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

[heep223]

Flames cup window is opening this season. They need a #1 goalie right now. Sign Bishop and if you have to suffer in 4 years, so be it.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just wanted to point out that The Scorpion an guuar never appeared in the same post together? /tinfoil hat

I'm just telling you that this is wrong. You NEED to listen to me here.

[Husky]

Id rather the Flames use picks/prospects to address the top line RW spot and try and get Bishop signed either at UFA or a lower pick to get his rights and then sign.

From an asset management spot the Flames can get Bishop now versus 12 months ago cheaper, glad they waited.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by heep223

Flames cup window is opening this season. They need a #1 goalie right now. Sign Bishop and if you have to suffer in 4 years, so be it.

It's pretty much the way it works these days. You have to sign free agents to fill gaps, and those free agents tend to not have the most friendly contracts down the road.

But it isn't like Bishop is that old. His next contract will probably take him to an age of 36 or 37, which isn't crazy for a goalie. It also means that hopefully, even if he is struggling at that time, a guy like Parsons (or another prospect) will be pushing for the number #1 job on a reasonable contract that makes up for it.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Ullr

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.

Couldn't agree more. There is already a goalie log jam brewing with Parsons coming up and the AHL full up (can't see the flames not re-signing Rittich). Signing a Goalie for ~6 years at big dollars dosent seem to make a ton of sense. I'm more expecting Treliving to go after Fleury because he has 2 years left on his contract and the dollar value is manageable. Sign Johnson back on as the backup, get both your goalies done for around the same price as bishop, and spend your dollars on a top six winger and some stalwart 4,5,6 defensemen. Fleury's salary is then off the books by the time you have to sign Tkachuk, and you have some affordable goalies that you've developed at the farm level, and have been rotated through the NHL to backup 2 years from now. Not saying that's the way it goes, but that would definitely be my preference, rather then signing a historically injury prone goalie to a large contract until he is 36.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Love

And how was Talbot any different before he came to Edmonton? Or Miikka before he came to Calgary?

I'd have to dig for it, but I saw posted an interesting stat about former backups taking the next step and becoming legit #1 goalies.
That a majority of them played close to 100 games, or more, in the AHL first.
so between that AHL experience and a couple solid years as backup helps to some extent predict future success.

two examples were Jones and Talbot.
Jones played 158 AHL games, and Talbot played 116. (even Miikka played 87 AHL games plus his international experience)

Darling played 53.

I thought it was an interesting tidbit.

[EVERLAST]

I really hope Stockton wins tonight with Rittich being the difference again.
This will make the decision more difficult for Brad to make in terms of who he signs and or goes after as a starter.

I don't get the love for Bishop. I don't think he's the answer at all even short term. I see a goalie that has a great record 2013-2016 and then it kind of falls off a cliff.

His demands for 7 for 7 last year aren't realistic as we have the Gio rule here. With the bad luck we have had since Kipper I wouldn't be signing anyone longer than 3 years .

Brads got a tough tough job but there has to be better options than Bishop.

[Toonage]

Rittich (or Gillies if that were the case) winning in Stockton doesn't make decisions for the big club's starter any easier or clearer.

They need a proven NHL starter. I don't think they will be rolling the dice on anything less to start next season.

[bax]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

I really hope Stockton wins tonight with Rittich being the difference again.
This will make the decision more difficult for Brad to make in terms of who he signs and or goes after as a starter.

I don't get the love for Bishop. I don't think he's the answer at all even short term. I see a goalie that has a great record 2013-2016 and then it kind of falls off a cliff.

His demands for 7 for 7 last year aren't realistic as we have the Gio rule here. With the bad luck we have had since Kipper I wouldn't be signing anyone longer than 3 years .

Brads got a tough tough job but there has to be better options than Bishop.

One game will not impact Brad's decision at all. He stressed just yesterday that you evaluate a season as a whole- not on one game or one series (in reference to Elliot)

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by heep223

Flames cup window is opening this season. They need a #1 goalie right now. Sign Bishop and if you have to suffer in 4 years, so be it.

You just know that another round of compliance buyouts will be negotiated for the next CBA anyway as by then there will be a lot of teams on the back ends of some of those big deals. The Wild in particular are going to be paralyzed with Parise and Suter. Nothing like having two 40 year old players taking up $15 million of cap space into 2025.

[Cheese]

If the Flames acquire his rights, which they might, it will affect their expansion draft plans I assume.
Not sure they play that game.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Cheese

If the Flames acquire his rights, which they might, it will affect their expansion draft plans I assume.
Not sure they play that game.

Not for goaltending. They sign him and protect him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

If the Flames acquire his rights, which they might, it will affect their expansion draft plans I assume.
Not sure they play that game.

How do you figure?

Acquiring Ben Bishop's rights will only affect Tom McCollum, who will no longer be the Flames protected goalie heading in to the expansion draft. Whether their list includes Bishop or not has virtually no bearing on the other players that will require protection.

[CKPThunder]

Originally Posted by Moderator

So there isn't any misconception it was a consensus after discussion among the mods that resulted in action based on everything, not just that one reply to Textcritic (though we do expect people to respect the mods as well).

Is there an updated or complete list of who the moderators are? The list on the FOI page seems incomplete.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How do you figure?

Acquiring Ben Bishop's rights will only affect Tom McCollum, who will no longer be the Flames protected goalie heading in to the expansion draft. Whether their list includes Bishop or not has virtually no bearing on the other players that will require protection.

McCollum isn't the Flames protected goalie, he's their exposed goalie.

Right now the Flames don't have a goalie to protect, and they don't have to protect one according to the rules.

But yeah, if they trade for Bishop's rights and sign him, he would become the protected goalie.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

McCollum isn't the Flames protected goalie, he's their exposed goalie.

Right now the Flames don't have a goalie to protect, and they don't have to protect one according to the rules.

But yeah, if they trade for Bishop's rights and sign him, he would become the protected goalie.

which would have a domino effect on the number of players they protect. Could be interesting.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Cheese

which would have a domino effect on the number of players they protect. Could be interesting.

They would need to protect a goaltender regardless of what option they choose.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansi...es/c-281010592

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Cheese

which would have a domino effect on the number of players they protect. Could be interesting.

Not sure what you mean?

It really wouldn't change anything except the Flames would then protect Bishop in the goalie slot instead of protecting nobody in the goalie slot.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Cheese

which would have a domino effect on the number of players they protect. Could be interesting.

Their choice wouldn't affect anything. It's either 4+4+1 or 7+3+1

[Cheese]

My bad...thought if we didnt protect a goalie we could protect an additional skater...or vice versa