[Trade] Stars trade for Bishop and sign him to 6 year deal ($4.916 mil AAV)

[Itse]

It does feel like the only acceptable move would be getting a cheap 100% consistent high end goalie who has never been injured for no assets lost.

Anything less than that and you're going to get protests

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

No, no, no. This is another move that was forced by the expansion draft. Vasilevsky, like Murray, is the goalie of the future in Tampa and is already nearly as good as Bishop at half of the cost. If you were their GM, would you re-sign a 30 year old goalie to a 6 year $6-7 million contract when you have a replacement for him right now at just $3.5 million for the next 3 years and he's all of 22 years old? Now ask that question again considering your team is already under a cap crunch because you're trying to pay some star forwards and defensemen? Which would you keep long term? Which player would you expose or let go to UFA and which would you protect?

This is pretty much a no-brainer for Yzerman. It's a tough situation, but he made the right call letting Bishop go. It doesn't reflect poorly on Bishop, it's a long-term/cap management situation.

So in other words he's not franchise altering seeing they feel they can replace him with a younger goaltender that's not quite as good but has potential to be. With the Flames having at least two goaltenders in their system that they like very much it would probably play out the same here in a matter of half way into what would be a 6 year deal with Bishop. The Bishop deal would have always been of instant gratification (and that's if he can get back to his play of a few years back which isn't guaranteed seeing how other goaltenders haven't fared well behind this defense) in exchange for long term pain.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Sounds more like Bishop preferred Dallas to Calgary, and that's why he's there.

Probably something to do with being toyed with twice.

[Toonage]

How does Bishop's rights being moved to Dallas equate to him not liking Calgary?

[FlamesNation23]

Originally Posted by Toonage

How does Bishop's rights being moved to Dallas equate to him not liking Calgary?

Because Calgary was on his no-trade list (It was also on his list when he was in Tampa, but was willing to waive it if his terms were met by Calgary but that deal was eventually killed)

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So in other words he's not franchise altering seeing they feel they can replace him with a younger goaltender that's not quite as good but has potential to be. With the Flames having at least two goaltenders in their system that they like very much it would probably play out the same here in a matter of half way into what would be a 6 year deal with Bishop.

It feels like you're being intentionally obtuse to my point, and you're also moving the goal posts by talking about the young goalies in the Flames system. Those goalies BTW, have not shown that they are yet anywhere near Vasilevsky's level in the NHL. You cannot bet on young goalies until they prove it on a regular basis in the NHL.

[Toonage]

Maybe someone can clarify this for me but I was under the impression that Bishop doesn't waive anything for his rights to be traded.

[FlamesNation23]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe someone can clarify this for me but I was under the impression that Bishop doesn't waive anything for his rights to be traded.

I dont think Bishop has to actually waive anything (could be wrong) but a team is much more likely to trade for the rights to a player they believe they have a chance at signing. Seems like Bishop would have preferred Dallas over Calgary

[alan21]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe someone can clarify this for me but I was under the impression that Bishop doesn't waive anything for his rights to be traded.

All clauses attached to the contract does not expire until July 1st along with the actual duration of the contract itself. He would still have to waive to be traded although I'm sure it's a lot easier to trade the rights after the season is over since he doesn't physically move anywhere.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by FlamesNation23

Because Calgary was on his no-trade list (It was also on his list when he was in Tampa, but was willing to waive it if his terms were met by Calgary but that deal was eventually killed)

Yeah it's not that he "didn't like" Calgary and more it's not a preferred destination all things equal so he would sign here but only on his terms. Sounds like Dallas is more preferred for a few reasons and really that's a team a season removed from a 109 point season so it's he probably also feels there's potential there to play on a good team.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It feels like you're being intentionally obtuse to my point, and you're also moving the goal posts by talking about the young goalies in the Flames system. Those goalies BTW, have not shown that they are yet anywhere near Vasilevsky's level in the NHL. You cannot bet on young goalies until they prove it on a regular basis in the NHL.

No I'm saying he's not franchise altering like say Carey Price. You think in the same situation the Habs would let Price go if they have Vasilevsky? Would the Capitals let go of Holtby for Vasilevsky? He's a very good starting goaltender but he's IMO a lot closer to Elliott pedigree than Price pedigree. Personally I don't even think Vasilevskiy is even that great as this stage in his career but much like with young goaltenders teams will hope they can fulfill future potential and if they dont' view the veteran goaltender ahead of them as franchise altering they let go of them like the Blues did with Elliott and the Lightning with Bishop.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No I'm saying he's not franchise altering like say Carey Price. You think in the same situation the Habs would let Price go if they have Vasilevsky? Would the Capitals let go of Holtby for Vasilevsky? He's a very good starting goaltender but he's IMO a lot closer to Elliott pedigree than Price pedigree. Personally I don't even think Vasilevskiy is even that great.

Vasilevsky is the franchise goaltender - I think he's poised to be the best goalie in the NHL in the next 2-3 years.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Vasilevsky is the franchise goaltender - I think he's poised to be the best goalie in the NHL in the next 2-3 years.

You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not as he looked pretty awful in some highlight packages I saw of him this season and put up worse numbers than Bishop in what was considered a down season for him.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No I'm saying he's not franchise altering like say Carey Price. You think in the same situation the Habs would let Price go if they have Vasilevsky? Would the Capitals let go of Holtby for Vasilevsky? He's a very good starting goaltender but he's IMO a lot closer to Elliott pedigree than Price pedigree. Personally I don't even think Vasilevskiy is even that great as this stage in his career but much like with young goaltenders teams will hope they can fulfill future potential and if they dont' view the veteran goaltender ahead of them as franchise altering they let go of them like the Blues did with Elliott and the Lightning with Bishop.

I went too far with "franchise altering" maybe. Although franchise altering can mean different things depending on what franchise you are talking about.

No Bishop isn't Carey Price. No one is except for Price himself.

But he would have been a good bet to "alter" our franchise in a positive way by providing top 10 or even top 5 league wide goaltending for the Flames on a consistent basis just as our contention window is supposed to be opening.

Instead all we have is a big fat question mark in what's going to be a very important season. Hopefully Tre can find an answer that doesn't end our next season bitterly and embarrassingly again.

[Erick Estrada]

I think top 5 is overly optimistic given the Flames are an average defensive team. Top 15 or better would be reasonable and a big improvement over the past two years. That said I expected that for Elliott and it never materialized.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

If they sign Bishop for $6 million and buy out Niemi they will have 13.4 million against their cap for goalies next year.

If they sign Bishop for $6 million and buy out Lehtonen they will have 13.1 million against the cap for goalies next year.

####ing idiots.

What if they buy out both, and use their rookie as the backup?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

What if they buy out both, and use their rookie as the backup?

Next year they'd pay $10.7 million for 4 different goalies. The following year about $9.8 million.

[djsFlames]

I don't know why ownership would veto Bishop.

I don't care now because it's done. But to learn that at the time would've ticked me off for sure.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah it's not that he "didn't like" Calgary and more it's not a preferred destination all things equal so he would sign here but only on his terms. Sounds like Dallas is more preferred for a few reasons and really that's a team a season removed from a 109 point season so it's he probably also feels there's potential there to play on a good team.

John Shannon on the radio morning mentioned that since Calgary had 2 opportunities to sign him he essentially said thanks but no thanks to a third time.

[Lil Pedro]

I think the Flames are going to bring back both Elliott and Johnson. They can get Elliott on the cheap for decent term which could be a stop gap measure to bridge them to Parsons/Gillies/Rittich. With signing Elliott for cheaper then the likes of Mike Smith or MAF, it will allow them to get a more suitable top 4 D, a scoring RW for the first line and potentially resigning Backlund long term.

Johnson sounds like he wants to be back. Local kid who loves playing here. Flames also have faith in him too.