I agree. Some want to cast Bishop away because he had a down year but think MAF is the answer because a good playoff run.
Either is a gamble and both have pros and cons. I just hope we land a proven #1 guy and not a "let's hope he becomes a #1 guy"
I agree with this. What I like a lot about Fleury is the contract. On the flip side Bishop is a couple years younger and costs only cap space. I could see Fleury voting a decent prospect or pick but having only 2 years left keeps the flexibility long term. If we go for Bishop I think we are looking st a 5-6 year deal
I get people jumping on the MAF band wagon right now because he's hot and taking the Pens deep. Same thing happened when Elliott was hot this year, people wanted him signed ASAP. I was one of them.
Let's not forget the numerous times MAF folded up like a cheap tent in the playoffs. Probably cost them a Cup or two with Sid and Geno.
.891
.899
.834
.883
That's a 4 year run of playoff save % for MAF after the Pens won the cup in 2009.
When he's good he's great, when he's not he costs his team playoff series, just like Elliott did to us this year. He has major confidence issues at times, and completely melts down.
I'd rather not give up assets for the guy, and then in 2 years start the goalie carousel all over again.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
He has 6 seasons of 60+ starts and another with 58. Elliott started 55 games 1 season 7 years ago. Elliott cost the Flames 2 of 4 playoff games and had stretches where he was simply awful this year. He had a great run late to get his overall numbers back to respectability but I am so done with him as our goalie. I wasn't stoked when we got him (loved the price so I came around to the deal quickly) but for a large part of the season I wanted him gone. I also advocated trading for Bishop at the deadline so never have and likely never will believe in Elliott
so he's started more games in his career. He's also had more concussions, makes more, will cost more to acquire and will fold like a cheap tent under the media scrutiny. Paying close to double for someone that isn6an upgrade is simply moronic
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
so he's started more games in his career. He's also had more concussions, makes more, will cost more to acquire and will fold like a cheap tent under the media scrutiny. Paying close to double for someone that isn6an upgrade is simply moronic
Thats just a ridiculous claim as there is no way you know this....and im not even in disagreement with you.
I agree. Some want to cast Bishop away because he had a down year but think MAF is the answer because a good playoff run.
Either is a gamble and both have pros and cons. I just hope we land a proven #1 guy and not a "let's hope he becomes a #1 guy"
You think Bishops numbers were down this season? It frightens me to think what his numbers will be like next season with smaller equipment. Not worth the risk, Could prove out to be an anchor of a contract.
Thats just a ridiculous claim as there is no way you know this....and im not even in disagreement with you.
He's shown himself to be mentally fragile in the past, I imagine the ups and downs will be greater as a result of intensified scrutiny, so I don't think it is a ridiculous claim at all.
You think Bishops numbers were down this season? It frightens me to think what his numbers will be like next season with smaller equipment. Not worth the risk, Could prove out to be an anchor of a contract.
I am starting to come around on Bishop, but this is my big concern with him. He doesn't necessarily make saves, the puck hits him. This should keep him consistent, and he is. But smaller equipment may result in less pucks hitting him.
I dunno
I am starting to come around on Bishop, but this is my big concern with him. He doesn't necessarily make saves, the puck hits him. This should keep him consistent, and he is. But smaller equipment may result in less pucks hitting him.
I dunno
I'm indifferent on Bishop (vehemently against both of Elliott and MAF), my only concern is that as a UFA the term he's going to command is going to be replulsive. 3 or 4 years, fine. 5+... gross.
Let's not forget the numerous times MAF folded up like a cheap tent in the playoffs. Probably cost them a Cup or two with Sid and Geno.
.891
.899
.834
.883
That's a 4 year run of playoff save % for MAF after the Pens won the cup in 2009.
Selective memory. Here's the years you didn't mention:
2007: 5 GP .880
2008: 20 GP .933
2009: 24 GP .908
(the four years you listed go here)
2014: 14 GP .915
2015: 5 GP .927 (GAA 2.12 after two OT losses. Penguins just couldn't score)
2016: .875, only 1 start as a backup
2017: 9 GP .935 (so far)
In other words, MAF is not Elliott. Elliott has always melted, while MAF has brought his team to the cup finals twice and more importantly is now 3-4 years removed from his last meltdown. That's a huge difference.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I am starting to come around on Bishop, but this is my big concern with him. He doesn't necessarily make saves, the puck hits him. This should keep him consistent, and he is. But smaller equipment may result in less pucks hitting him.
I dunno
Bishop has good positioning, which should become even more important if the equipment is sized down.
He's also big, which means he'll still cover a lot of net.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I said it before the playoffs and I will say it again. MAF is the best fit as I feel he can provide league average or better goaltending on a regular basis and the Flames don't have to worry about making a large commitment. I think Bishop may have more upside but IMO the floor is a lot lower knowing if it doesn't work out due to injuries or declining play the Flames may have a bad contract on their hands for 5 years or more.
Bishop has good positioning, which should become even more important if the equipment is sized down.
He's also big, which means he'll still cover a lot of net.
He might. But with Bishop it's all of the question marks. I would be very leery about investing so much money into someone with so many question marks.
Will he be better with smaller equipment? Maybe. But a blocking goalie going into his first season with smaller equipment isn't where I'd be investing 30 million +
Will he be better with smaller equipment? Maybe. But a blocking goalie going into his first season with smaller equipment isn't where I'd be investing 30 million +
You can ask that same question about every goalie, I don't see why Bishop is somehow a special case. A smaller pad you're trying to push in front of the puck makes just as much of a difference as a smaller pad you try to cover the net with.
I also think the "he just lets puck hit him" narrative is vastly overstated. You don't put up numbers like Bishop with just positioning. You can easily find several collections of highlight saves he's made. He's also quite fast, good at tracking the puck and has pretty good rebound control.
(I would have posted more highlight collections, if they weren't so horribly made. We're lucky to have AC.)
Thing with highlights is that they often start with goalie first being out of position, or giving a bad rebound. It looks great when you make that save, but in general less highlight saves means a goalie with better fundamentals.
My fear with Bishop is that he is 6'7... In my experience, big guys like that can often be prone to nagging injuries with their back (lower in particular) and their knees. This may not be an issue, but TBH it is actually one of the reasons I'd be hesitant to sign him long term.
so he's started more games in his career. He's also had more concussions, makes more, will cost more to acquire and will fold like a cheap tent under the media scrutiny. Paying close to double for someone that isn6an upgrade is simply moronic
Let's see Fleury has won 9 playoff series in his career Elliott has won 2. Fleury is a proven number 1 and has played those minutes throughout his career Elliott is a 1a/b goalie who was given a chance to really be that number 1 guy this ear but still couldn't hit 50 starts because he was awful for a large chunk of the season. You can try and sell me that they are equally as good as one another but i simply don't agree. There is also way more heat on Treliving if he comes back with the same tandem next year.
Selective memory. Here's the years you didn't mention:
2007: 5 GP .880
2008: 20 GP .933
2009: 24 GP .908
(the four years you listed go here)
2014: 14 GP .915
2015: 5 GP .927 (GAA 2.12 after two OT losses. Penguins just couldn't score)
2016: .875, only 1 start as a backup
2017: 9 GP .935 (so far)
In other words, MAF is not Elliott. Elliott has always melted, while MAF has brought his team to the cup finals twice and more importantly is now 3-4 years removed from his last meltdown. That's a huge difference.
I must not have been paying enough attention.
I didn't mean to seem like I was arguing MAF vs Elliott.
I want neither, and the fact that both seem to be mentally fragile, display confidence issues, and have spells where they are absolutely terrible is the biggest reason why.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
