Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-01-2017, 12:19 PM   #1
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Icon31 Couple of teams have inquired about acquiring Ben Bishop's rights

Pierre LeBrun @PierreVLeBrun
Couple of teams have inquired with LAK about trading for rights to pending UFA goalie Ben Bishop. Just like Carolina traded for Darling...

Going to be speculation Calgary is one of them.

Last edited by sureLoss; 05-01-2017 at 12:21 PM.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:23 PM   #2
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Yeah, Calgary would have to be one of them you would think.

I could also see Winnipeg, Dallas, Philly and Vancouver being among teams looking to acquire his rights.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:23 PM   #3
TheIronMaiden
Franchise Player
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
Exp:
Default

What is Bishops contract supposed to look like? Are there any comparable contract situations?
TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:26 PM   #4
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden View Post
What is Bishops contract supposed to look like? Are there any comparable contract situations?
It was rumored he wanted a 7 x $7m last summer as an extension. He was never going to get that much but you start high in a negotiation.

I would hope his ask has dropped a bit, but I bet not a ton.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:26 PM   #5
Canada 02
Franchise Player
 
Canada 02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden View Post
What is Bishops contract supposed to look like? Are there any comparable contract situations?
$6M x 6 yrs was the rumour last summer

Quote:
Bishop has said he thought he was going to Alberta last summer, and it’s believed the Flames were preparing a six-year offer in the $36M range.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...-deadline-day/

Last edited by Canada 02; 05-01-2017 at 12:29 PM.
Canada 02 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Canada 02 For This Useful Post:
14
Old 05-01-2017, 12:28 PM   #6
Vinny01
Franchise Player
 
Vinny01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

I was wondering this weekend if Calgary was going to make a preemptive move to try and secure their goalie pre expansion but also didn't think they would make a move until the Pens decided what they were going to do.

I hope Calgary is a team in on Bishop as he is a top choice for me along with Fleury
Vinny01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:31 PM   #7
Oil Stain
Franchise Player
 
Oil Stain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

LA Kings already got a 5th from Tampa in exchange for a 7th and Budaj.

Now they will likely get a third+ for Bishop.

Pretty good move for them overall.
Oil Stain is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:32 PM   #8
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Also, this must be those new pricks in LA driving up the price for negotiating rights.

I imagine if Darling went for a 3rd, Bishop will go for at least that, probably more.

Hopefully Tre knows he has the inside track and will wait it out.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:34 PM   #9
ComixZone
Franchise Player
 
ComixZone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy View Post
It was rumored he wanted a 7 x $7m last summer as an extension. He was never going to get that much but you start high in a negotiation.



I would hope his ask has dropped a bit, but I bet not a ton.


The rumoured deal between CGY and Bishop was "in the range of 6x6".

I imagine it's more in the range of 6x5.5 now, but who knows with free agency.

Having Bishop signed until he's 36 doesn't seem like the worst thing to me, and I do hope the Flames are one of the teams in the mix (unless of course there's Wizardry afoot and someone unsuspected is inbound).
ComixZone is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:38 PM   #10
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

6 x 6 even better.

Hopefully the Flames can get him at 5 years then, and maybe even a tad lower than $6 million per too.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:49 PM   #11
guuar
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

He won't get more than Darling. If anything it is either a 3rd or possible a 4th/5th. Darling gets you a 3rd because his contract demands are going to be between 4m and 5m.

Last year Bishops agent was asking for 6y/8m or 7y/7m or 8y/6m. Idea is he was getting paid the same amount of money for what they are assuming is his final contract. Just a matter of what Calgary was comfortable paying for the annual cap hit.

The only advantage you get by acquiring his rights is the ability to do an 8 year contract.

Even with the down year he is not taking less than 6M.

I can see Treliving doing a 6y/40m contract.

There is no need for Bishop to take less than 6M a year. There are a few teams that would be in on signing him. When Treliving spoke with Bishop's agent last year all that was asked was how willing Bishop was to play in Calgary and what would Bishop consider accepting as a new contract.

I'm telling you right now the ask was 45-50M total. Bishop's agent was firm that Bishop giving up his only opportunity at free agency would cost any team a premium for his rights.

You need to realize prior to the 2016-2017 season Ben Bishop has made #### all compared to similarly aged goalies. At the time of the trade discussion Bishop had only made 4.6m/2yr contract. Before that it was all league minimum.

The guy is going to want to cash in. It's his one and only opportunity to do so.

If people would read what I am writing they would instantly agree that this is the same reason why Treliving was and still is willing to give us a massive amount of assets to acquire Matt Murray.
guuar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:52 PM   #12
Clever_Iggy
Franchise Player
 
Clever_Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: City by the Bay
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guuar View Post
The only advantage you get by acquiring his rights is the ability to do an 8 year contract.
Not that it matters with Bishop specifically, but I don't think this is correct. I think the player has to play a minimum number of games with the team or be on the team he is re-signing with as of a certain date in the previous season to qualify for an 8-year contract.
Clever_Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:53 PM   #13
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Would not be surprised if the Flames are one of the teams. Would be interesting to see who the other team would be. Flames would have more money and cap space than most teams to spend on the position with a clean slate. I will rule out the Jets because they would probably be the least desirable and don't typically spend big in free agency. Canucks have the money and cap space but why would Bishop want to join that mess knowing they won't be close to a good team for a while? Not sure how Dallas could maneuver this. I'm thinking the other team is the Flyers as they may have just enough cap space. Both cities are kind of a graveyard for goaltenders but I expect the Flyers may be more attractive to Bishop seeing they are based in the East and a US market.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:54 PM   #14
Mass_nerder
Franchise Player
 
Mass_nerder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barthelona
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guuar View Post
He won't get more than Darling. If anything it is either a 3rd or possible a 4th/5th. Darling gets you a 3rd because his contract demands are going to be between 4m and 5m.

Last year Bishops agent was asking for 6y/8m or 7y/7m or 8y/6m. Idea is he was getting paid the same amount of money for what they are assuming is his final contract. Just a matter of what Calgary was comfortable paying for the annual cap hit.

The only advantage you get by acquiring his rights is the ability to do an 8 year contract.

Even with the down year he is not taking less than 6M.

I can see Treliving doing a 6y/40m contract.

There is no need for Bishop to take less than 6M a year. There are a few teams that would be in on signing him. When Treliving spoke with Bishop's agent last year all that was asked was how willing Bishop was to play in Calgary and what would Bishop consider accepting as a new contract.

I'm telling you right now the ask was 45-50M total. Bishop's agent was firm that Bishop giving up his only opportunity at free agency would cost any team a premium for his rights.

You need to realize prior to the 2016-2017 season Ben Bishop has made #### all compared to similarly aged goalies. At the time of the trade discussion Bishop had only made 4.6m/2yr contract. Before that it was all league minimum.

The guy is going to want to cash in. It's his one and only opportunity to do so.

If people would read what I am writing they would instantly agree that this is the same reason why Treliving was and still is willing to give us a massive amount of assets to acquire Matt Murray.
If you're going to claim some inside knowledge, can you at least confirm it with a mod?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype View Post
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
Mass_nerder is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Mass_nerder For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:56 PM   #15
AC
Resident Videologist
 
AC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Don't worry. He has inside knowledge about every team and every trade.

If people would only read what he is writing they'd see the truth. Hallelujah!
AC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:56 PM   #16
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

No kidding. Somebody shut that guy/girl up already.

Nothing more irritating than a pompous blow hard speaking in absolutes about private information he/she is likely just speculating on.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:57 PM   #17
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy View Post
Not that it matters with Bishop specifically, but I don't think this is correct. I think the player has to play a minimum number of games with the team or be on the team he is re-signing with as of a certain date in the previous season to qualify for an 8-year contract.
You are correct. The most he could receive via free agency is 7 years and if any team is considering that then by all means they can have him.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:57 PM   #18
guuar
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

FYI if the ask was 6y/6m from Bishop's agent Treliving takes the trade without thinking twice. The agreed trade was;

To Calgary; Ben Bishop & Jonathan Drouin

To TampaBay; 2016 1st Round Draft Pick

That pick ended up being Matthew Tkachuk of course. This was the deal that was agreed to prior to the start of the draft. Treliving had briefly spoken to Bishop's agent to make sure;

a) Ben Bishop would be willing to play for the Calgary Flames.
b) Ben Bishop would be willing to take a max 6.750m/year deal.

Bishop didn't care where he played so long as they paid him what they thought he deserved. If you look at comparables for Bishop the other goalies were all making 5.5m to 6.5m as RFA goalies.

Vezina quality goalie is absolutely going to get 6.5m to 7.5m as a UFA. If anything the rumors last year were 7x7 for the most part. All Treliving was told was that Bishop wanted between 45m and 50m.

Think about it. IT's the only contract that Bishop is ever getting. Up until then all he had was RFA deals that pushed him as a backup making the league minimum. Even Tampa Bay only offered him a 2.6M/year deal as an RFA.

If Calgary won't give him 6.5M then Dallas certainly will.
guuar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:57 PM   #19
Ullr
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Calgary SW
Exp:
Default

Remind me again why the Flames would want to spend top dollar for a slightly above average goalie for long term. Especially considering when we have two goalie prospects who will be seeing increasing ice time over the next 2-3 years. Bishop is a good option for lots of teams, I hope he lands a good contract. Just not with Calgary.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Ullr is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ullr For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2017, 12:59 PM   #20
Ashasx
Franchise Player
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

hockeyyinsiderr
Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021