Friedman: Flames ownership killed Bishop trade to Flames last summer

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That'd be fine if somehow the owners/KK knew that the performance value of those assets exceeded the performance value of Bishop... but they didn't (and I'll grant that it's disappointing that Treliving + Burke apparently didn't either).

They (The owners) balked at the $$. Which is silly, they're well within their rights to set the budget of the team but they hardly seem qualified to judge the spending efficiency of said budget (Wasn't that what they hired Burke for? What the heck does he do if it isn't that?).

So we know they balked at the $$'s? The team was spending to the cap in any case.

[Manhattanboy]

Brian Burke is the guest speaker on May 25 at the Jewish Centre Sports Dinner. There's usually a Q&A.

Am tempted to ask him publicly about Bishop and Friedman's comments re owner meddling and see how he responds in that forum.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Brian Burke is the guest speaker on May 25 at the Jewish Centre Sports Dinner. There's usually a Q&A.

Am tempted to ask him publicly about Bishop and Friedman's comments re owner meddling and see how he responds in that forum.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by getbak

Why would a Kelowna Rockets reporter be the guy with the inside information on this?

There is a lot of scuttlebutt about this right now in the hockey community.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getbak

Keep in mind that the only media member reporting on the King stuff is a guy who covers the Kelowna Rockets and appears to be an Oilers fanboy based on his Twitter feed.

What he's saying is almost identical to what was posted by a poster here a few weeks ago. The question is, is he confirming what was posted on CP, or is he just tweeting out something he read on CP?

Why would a Kelowna Rockets reporter be the guy with the inside information on this?

Its not inconceivable, lots of hockey people weather the off-season in Kelowna.

I dont know why, 'tis a miserable place.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So we know they balked at the $$'s? The team was spending to the cap in any case.

6x$6-6.5 is way less than most of us would've predicted for Bishop last year - the prevailing thought was he was a 7x7 guy on the open market.

Getting him for one less year with a $1M smaller cap hit would've been another feather in Brad's cap.

Of course, it's moot if the price was 6th overall, but if Ben Bishop is starting for us in game 1, we for sure don't get swept and we might even be playing Edmonton right now.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So we know they balked at the $$'s? The team was spending to the cap in any case.

We can safely infer it.

I highly doubt that Ken King and Murray Edwards are pouring over scouting reports of every guy in the national hockey league in their spare time so that they know the relative value of that player vs. the Flames return package so they can give informed consent on hockey trades. So the only thing they could legitimately balk at is the extension price.

That they were a cap team anyways is the infuriating part. If the Flames were a internal budget team and they had to call to get approval to spend $$ to exceed their budget it's understandable that they'd say no. But they were a cap team... so the only* reason that they could possibly have for saying "no" is that they think they know better then actual HockeyOps how to best efficiently spend that money.


*The sole exception I would give to this "only" is if there was a present insurance issue (ala Nathan Horton's Contract). In which case it's understandable... but that's something that's the exception, not the rule and shouldn't be presumed.

[442scotty]

I'm glad we didn't get Bishop... if treliving was really ready to pay big time to get him that really lowers my opinion of him...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

I'm glad we didn't get Bishop... if treliving was really ready to pay big time to get him that really lowers my opinion of him...

I agree with Roof Daddy and I think you guys are all nuts. Aside from this season, where he was probably mentally unhinged a bit, Bishop has been one of the top 3 goalies in the league, both regular season and playoffs.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Add me to the list of those not all that concerned that ownership would have a say in a contract offer of that size to a 31 year old goaltender with injury issues ... I have no problem with that at all.

Either way, happy we don't have Bishop for 6-7 years. Look at Lundqvist's contract for the next four years, that will hurt, and they were similar age when he signed it.

I'm not sure Lundqvist, signed @ $8.5M-AAV until he's 39yo, is a fair comparable for Bishop, who'd have been signed until he was 36yo @ $6.5M-AAV (rumoured deal on draft-day).

Quick, $5.8M to 37yo
Schneider, $6.0M to 36yo
Rinne, $7.0M to 36yo

His contract and expiry would have been pretty comparable to these 3 above, which are not viewed as a hindrance by their clubs.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I agree with Roof Daddy and I think you guys are all nuts. Aside from this season, where he was probably mentally unhinged a bit, Bishop has been one of the top 3 goalies in the league, both regular season and playoffs.

Yup. "Was."

Past Tense.

Big Goalie, wrong side of 30, knee/injury issues, looking for a big, long payday.

Thats an Oilers signing if I ever saw one.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

if Ben Bishop is starting for us in game 1, we for sure don't get swept and we might even be playing Edmonton right now.

******* Elliott ******* Bishop

GP ******* 49 ******* 32
W ******* 26 ******* 16
L ******* 18 ******* 12
OT ******* 3 ******* 3
SA ******* 1338 ******* 870
GA ******* 121 ******* 77
GAA ******* 2.55 ******* 2.55
S ******* 1217 ******* 793
Sv% ******* .910 ******* .911
SO ******* 2 ******* 1
MIN ******* 2845 ******* 1813

Looking at those stat lines for last year I think its safe to say if we had Bishop last year we would probably have been in the exact same place as we were with Elliott. I think it is erroneous to think that his stats would be magical better on a flames team over a Tampa team.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I agree with Roof Daddy and I think you guys are all nuts. Aside from this season, where he was probably mentally unhinged a bit, Bishop has been one of the top 3 goalies in the league, both regular season and playoffs.

Is one of them also Brian Elliot? because some would say based on his Save % and record over the past 3 seasons before coming to Calgary that he could be in the that top 3.


But I am glad we didnt get saddled with Bishop for 6 years, we have Gillies 1-2 years away from challenging for the starters position and would hate to see us paying 6+ million for a goalie with no championships.

Bring on MAF!

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yup. "Was."

Past Tense.

Big Goalie, wrong side of 30, knee/injury issues, looking for a big, long payday.

Thats an Oilers signing if I ever saw one.

30 is young for a goalie. He spent the whole season waiting to be traded. And one good thing about "big" is that you don't get "small". He is far more of a sure thing than anything else that could be available, unless Schneider comes on the market...

[Roof-Daddy]

Wrong side of 30, just like..

Rinne (34)
Rask (30)
Anderson (34)
Crawford (32)
Schneider (31)
Lundqvist (35)
MA Fleury (32)
Dubnyk (31)


Plus Price, Talbot and Varlamov are all 29, just about ready to stick a fork in them too.

I mean Luongo finished 4th in Vezina voting last year at 36 and had .920 + save percentages all throughout his 30's.

It's really, really, really hard to find examples of goalies performing at a high level well into their mid 30's. Except for just about ALL of them it seems.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

30 is young for a goalie. He spent the whole season waiting to be traded. And one good thing about "big" is that you don't get "small". He is far more of a sure thing than anything else that could be available, unless Schneider comes on the market...

True, 30 is young for a goalie, but an athletic goalie. Its kind of old for a big, oft-injured, positional goalie.

And, while you're right, hes not getting smaller, his size doesnt matter if hes on the IR.

And you're right again, hes about as sure a thing as it gets on the market right now. And he knows it. And hes going to want to get paid like it.

It just doesnt pass the 'smell-test' for me and it never has.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Wrong side of 30, just like..

Rinne (34)
Rask (30)
Anderson (34)
Crawford (32)
Schneider (31)
Lundqvist (35)
MA Fleury (32)
Dubnyk (31)


Plus Price, Talbot and Varlamov are all 29, just about ready to stick a fork in them too.

I mean Luongo finished 4th in Vezina voting last year at 36 and had .920 + save percentages all throughout his 30's.

It's really, really, really hard to find examples of goalies performing at a high level well into their mid 30's. Except for just about ALL of them it seems.

All, except Bishop then apparently.

And big gets smaller with equipment changes. Less pucks hit you

[VladtheImpaler]

Hey, RD, we don't want anyone too good here for the next few years - we have to keep the landing pad clear for Gillies because he is sure to be great. I mean, he is going to win the starting job in Stockton anytime now, and then the Vezina is next...

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Since1984

Is one of them also Brian Elliot? because some would say based on his Save % and record over the past 3 seasons before coming to Calgary that he could be in the that top 3.


But I am glad we didnt get saddled with Bishop for 6 years, we have Gillies 1-2 years away from challenging for the starters position and would hate to see us paying 6+ million for a goalie with no championships.

Bring on MAF!

Ben Bishop has a s% of .919 over the last 3 years Elliott's is .918. Statistically they are very close. Looking at a 5 year snap shot Elliott has a 2.25 GAA and Bishop has a 2.29 GAA.

Bottom line if you look at the comparison of the two statistically it would be hard to say Bishop has been the better goalie. over the last 5 years.

Side note MAF sits at 2.43 over the last 5 years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I agree with Roof Daddy and I think you guys are all nuts. Aside from this season, where he was probably mentally unhinged a bit, Bishop has been one of the top 3 goalies in the league, both regular season and playoffs.

Any argument for a player that hinges on "hey, if you take out his bad season, he's good!" is a bad, bad argument.

Posters (not you specifically) are roasting Elliott for a terrible season, and turning out praise for facing adversity and forgiveness on Bishop for his terrible season. It's nonsense.

A goalie is every season he has played, period. Not just the good ones. Not just the bad ones. If you want to say Bishop averages out as a top 10 goalie since he's been a starter, sure, but he's not top 5, and he's definitely not top 3. He's had two great seasons, and two seasons where he played below the ability of the average NHL starter. That's Bishop.