[Rumour] Some Dim Bulb in Tampa: Deal in the works for Ben Bishop? - Page 8 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GranteedEV · 06-21-2016, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

Much like Fleury, this shouldn't be any more than a 2nd and a prospect. The 6OA for Bishop is too much.

6th is too much but 2nd + Prospect is too little as Bishop was a Vezina candidate.

Quote:

What I don't understand is why Yzerman would be willing to move him right now?

The money saved can be put towards Hedman, Johnson, Kucherov, Palat, maybe even Stamkos. He's also on the injury prone skew of things.

Vinny01 · 06-21-2016, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgiTang

What I don't understand is why Yzerman would be willing to move him right now?

They have a legit chance of going deep in the playoffs again next year. This year they proved they can do it without Stammer.

Why lose your #1 goalie and then be in the search for a #1 goalie. Vasilevsky is not ready to take the #1 job. He needs a bit more seasoning.

The only way I see Steve Yzerman trading Bishop to the Flames is for #6 this year.

BT better not do it.. and I don't think he would. Yzerman won't do the deal for less.

So, by deduction, this rumour is dead IMO.

I agree the rumor is probably bunk but the move happens now if Stamkos songs and extension. If he is about to sign for a raise plus the money that will go to Kucherov and others then dumping the $6M cap hit from Bishop becomes an immediate priority

GoJetsGo · 06-21-2016, 11:22 AM

Yea there are several reasons Tampa could be looking to movie him now:

- Much needed cap space

- Get ahead of the game with next year's rush to offload goalies

- Convinced they are ready to hand the ball to Vasilevskiy

- If going with Vasilevskiy, team can be upgraded by not having Bishop sitting on the bench

Matt Reeeeead · 06-21-2016, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgiTang

What I don't understand is why Yzerman would be willing to move him right now?

They have a legit chance of going deep in the playoffs again next year. This year they proved they can do it without Stammer.

Why lose your #1 goalie and then be in the search for a #1 goalie. Vasilevsky is not ready to take the #1 job. He needs a bit more seasoning.

The only way I see Steve Yzerman trading Bishop to the Flames is for #6 this year.

BT better not do it.. and I don't think he would. Yzerman won't do the deal for less.

So, by deduction, this rumour is dead IMO.

1. They can get more for him now with a full season ahead
2. Whether its this year or next, Vasi is going to be the guy
3. They can get some less expensive goalie to pair with Vasi (ie. maybe they could be a landing spot for Kuemper, with some assets obtained for Bishop)?

I think they only trade him now if they get an enticing return. They don't have to trade him. But they are going to have face reality at some point that he's not part of the future. Better get something for him and start grooming Vasi to be the starter.

MissTeeks · 06-21-2016, 11:29 AM

Awesome change to the thread title.

Poe969 · 06-21-2016, 11:31 AM

All I could think of at first was what does Benning have to do with any of this?

TheScorpion · 06-21-2016, 11:37 AM

10/10 thread title.

neo45 · 06-21-2016, 11:39 AM

Should also note he has to waive a NMC, which he has no incentive to do. He is already on a contender and he isn't getting beat out like MAF is.

Also he has worn 30 since before college and we have that number stupidly retired. Some guys REALLY care about that

heep223 · 06-21-2016, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neo45

Should also note he has to waive a NMC, which he has no incentive to do. He is already on a contender and he isn't getting beat out like MAF is.

Also he has worn 30 since before college and we have that number stupidly retired. Some guys REALLY care about that

As to your first point, he may see an incentive to solidify his #1 status, get paid, and bring a good young team to contention. His current status is in question in TB. He could go to UFA but with expansion draft looming, tons of goalies available, lots of teams with cap issues etc....his future is not certain by any means.

As to your second point, that is ridiculous.

Five-hole · 06-21-2016, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

McKenzie rips this rumor apart:
http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-t...-bishop-rumor/

Bob takes even perceived collateral attacks on his credibility very seriously. I don't blame him.

Point Blank · 06-21-2016, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

10/10 thread title.

Weren't you the one who quoted said "dim bulb"?

dino7c · 06-21-2016, 12:34 PM

He was one of the TOP 3 GOALIES in the entire NHL last year

I know there are concerns but lets not pretend him and Reimer are a wash

Calgary is a playoff team with Bishop last season despite how ridiculously bad they were in other areas. Not 6OA I would look at the other options assuming he is signing a new deal ect.

IgiTang · 06-21-2016, 12:37 PM

There's some "dim bulbs" on this page pushing a rumour that has already been debunked by the source.. but keep arguing for the sake of arguing..

The following has nothing to do with the above..

Quote:

Originally Posted by heep223

As to your first point, he may see an incentive to solidify his #1 status, get paid, and bring a good young team to contention. His current status is in question in TB. He could go to UFA but with expansion draft looming, tons of goalies available, lots of teams with cap issues etc....his future is not certain by any means.

As to your second point, that is ridiculous.

Bishop is going to get paid, regardless where he plays. Will also be the #1 goalie also, hence getting paid.

So your response is as ridiculous as the post in which you are replying.

heep223 · 06-21-2016, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Bishop is going to get paid, regardless where he plays. Will also be the #1 goalie also, hence getting paid.

So your response is as ridiculous as the post in which you are replying.

Re: 'ridiculous', I was referring to his comment that Bishop may not want to play here because he won't be able to wear #30.

IgiTang · 06-21-2016, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heep223

Re: 'ridiculous', I was referring to his comment that Bishop may not want to play here because he won't be able to wear #30.

Right you are, my bad.

TheScorpion · 06-21-2016, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Weren't you the one who quoted said "dim bulb"?

No.

monkeyman · 06-21-2016, 12:48 PM

Unless Calgary is a place he wants to be long term, I don't think Bishop waives to come here. Why uproot your family for a single season? Same for Fleury. Why would he waive to go somewhere he doesn't want to go? It's really not his problem if the Penguins have to expose Murray next year. As desperate as we are, the best thing BT can do is bide his time, even if it means we have to start the season with one of guys we have in the system.

Point Blank · 06-21-2016, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

No.

No?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Michael Grosso ‏@RumorBreak 33s33 seconds ago
*BREAKING*: Per source CGY has offered 2 2nd rounders + Backlund + prospects for Ben Bishop. Ball in TB's court. - fixed the typo.

dissentowner · 06-21-2016, 12:59 PM

Bishop is a year a way from UFA and carries a large cap hit. If the Bolts can move him without taking salary back the price won't be near as high as some are suggesting. The main recoup from the trade will be cap space as they have some serious contracts to be done in the next few years. Two 2nds gets it done I think.

dissentowner · 06-21-2016, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

They don't "have to". But they can't extend him either, so they will risk losing him for nothing July 1st 2017, if they hang onto him.

Yes but if he wants to re-sign there he can just wait until after the expansion draft to do so. If I am TB I would move him for the cap space but if they want to keep him that is no problem either.