Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
A lot of people on here declaring they are far happier with Elliot than Bishop based on some pretty big assumptions around what Bishop would be eating up in cap space. It's almost like a reverse Wideman situation. People far to concerned about a cap hit that's going to be off the books in a year, and people far too enamoured with a cap hit that simply has to go up next year (if it doesn't it means we still haven't found a #1 goalie).
People need to recognize that the positive side if we were to be paying Bishop right now. And that would be we'd have our goalie situation locked in for the foreseeable future, and it would be solid. With Elliot we are still making short term moves and have not locked in our goaltending for the upcoming years as the team starts to peak. And if Elliot becomes that solution, he's going to need to get paid anyway.
Point being, the cap savings we are getting on Elliot right now aren't real, because we need whatever money we are saving there this year, to pay our starter, whoever that is next year.
Not saying BT made the wrong move, clearly Bishop convos got to a point where is was too rich or I think he'd be our goalie right now, but getting excited about Elliot's cap hit is silly because it's not a sustainable number for your #1 goalie spot.
|
Yeah sure we need to sign one or both goalies for next year. One as our starter and another for the expansion draft. By signing the two we have we save about $3M this season. If we had to pay Bishop we probably couldn't have signed Brouwer so I'm fine with the reduced cost this season.