Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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.
|
If Chicago had to pick between Kane and Crawford, I'm pretty sure they would drop Crawford in an instant and go with Darling.
That's the decision that Tampa made. It was Kucherov or Bishop. Their cap situation was managed in that direction, and they had to make a tough decision. It's not making excuses. It's reality. Otherwise why would you trade your starting goalie who's taken you to round 3 or later in 2 of the last 3 years. Only reason Tampa failed this year miserably was due to injuries.
Besides, Vasilevskiy's new contract kicks in next season at $3.5m AAV. They had no choice but to get rid of Bishop.
Scott Darling is a UFA this season and Crawford is signed for another 3 years. BTW....Darling made practically the league minimum this year.