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

[Roof-Daddy]

So much for "Cody Franson's cousin" and his $40 million guaranteed just decide the term BS.

[CrazyCaper]

Good cap hit if true. However, 6yrs on a goalie with a history of injury problems...No thank you!!

[habernac]

Pierre LeBrun‏Verified account @PierreVLeBrun 3m3 minutes ago
More
Hearing that Ben Bishop's new contract with the Dallas Stars is $29.5 million over six years

[sureLoss]

Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Originally thought Bishop would get four or five years at $5.5M AAV but DAL gets it just under $5M by going 6 years:

[Roof-Daddy]

His down year cost him about $6-7 million total dollars if you want to believe the 6 x 6 rumors from last summer.

[Looch City]

Who should I be angry at for this?

[Mass_nerder]

That's a fantastic cap hit, considering what was rumored when the we backed out last year at the draft.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Who should I be angry at for this?

Why choose? Just be angry at everybody!

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Who should I be angry at for this?

Ownership, though they're likely already beating themselves up over this. The next big fish Treliving targets could/will very likely cost them more $4.91M, and cost assets to acquire.

[Erick Estrada]

That's a fair contract. Interesting how they rounded down from $5 million/season to $4.916. Still they are married to him for six years for better or worse. I think in Calgary to have veteran players like Bishop and Gio tied up past 35 years old would have been an iffy proposition for this team.

[Robbob]

Hopefully that is a sign of the goalie market price coming down for others. Glass half full response.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Interesting how they rounded down from $5 million/season to $4.916.

There's got to be technical significance to that (that I'm unaware of).

[Vinny01]

Would have loved that deal for the Flames or even the 5x5.5 would have been great

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Ownership, though they're likely already beating themselves up over this. The next big fish Treliving targets could/will very likely cost them more $4.91M.

That assumes he was willing to sign anything close to that cap hit with Calgary.

Calgary has always been on his 8 team NTC and it looks like he was willing to waive it last summer when they were going to give him significantly more than what he ended up with Dallas.

Some might say his performance might have driven his price down, but that doesn't appear to have changed the fact that Calgary appears to have never been a top destination for him.

[Huntingwhale]

That is a stellar contract. Great work by the Stars. If Bishop was a Flames and BT got him to that price, we'd be dancing in the streets.

I wish I was a fly on the wall in the Flames management room right now so I could hear their reaction. If you can get a goalie like Bishop for that price, you take it, run and never look back.

I was kind of indifferent to the Stars acquiring him. But truthfully I'm kind of sad now that the Flames couldn't get him for that price. So much for the silly 6.5/yr cap hit rumours.

[Strange Brew]

I was lukewarm on Flames acquiring Bishop at the rumored acquisition cost last summer. And at 6 x $6, I was leery of the price tag.

But the Stars nailed it here. Low acquisition cost and pretty reasonable AAV.

At less than $5 million, Flames could have groomed a young goalie behind him. Even if the young goalie eventaully suprasses him, you'd think they'd be on a smaller contract meaning your overall cap hit for goalies would be reasonable.

We'll see what Tre does here before baking making any assessments but I doubt he is counting on Gillies or Parsons in any way. I can't think of one example where the organization has kept a spot open for a young player on the hopes they will win it. They wait for the young player to win the spot and then deal with the roster aftermath.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Some might say his performance might have driven his price down, but that doesn't appear to have changed the fact that Calgary appears to have never been a top destination for him.

That's been stated here several times over the last week. He wasn't going to play in Calgary for the same money he could get in a city like Dallas. The Flames were going to have to pay a premium. IMO things are probably working out for the best here for the Flames as six years is too long given that his play declined and he's injury prone.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I can't think of one example where the organization has kept a spot open for a young player on the hopes they will win it. They wait for the young player to win the spot and then deal with the roster aftermath.

Just the blue chippers like Price & Fleury

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

That assumes he was willing to sign anything close to that cap hit with Calgary.

Calgary has always been on his 8 team NTC and it looks like he was willing to waive it last summer when they were going to give him significantly more than what he ended up with Dallas.

Some might say his performance might have driven his price down, but that doesn't appear to have changed the fact that Calgary appears to have never been a top destination for him.

This. There's got to be a price difference between a team you want to play for and one you'd rather not play for. Plus, what's the tax differential between Dallas and Calgary? Those two factors might mean he's still a $6-6.5 signing for the Flames. Treliving doesn't seem like a guy who likes to pay above market price.

[Ashasx]

My original thought is that this is a good deal based on what the rumoured ask had been, but it's probably just a fair contract. In reality, there are a few questions regarding Bishop's age and injury history that could cause his performance to go south.