Crawford: Will work for hockey Questions:
1. What if the Stars were 10 points out of the No. 8 seed and never had the opportunity to play that play-in game, would Crawford have been fired?
2. Was it too hasty?
The Stars have missed the playoffs for three straight years, including both seasons of Crawford. The Stars were 79-60-25 the last two seasons. They finished ninth and 12th in the conference with 95 and 88 points. They got better from his first year to the next.
They collected a bunch of youthful talent, a goaltender and a solid defenseman (Goligoski) that you can build around.
They also played in the best conference of recent memory. In 2009-10, seven of the eight Western Conference teams had at least 100 points. This year, they notched 95 wins, which would have put them as the sixth seed in the conference. All of this with a ton of injuries, uncertainty in the owner's office and a pathetic payroll.
To answer my own questions, I think if the Stars had 80 points and were well out of the playoff spot and were not playing for the playoffs this Sunday, I think Crawford stays.
And I do think it was a hasty move.
What I and really none of us know is what was happening behind closed doors. Crawford was known as a hard ass. Did this grind on the players? Did he piss off Joe Nieuwendyk? Or was it just a reflex move? If so, why wasn't it done Sunday night or Monday?
Seems like a lot more questions than answers, and to my ignorant hockey brain like a questionable move.
