be regarding a replacement if the one you stick with sucks and/or loses his gig? Will this ruin the entire season for you, or is her replaceable? If you go with Crawford, will someone else for sure p/u the other two?
I lean towards Crawford, even though it's a bit of a gamble. I like his upside and it's basically his job to lose. He plays for a very good team, with a very good few core dmen who aren't going anywhere. Being that it's a keeper league, i let the old guys walk, but again, it really depends on what i said/asked above. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 11:47:52
|
If 9 games makes a guy not a 'total rookie," what is the cut-off?? 3 games, 4 games?? How many games???
Alexander Salak has 2 NHL games with FLA 2 years ago, plus another 48 in the AHL, 108 games in the top Finish League and 32 games in the Swedish Elite League. I wouldn't call that a total rookie myself, and definitely comparable to both Crawford and Niemi before they got their chance.
As far as my potential stud comment, well I've already said it. But I will repeat myself. He lead his team to the Swedish finals last season. He was the #2 ranked goalie in the Swedish Elite league last year. That should be enough to quantify "potential" stud. If you need more, let me know. Not at all saying he will be a stud, but he does have potential. I would say about the same potential as Niemi and Crawford before him. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 15:50:23
|
Despite Bean's defense of Kipper, I still take Crawford in this showdown myself.
1. This is a keeper pool - Crawford is about as blue chip as you can get for young prospects in the NHL, he's coming off a stellar rookie season and a very good showing in a high pressure playoff round. I think he'll do the same next year. Kipper may have 4 solid years left, but...thats only 4 years. Were this a single season pool, I might go Kipper, or at least they would be an equal choice. But for a keeper, nope.
2. Crawford plays for a much better team in CHI, and will get every chance (and more) to be the starter. This is good for 2 reasons: a) he'll get an opportunity to get more wins, and b) he doesn't have to be the best player on the ice most nights to get those wins. All he has to do to keep his starters job is to play slightly above average goaltending. I think he's capable of that and more, so that should not be hard.
While Quenneville might not have any particular allegiance to a particular goalie, Crawford is not in the same situation as Turco last year (veteran rental to provide mentorship to young goalie while filling a hole for a single season), and IMO he'll be given a lot more latitude in his performance this coming sesaon than Turco was last year. He is their current plan for the future.
That being said, if Crawford goes 0-20 or something like that to start the season, then all bets are off - but I think its worth the gamble that he will not do that. |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 07:39:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Great points all around guys. My question to the OP would be regarding a replacement if the one you stick with sucks and/or loses his gig? Will this ruin the entire season for you, or is her replaceable? If you go with Crawford, will someone else for sure p/u the other two?
I lean towards Crawford, even though it's a bit of a gamble. I like his upside and it's basically his job to lose. He plays for a very good team, with a very good few core dmen who aren't going anywhere. Being that it's a keeper league, i let the old guys walk, but again, it really depends on what i said/asked above.
Good questions, everything is replaceable at some point. If I keep Crawford, Kipper and Brodeur will both be taken during the draft no question, I could rush to get one of them as a solid 2nd goalie. But it is replaceable because we can make trades or draft undrafted players all year long. Plus you can have 3 players on your bench, so I could go after a goalie like Bernier or Neuvirth and hold on to them.
So the way Beans puts it is that I would be safer with Kiprusoff for this year and then try to draft another young stud when Kipper truly falters. But my real debate about that is Is Crawford to good of an opportunity to pass on. The goalies like Lundqvist, Luongo, Fleury, Miller, Price, Rinne etc. are all taken and are being kept by their owner. I had Brodeur for a couple of years, last year I was able to draft Kipper and take Crawford as a bench backup. The truly young stud goalies are hard to find, so that's why I just wanted to know if Crawford was really worth it.
I understand that it's hard to say because Crawford only has one season under his belt and many many goalies doesnt prove anything after their first season, the question is should I play the risky game or the safe game. I think Crawford has a greater reward then the risk it involves.
I like the debate though that got me really thinking of what I want. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 08:02:55
|
Couple of rebuttles to Nuxfan.
1 - Crawford is as blue chip as they get?? Mason was blue chip, Leclaire was blue chip, DePietro was blue chip, Bernier was blue chip, the list goes on and on. There are no shortage of 'blue chip' goalies and no shortage of 'blue chip' tank jobs either.
2 - Chicago is a better team, that is why he expectation is higher. Kipper gets 70+ games a year simply because there is no one else there. Even a goalie like Kipper on an average team will get 35 wins. Can anyone name a goalie in Chicago who has played more than 50 games in the past 5+ seasons??? Anyone???
Point being is this, I am not totally opposed to Crawford. I think he is a decent goalie and could do everything people are saying. However, he has less total NHL experience than Kiprusoff gets in a single season. He has not proven anything yet.
So the question is, do you go with what you know or do you go with potential?? I know my experience is going with what you know doesn't bit you in the a$$. Potential often does. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 11:47:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Can anyone name a goalie in Chicago who has played more than 50 games in the past 5+ seasons??? Anyone???
Going with the past 5 seasons only, yes, i can 
Khabibulin 5 seasons ago played 60. The following year, he played 50 (so i guess that doesn't quite qualify as you said "played more than 50). Other than that, Crawford's 10-11 season saw him play 57.
I get your points of course, but couldn't pass up the challenge put forth  . |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 23:08:52
|
quote:
So the question is, do you go with what you know or do you go with potential?? I know my experience is going with what you know doesn't bit you in the a$$. Potential often does.
Last year in one of my pools I took Marty Brodeur, I was "going with what I know" Sometimes going with what you know does bite you.
I get what you're saying - one good season does not a player make. Yeah, right now, going into next season, Crawford is as blue chip a goalie prospect as you get. You noted a lot of fails, however you can look at goalies like Howard and Quick as other solid blue chip prospects that did pan out. How good are keeper poolies feeling if they kept one of those goalies after their rookie seasons?
For me, a keeper pool is about trying to get that young talent that comes along - when you get a chance to keep someone like Crawford - who could be a big time keeper in a few years - I say take it. If he doesn't pan out, look to get another keeper in a couple of years time to replace him. Kipper is a known entity, he has 2, maybe 3 good years left in him. However, I would hate to be the poolie that had Crawford and gave him away, only to see him become the next Lundqvist or Luongo in 2-3 years time. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 05:47:07
|
I am glad you brought up Howard, nuxfan, because that is the last goalie I can think of that was a rookie goalie going into his second year on a very good team.
That for me is the tipping point for picking Crawford: he is on a very good Chicago team. Even if he has what might be considered a "mediocre" sophomore season like Howard had . . . it would be decent, statistically, for hockey pools.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 07:47:42
|
My only challenge with this, and perhaps I am mis-reading something, is that the question is which one of the three to keep. That lends to the assumption that this keeper league has only one goalie. If that is the case, I do not want to go with a Crawford as my single goalie. I would have him at a #2 and if and when he continues his play this season I would look to drop an older players and look for another blue chipper.
And I have to say that the comparison to Brodeur is a little bit of a stretch. Kiprusoff has not had any serious injuries in the past 3 seasons like Brodeur has. Kiprusoff is 5 yrs younger than Broduer is, and Calgary did not make such dramatic changes to their team like NJ did.
I think few people if any would have dropped Martin Brodeur from their keeper pool 5 years ago so why drop Kiprusoff?? He puts up very similar numbers, is almost always in the top 3-5 goalies in wins, and has life left.
But Nux fan, you are are 100% correct. Eventually, going with what you know will let you down. At least once per player.  I don't see that with Kipper but I have been known to be wrong before. As a betting man, I would bet the odds of Kipper having 35+ wins and 70+ games are higher than Crawford getting the same number of wins regardless of how many games he plays. |
|
|
|
Guest4312
( )
|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:04:24
|
| i'd go with kipper simply because crawford is replacable and chicago has shown this offseason they may not believe he is the answer in net (by signing the SEL goalie and giving emery a try-out) |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:04:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
For However, I would hate to be the poolie that had Crawford and gave him away, only to see him become the next Lundqvist or Luongo in 2-3 years time.
As a Canucks fan, i'd prefer he becomes the next Andrew Raycroft, though i don't see it. 
The OP (Leafs81) said "Last year i ended the season with Brodeur, Kiprusoff and Crawford" so obviously they have more than one goalie. His dilemma is that he can only protect / keep ONE goalie. He may be able to keep Crawford AND pick back up Kipper if he's still available at his pick???
Either way, do i sense another bet coming? Crawford vs Kipper? Hmmmm....... (just stirring the pot).
|
|
|
|
Guest4312
( )
|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:06:49
|
| and just a reminder to the people of this thread martin brodeur could easily have the best season of these three netminders next season. if kipper isn't too old to keep i don't think one of the top 3 goalies of all time should be considered over the hill already after 1 bad season and 15+ incredible ones |
|
|
|
Guest4086
( )
|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 10:09:34
|
most of those years spent with guys like Stevens, Neidermayer, and Madden in front of him.
his team clearly isn't the same as it once was, and his age is starting to show. between these three, Brodeur would be the first to go IMO. |
|
|
|
Guest4312
( )
|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 10:52:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4086
most of those years spent with guys like Stevens, Neidermayer, and Madden in front of him.
his team clearly isn't the same as it once was, and his age is starting to show. between these three, Brodeur would be the first to go IMO.
the best statistical season of brodeur's career (2006-2007) where he had 48 wins and 12 shutouts the only player of the three you listed that was on the team was madden ... also the worst player of the three you mentioned... i used to think brodeur was the good goalie with better team defense but the fact is he is one of the best regardless of who plays in front of him... i would expect a bounce back season for marty... not vezina caliber but definitely not last year stats |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 18:45:50
|
| yabbut - Brodeur is 39. Even if he wins the Vezina next year, I would not take him in a keeper pool at the expense of Crawford or Kipper. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
goalie pool 
