Quote:
Originally Posted by robaur
none of those things are true for Bishop. Nice try.
1. similar low? I just saw him struggling last season on a very depleted, injury-riddled tampa team.
2. very defence oriented? tampa is not a very defence oriented system...lol have u even watched them? they were terrible this past year in their own end. they are as much defence oriented as any other team in the league.
3. not having won a single thing? bishop went to cup finals and eastern finals in back to back seasons...most likely would have gone back to back cup finals and been a cup champion if not for injury.
4. happily replaced? um tampa had cap problems....you want bishop/vasi and no kucherov OR vasi and kucherov?
|
You can make every excuse in the world for Bishop's shortcomings. Buyer beware is the message. He's not that much better than Elliott. Never has been. He's played on incredibly talented teams (defensively sound is more appropriate than oriented, my fault), gets lit up when he's off his game, and has exposed weaknesses just like Elliott. His advantage is that he's a giant and covers more area when he plays position.
If Bishop was at the level you're saying he is, they would've found a way to keep him. Chicago isn't dumping Crawford even though both Raanta and Darling have looked great behind him. They keep him despite the cap trouble and make it work, and Crawford isn't even "elite"!
Give me someone that has potential to grow, because you're not getting Bishop for a year or two as a favor so you can have a spot open for another young guy to replace him.
With a Darling or Grub type of guy, you have the potential of finding the next Bishop at 1/4 the cost and not absolutely handcuffing your team when your homegrown talent needs money and playing time.