Elliott lets in another softy - is this his last game in Calgary?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's not better when that goalie just cost you a playoff series.

Enough dumpster diving for goalies to save a buck.

Get a ####ing elite goalie signed with term and be done with it. Sure there's risk, but no more than dumpster diving and if the last 3 games didn't show you that nothing will.

I have no doubt in my mind if we had Bishop right now we'd still be watching the Flames tomorrow night, and we'd either be 2-2 or up 3-1 in this series.

The thing to consider though is that Gilles is probably ready to be the Flames starting goaltender by the '18-'19 season. Maybe sign Bishop or Fleury to a big money 1 year deal?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The thing to consider though is that Gilles is probably ready to be the Flames starting goaltender by the '18-'19 season. Maybe sign Bishop or Fleury to a big money 1 year deal?

Neither would even entertain the idea unless literally nobody else was offering even a two year deal.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by polak

And I'm not shocked Elliot struggled on a new team with a new coach that was in absolute disarray at the beginning of the year. Since the all star break you can count the truly bad games Elliot had on one hand.

Signing Bishop long term will be a mistake in my opinion. Clearly their is no convincing you guys. Elliot had a bad playoffs, burn him at the stake.

Not saying sign him for 5-7 years but 3-4 is okay. Also closer to $5-6M than $7-8M that he would have commanded on an extension last summer

Elliott had an awful start to the season and a horrible playoffs. He has never played true starter minutes and outside of a run on a Hitchcock team that always hesitated to truly give him the reigns.

I bashed Elliott for a huge portion of the season because of his play. He won me over with a nice 25 game stretch but lost me again in the playoffs especially game 3

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The thing to consider though is that Gilles is probably ready to be the Flames starting goaltender by the '18-'19 season. Maybe sign Bishop or Fleury to a big money 1 year deal?

Fleury has 2 years left on his deal we could take on the contract and perhaps Gillies or Parsons are ready in 19-20

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The thing to consider though is that Gilles is probably ready to be the Flames starting goaltender by the '18-'19 season. Maybe sign Bishop or Fleury to a big money 1 year deal?

MAF already signed till 18-19 season.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Here are Tampa's starting 6 D the year they went to the Cup two seasons ago:

- Anton Stralman
- Victor Hedman
- Jason Garrison
- Matt Carle
- Andrej Sustr
- Nikita Nesterov

Here's St. Louis' D last year (not considering the fact they were a Hitchcock team up front)

- Kevin Shattenkirk
- Alex Petreangelo
- Corey Parayko
- Jay Bouwmeester
- Carl Gunnarson
- One of Bartuzzo or Edmundson

Don't look anything alike to me.

[Anduril]

I'm in the camp that Bishop is a better goalie (would be nice to see one competent at playing the puck here) but given the recent down in Bishop's performance, it's not out of reason to question whether committing to him long term and at an potentially expensive cost is the best decision given those risks.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Here are Tampa's starting 6 D the year they went to the Cup two seasons ago:

- Anton Stralman
- Victor Hedman
- Jason Garrison
- Matt Carle
- Andrej Sustr
- Nikita Nesterov

Here's St. Louis' D last year (not considering the fact they were a Hitchcock team up front)

- Kevin Shattenkirk
- Alex Petreangelo
- Corey Parayko
- Jay Bouwmeester
- Carl Gunnarson
- One of Bartuzzo or Edmundson

Don't look anything alike to me.

I might be dumb but what's your point?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

I might be dumb but what's your point?

The guys on Tampa are not known for defense, yet someone just said that both Elliott and Bishop played in defensive systems. Without even considering one is a Hitchcock team, all one has to do is look at the roster compositions and see that's not an accurate statement at all.

[flamesforcup]

I would shine Bishop to a 2 year deal MAX. He ddnt look good this season but if hes the best option so be it.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Anduril

I'm in the camp that Bishop is a better goalie (would be nice to see one competent at playing the puck here) but given the recent down in Bishop's performance, it's not out of reason to question whether committing to him long term and at an potentially expensive cost is the best decision given those risks.

He's the best available option without having to trade pieces away. People are just sick of not going for the best available option and trying to dumpster dive for goaltending on the cheap. I'm not sold on Bishop either, but it's time the Flames put their eggs in the basket of a proven starter instead of career backups.

[Azhouse]

Oh that clears it up...

[PepsiFree]

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.

[robaur]

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.

[lazypucker]

Pittsburgh needs to get rid of Fleury in order to keep Murray, and the Flames wants to get rid of Brouwer. This makes a perfect match to trade. Trade before the expansion draft and the Pens can still expose Brouwer. Flames get a number 1 goaltender and is just tied up for 2 more years. Perfect timing for Gillies or Parsons to make the jump tone the starter.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by robaur

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.

The thing you're missing here is that it wasn't that basic of a choice. If they wanted to keep Bishop they could even traded Vasil and someone else, didn't have to be Kuch. Chicago never chooses between Kane and Crawford because they are priorities, so other players get moved. If Bishop was that good he'd be a priority, but he's not.

That's what teams do when you have a truly elite goaltender, you keep them. Plenty of other guys on that roster could've moved if Bishop was good enough to keep. Fact is, his salary greatly outweighed his talent.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The thing you're missing here is that it wasn't that basic of a choice. If they wanted to keep Bishop they could even traded Vasil and someone else, didn't have to be Kuch. Chicago never chooses between Kane and Crawford because they are priorities, so other players get moved. If Bishop was that good he'd be a priority, but he's not.

That's what teams do when you have a truly elite goaltender, you keep them. Plenty of other guys on that roster could've moved if Bishop was good enough to keep. Fact is, his salary greatly outweighed his talent.

They moved Bishop because Vasilevsky is also a very good goalie and 22 years old while Bishop is 30. It has nothing to do with Bishop not being good enough.

We don't have a Vasilevsky so we could use Bishop despite his being 30.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

They moved Bishop because Vasilevsky is also a very good goalie and 22 years old while Bishop is 30. It has nothing to do with Bishop not being good enough.

We don't have a Vasilevsky so we could use Bishop despite his being 30.

And there's no guarantee that Vasi pans out to be as good as or better than Bishop. Tampa is betting big on him.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Pittsburgh needs to get rid of Fleury in order to keep Murray, and the Flames wants to get rid of Brouwer. This makes a perfect match to trade. Trade before the expansion draft and the Pens can still expose Brouwer. Flames get a number 1 goaltender and is just tied up for 2 more years. Perfect timing for Gillies or Parsons to make the jump tone the starter.

That's a terrible idea for the Pens. They're already scraping by with 8 forward who make less than 740k and they're going to add another 4M? Even taking Fleury out of the equation, they only have 18M to resign a #3, 5, and 6 defenseman, and an entire third line. They're going to need every penny as always.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The thing to consider though is that Gilles is probably ready to be the Flames starting goaltender by the '18-'19 season. Maybe sign Bishop or Fleury to a big money 1 year deal?

Parsons may have something to say about that. Gillies didn't have the greatest season this year.