[Rumour] Couple of teams have inquired about acquiring Ben Bishop's rights

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Matt Murray would still be the best option for this team. They can afford to keep Johnson as a backup and add a 23 year old number 1 that has won a cup and dominated since he turned pro. I would give up Backlund+Gillies for Murray

not a chance, Flames can't remove a major roster piece unless its Price coming back the other way

[PepsiFree]

Who is replacing Backlund if we trade him for a goalie? Bennett or Jankowski don't have a prayer of doing what he does (at least this year). Why fill a hole with dirt from another?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I'd rather get a goalie for this team where we don't have to rip the spine from it by dealing our best defensive center in the process.

I completely understand that point of view. To me Murray fits in with the core of Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Hamilton in terms of age. From a previous thread of mine I advocate considering the notion of trading Backlund if he can solve a long term need for the team going forward because I do believe in Jankowski being an impact player and Monahan/Bennett improving.

Murray is about one of 2-3 goalies I would move Backs for. Pitt gets a young replacement in Gillies (same age as Murray expansion exempt) and gets an upgrade on Bonino who hits the market this summer

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is replacing Backlund if we trade him for a goalie? Bennett or Jankowski don't have a prayer of doing what he does (at least this year). Why fill a hole with dirt from another?

I think Bennett and Jankowski are closer to filling that hole than Parsons or Gillies. Having said that we can give big bucks to a 30 year old. I would be okay moving our 28 year old with a year left on his deal, and will command a huge raise on a long term deal when he is 29 if the result is getting a 23 year old number 1 goalie signed to a great contract.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Plenty of goalies can play until they are 36

They are called backups.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Yoho

They are called backups.

Or you know some are called starters as well

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Kipper had plenty of bad games...no goalie is perfect, you just need a guy who doesn't have bad weeks or months

And a goalie that doesn't need extended time to bounce back from a bad goal or a bad game. That is so key in the playoffs and is the difference between a true #1 and a guy that can play like a #1 when he's on.

[David Struch]

Marc-Andre Fleury's contract has two more years, ending when he is 34 years old.

Ideally, it would be great to sign Ben Bishop until that same age... So, a 4 year contract.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Kipper had plenty of bad games...no goalie is perfect, you just need a guy who doesn't have bad weeks or months

Or series'.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Moderator

The repeated attempts to "unmask" posters or tell posters what is wrong with them cause far more disruption than the attitude of the post itself.

It's a big world, there's going to be people who one will never agree with, or people who one will never be able to tolerate.

If you (the royal you, not one of the quoted posters) disagree with the content of a post, reply to the content. If you can't stand a poster's style, put them on ignore or use the superior ignore feature (the brain) to not read their posts and replies. If you think a poster is trying to be intentionally disruptive then report their posts and don't reply (engage the second option).

Now....which Mod posted this post?

I think the writing style is more Jiri than Photon. It's not Bingo, because there are capital letters in the sentences.

Please don't ban me....

[TheScorpion]

I'll have you know that I'm friends with the father of a former NHL defenseman. I can't prove this, but it does make my opinions more valid!

Also, iliketopuck, it's either Jiri or KG, methinks.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is replacing Backlund if we trade him for a goalie? Bennett or Jankowski don't have a prayer of doing what he does (at least this year). Why fill a hole with dirt from another?

I don't advocate trading Backlund or Hamilton/Brodie, for instance, but exactly what valuable trade chips does this team have?

One possible avenue is to trade a high value asset by taking a gamble that a younger player will develop into that role. It's a gamble for sure, but I can see a line of thinking.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by guuar

I can also tell you my cousin nearly signed with the Calgary Flames in 2016. He ended up taking less money from Buffalo after it became apparent he didn't have the market he thought he did. My cousin has played for Nashville, Toronto and Buffalo.

The information I get comes from actual NHL hockey players. While the information isn't 100% guaranteed. It's numbers that NHL players and player agents agree upon.

You lost any chance of winning me over with your impressive connection to a real-life NHL player by trying way too hard to up the reliability of your information.

The claim that "NHL players and player agents agree" on numbers that have never been publicly disclosed and agreed upon is a bit much.

Exactly how many unidentified players and agents have to tell you they agree on something before you reveal these numbers as facts to the internet?

Is there a reason instead of disclosing the sources of your information to a moderator for some form of verification you instead go with this vague assertion that since you are related to Cody Franson your information represents some kind of consensus as to what NHL players and player agents agree upon?

If I get one or more of the NHL players and player agents I know to tell me they disagree with your numbers, then what do we do?

Sorry but as someone whose daily grind is routinely spent guarding secrets - and often having no problem sitting back while ill-informed people debate and discuss what they 'know' while I take care of actual business - I have a particularly difficult time being a believer on these kinds of claims from unverifiable authority.

And does Cody know you are here posting how he conducts his contract negotiations? If I were him I would want to keep those things private.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't advocate trading Backlund or Hamilton/Brodie, for instance, but exactly what valuable trade chips does this team have?

One possible avenue is to trade a high value asset by taking a gamble that a younger player will develop into that role. It's a gamble for sure, but I can see a line of thinking.

I get the reluctance to considering moving Backlund considering how good he was last season and how much time the organization has invested in the player who is finally reaching the potential many saw when he was drafted. I will admit fully that I am putting the cart before the horse on this one but I truly believe Jankowski will at worst be a good third line centre and Sam Bennett will be a number 1-2 with Monahan filling the other spot. Lastly due to injury history and age I have some reservations on giving Backlund a big money long term deal. Most forwards peak around the age Backlund currently is. Those factors are the reasons I would be willing to move him to plug one of the 3 biggest holes on the roster be it a long term number 1 (Murray who is young or a guy like Price or Holtby) a top line RW (guy like Wayne Simmonds or Gallagher +) or a good second pair Dman (Trouba, or Hamonic)

[wireframe]

For the love of god, please stop quoting guuar. Just add him/her to your ignore list and move on.

[oldschoolcalgary]

the reason Bishop is enticing is precisely because we wouldn't have to give up any assets to acquire him... just whether his demand on terms syncs up with our cap now and into the future...

As for Murray, I don't know why Pittsburgh would give him up? MAF is playing great, but Murray has also played great and can be with Pittsburgh another decade.

I'd be pretty surprised if Pittsburgh traded him rather than MAF... Gillies as part of the package is nice, but if I were Pittsburgh, i'd be asking, why would we trade for a 'goalie of the future' when we already have that in Murray? There's no guarantee Gillies will develop into a starter in the NHL much less a goalie that Murray is now...

Backlund is a great player, but again, in watching Pittsburgh, they look damn good right now.... do they even need Backlund?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

the reason Bishop is enticing is precisely because we wouldn't have to give up any assets to acquire him... just whether his demand on terms syncs up with our cap now and into the future...

As for Murray, I don't know why Pittsburgh would give him up? MAF is playing great, but Murray has also played great and can be with Pittsburgh another decade.

I'd be pretty surprised if Pittsburgh traded him rather than MAF... Gillies as part of the package is nice, but if I were Pittsburgh, i'd be asking, why would we trade for a 'goalie of the future' when we already have that in Murray? There's no guarantee Gillies will develop into a starter in the NHL much less a goalie that Murray is now...

Backlund is a great player, but again, in watching Pittsburgh, they look damn good right now.... do they even need Backlund?

1. They can get a better return for Murray most likely, due to age and MAF's NMC
2. MAF at 32 certainly isn't over the hill, they can get a few more good years out of him
3. They have Tristan Jarry who could step in as the new successor to MAF if they dealt Murray

Not saying it's likely, but I don't think its impossible. Especially if the Pens win another Cup with MAF as the goalie. Much easier to sell if that happens.

[MisterJoji]

Ugh, I'm so torn. On one hand, bringing in a legitimate all-star, Vezina nominated x 2 goalie would be great. We haven't had a steady net presence since Kipper and Bishop would definitely help this team immensely.

But then I worry he will want and probably get a 6 year deal for 6 million+ (for the record I do think he's worth 6x6). I truly feel that at least one of Gillies/Parsons will end up being an upper echelon goalie. But if Bishop is signed long term for high dollars: A.) this may hamper the ability to sign Gillies/Parsons and B.) trading Bishop could be difficult at that dollar/term/age.

After watching Fleury so far this post-season, I've really warmed up to the idea of acquiring him. Only 2 more years and by then we should know what we have in Gillies/Parsons. In 2 years Gillies should likely have 1 more year as an AHL starter and 1 as a bonafide NHL backup (possibly both years as a backup) and Parsons will have 1 year as an AHL back up and 1 as an AHL starter (possibly both as a starter). Fleury has the best combination of term, salary and hopefully acquisition cost that, to me, provides the best long term benefit for the team.

[guuar]

Matt Murray is the best option. He is also not a realistic option.

I've already told you people what it's going to cost to acquire Murray. It's not Backlund + Gillies. Good luck with that.

The chance to get murray at a reasonable price was at last years entry draft. Last year it was rumored we were offered Murray and Derek Pouliot in exchange for the #6 pick.

Right now with Murray's current seasonal stats.

2017 1st Round Pick.
2018 2nd Round Pick.
Jankowski or Bennett
Andersson or Kylington
Gillies or Parsons

You are going to give up three solid young players and two decent draft picks. This is the value Pittsburgh is going to need to make it worth their while.

Think of it. If Gillies lights the league on fire in the next 2 years what would we be demanding in exchange for a 25 year old #1 goalie.

It's not going to be a 1st round pick, a player and prospect. Goalies at 30+ hold a decreasing trade value however when you have a Top 6 goalie that is 22 years old the value is certainly insanely high.

You are going to get a minimum of 12 good seasons of #1 goalie.

Hence why I said the ONLY option is Ben Bishop to play alongside Jon Gillies.

Johnson isn't coming back as a backup. If he were the contract would have been 2 years last year, Not 1. There was a reason they signed one year deals. They wanted flexibility going into this offseason.

[guuar]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Ugh, I'm so torn. On one hand, bringing in a legitimate all-star, Vezina nominated x 2 goalie would be great. We haven't had a steady net presence since Kipper and Bishop would definitely help this team immensely.

But then I worry he will want and probably get a 6 year deal for 6 million+ (for the record I do think he's worth 6x6). I truly feel that at least one of Gillies/Parsons will end up being an upper echelon goalie. But if Bishop is signed long term for high dollars: A.) this may hamper the ability to sign Gillies/Parsons and B.) trading Bishop could be difficult at that dollar/term/age.

After watching Fleury so far this post-season, I've really warmed up to the idea of acquiring him. Only 2 more years and by then we should know what we have in Gillies/Parsons. In 2 years Gillies should likely have 1 more year as an AHL starter and 1 as a bonafide NHL backup (possibly both years as a backup) and Parsons will have 1 year as an AHL back up and 1 as an AHL starter (possibly both as a starter). Fleury has the best combination of term, salary and hopefully acquisition cost that, to me, provides the best long term benefit for the team.

Gillies isn't playing in the AHL again.

Anyone who thinks this needs a reality check. Gilles is going to be given every opportunity to be the #2 goalie next year in Calgary. You don't get NHL experience by playing in the AHL. He's also not a 19 or 20 year old kid. He's 23 and needs to be playing in the NHL if you want him to be an NHL goalie.

Bishop isn't coming here at 6x6.

Doesn't matter if its 4 years, 5 years, 6 years or 7 years the cost is in that 40M range.

The best guess is 6Y/40M.