Friedman: Flames ownership killed Bishop trade to Flames last summer

[dino7c]

If Backlund was part of the deal as some are reporting I'm glad they blocked it

[Freeway]

I had heard 6th overall and a prospect for Bishop, but not from anyone overly reputable.

[iamca]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

CP poster Reggie Dunlop if I'm not mistaken.

Yep, none other.

[Flamescuprun2018]

Friedman strikes again! I am growing a bit tired of his speculative comments. Is there a quote from Bishop that confirms this deal was nixed by ownership last summer?

First we had to live with one of the longest most frustrating threads on Treliving not likely to re-sign that frankly was pure nonsense if one pays attention to any of Treliving's interviews; and now this ownership meddling piece that cost us Bishop.

I am not buying it being that simple. Other than perhaps a "maximum dollar figure multiple year contract okay from ownership" condition that I suspect most clubs would have anyways.

I do not see our ownership as meddlers when we have an org chart that has Burke in place to mentor/oversee Treliving. Ownership is smarter than that.

Nevertheless I have no interest in tying up 6+ million a year for 6 years for a goalie who was below average in SV% this season that would have also cost us picks last season. Good luck Stars, not sure what you are going to do with your other two goalies, I doubt anyone if interested in them? Which means you have 5.9m Lehtonen; 4.5m Niemi and now 6+m Bishop for next year, that's crazy cap math?

[iamca]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Ironically, Ken King was once my boss.

Hence my comments Reggie. Do it for CP and put the Flames out their misery.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I had heard 6th overall and a prospect for Bishop, but not from anyone overly reputable.

Maybe if we were dumping a contract in return and also got Tampa's 1st round pick, but that would have been a terrible trade even if Bishop didn't under-perform this season.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by getbak

No, both Raymond and Byron were waived the same day. Byron didn't need to be waived.

When you put it that way it sounds worse.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I had heard 6th overall and a prospect for Bishop, but not from anyone overly reputable.

Ask for 6th overall & a prospect, then settle for Peter Budaj?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Ask for 6th overall & a prospect, then settle for Peter Budaj?

Well in one scenario you are getting 7 years of Bishop who was coming off of being a finalist (top 3) for the Vezina in 2 out of 3 years and had taken the Bolts deep in the playoffs twice.

In the other scenario you are getting him for one third of a season as a rental where his save % had dipped to nearly .910 and he had struggled.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by timbit

Reggie Dunlop

I hear it on good authority that a Florida retirement community is interested in the Flames.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AC

Add the reports of Treliving needing Ken King's approval to trade for Bishop again at the deadline and not getting an answer in time...

Kinda amazing Treliving even wanted to come back.

Though it sounds like his new contract comes with a guarantee of no Ken King meddling:

@LarryFisher_KDC
Big condition in Brad Treliving's new contract/re-signing with #Flames was full autonomy, meaning he can now make moves without King consent

Rumor is Brad refused to sign a deal that didn't have autonomy and walked away, only to have owners relent

[getbak]

If the deal was Backlund and two seconds for Bishop, I'm glad it didn't go through.

If the deal was 6th overall and a prospect for Bishop, I'm glad it didn't go through.


Who knows what this team would have done this year without one of Backlund or Tkachuk.


I can only imagine the meltdown around here if Bishop had been acquired, signed to a 6 year, $6 million+ contract, and then proceeded to have a similar season to what he had in Tampa (which is nearly identical to the season Elliott had).

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Rumor is Brad refused to sign a deal that didn't have autonomy and walked away, only to have owners relent

Where did you hear of this rumour? (Not doubting - curious)

[Robbob]

When Burke was on 590 just after Treliving signed, he did mention something that I thought was a little odd. He said after the season him and Brad had agreed in principle and it wasn't until the weekend before Brad signed when Burke mentioned Brad met with Ken over lunch to finalize things. You could speculate that it sounded like it could be more than a little signing meeting. Could have been to get assurances for that autonomy.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Hold up.

How was Paul Byron a "horrible" return for a 32 year old Regehr + Kotalik's dead salary (=7 million cap hit). Byron wwould have been tied for second on the Flames in goals this year while being a highly versatile even strength player and elite penalty killer.

If our GM were smart enough to combine a good aging vet like Stajan with an anchor contract like Brouwer and come out of it with a Byron caliber 22 year old I certainly would not call that a "horrible" return. In fact I would consider it a pipe dream.

Regehr was a top 4 shutdown dman. The very thing we lacked after dealing him. We should've gotten great value for him, he wasn't over the hill yet.

A pending UFA Doug Murray got two 2nds at one deadline. A greater return than we got on a signed Regehr who was twice the player Murray was. If we wanted to dump salary getting rid of Sarich the inferior defenceman making only slightly less was the obvious move

The Regehr trade was one of many horrible Feaster deals. The man lost trades on the regular and had no concept how to build a winning team. It's almost a miracle he didn't hurt the team more. The Regehr, Iginla and Bouwmeester trades were sad days to be a Flames fan

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't expect any ownership group to not have any say and give the people in charge full autonomy in every circumstance. That was a big contract after all.

However, in this case, I have mixed feelings on it. If the rumored cost(s) was true (Backlund + two 2nds, or 6th OA), I am glad that it was nixed.

Maybe it was about the dollars, maybe it wasn't. All I know is that I am happy that the Flames retained Backlund who is part of the solution long term (and Dube might be as well down the road), and Tkachuk is definitely part of that solution. I do think that Toronto and a few other teams suffered through 'rushed rebuilds', and I do believe patience is virtue in that regard.

Mixed feelings about this, and I would love more information as to why the deal was nixed. Doubtful I will get an answer outside of more pure speculation, but it would be interesting to know the details (including what the value was for Bishop at the draft, as well as Bishop's firm contract demands) as to why ownership nixed (rumored) the deal.

[Snuffleupagus]

The whole thing smells, Brian Burke needs to start earning his salary(living here more than Toronto would be a good start) and Ken King needs to retire far far away from the game of ice hockey.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Robbob

When Burke was on 590 just after Treliving signed, he did mention something that I thought was a little odd. He said after the season him and Brad had agreed in principle and it wasn't until the weekend before Brad signed when Burke mentioned Brad met with Ken over lunch to finalize things. You could speculate that it sounded like it could be more than a little signing meeting. Could have been to get assurances for that autonomy.

Or, it could have simply been timing issues where the two could not get together until then to spend the requisite time on it... Playoffs in NHL, AHL and CHL.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The whole thing smells, Brian Burke needs to start earning his salary(living here more than Toronto would be a good start) and Ken King needs to retire far far away from the game of ice hockey.

It's been said 100 times already:
Ken King acts on behalf of ownership.
Better to suggest retiring ownership instead of the messenger.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It's been said 100 times already:
Ken King acts on behalf of ownership.
Better to suggest retiring ownership instead of the messenger.

Burke has also said several times that there is no GM or President job in the NHL where you don't have to have ownership approve moves when big money is involved.