Ben Bishop vs Marc-André Fleury

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Are you suggesting Reimer would sign a one year deal as a UFA?

No - 2 or 3 years.

[Roof-Daddy]

If the Flames can't get these guys for one of their 2nds and a mid level prospect then I don't want them. Just sign Reimer.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Fleury would have pads similar to Kidd.

If the cost was the same, I think most would prefer Bishop. Risky with UFA status after only a season though. Extension needs to be in place prior to a deal IMO

[FlameZilla]

I'm pretty excited about the possibility of landing Fleury, but the price has to be right. The 6th overall is way too much considering the situation the Pens are in.

Bishop is a great goalie, but what would it cost to acquire him?

[thymebalm]

Bishop is the only goalie on the market that checks all the boxes. His UFA status (next year) helps his acquisition cost & if he earns a big pay check.... so what?

Bernier/Reimer would be a better fit than the Flower in my books.

[StrykerSteve]

Both should be available for two seconds or a second and a B prospect, IMO.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

vs James Reimer

Reimer isn't on the same level

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Reimer isn't on the same level

He's been better than Fleury the last two years. Younger. Costs nothing to acquire.

[tvp2003]

In terms of their equipment setup, it's basically a tie based on what they wore last year:





Bishop's mask would look pretty sweet with a Flames theme though... that makes him my pick of the two. I'm normally not a fan of the "GLOW FX" effect but you could make it pretty awesome if you used red Flames.

X-Factor is if Fleury breaks out a set of "retro" yellow/gold pads... although it didn't exactly work out for Trevor Kidd back in the day.

[StrykerSteve]

Bishop or Fleury would be "flashy" pickups. Reimer, much less so. But if he can take the reigns and actually start 60+ games for the first time in his career, then people would grow to appreciate him pretty quickly.

The problem I have with him is, he's never started more than 40 games in a season before and I have to wonder why that is. Even a bottom feeder like Toronto wasn't willing to let him carry the load. That tells me he either isn't capable or Toronto are run by idiots.

Hmmm, after typing it out, it kind of answers itself, doesn't it?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Bishop by a large margin

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

He's been better than Fleury the last two years. Younger. Costs nothing to acquire.

no he hasn't...he has never even been the guy

don't give me numbers from hand picked starts please...if he was better than MAF he would have been a starter somewhere by now

[Vinny01]

I prefer Fleury as he would be cheaper and I feel the Flames only need a goalie for 3 years and Gillies or McDonald will be ready.

Bishop is the better goalie but would require a huge extension and likely cost more. If we land Bishop and can sign him to something like 4 years $28M then that sounds great.

[Ashasx]

well yes he has been better, and on a much worse team.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Both should be available for two seconds or a second and a B prospect, IMO.

Don't see how Bishop would cost the same or less than Anderson? IMO he costs more. Fleury should cost less than Anderson, but that GM is off his rocker at the price he wants back in trade.

[Par]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Fleury would have pads similar to Kidd.

If the cost was the same, I think most would prefer Bishop. Risky with UFA status after only a season though. Extension needs to be in place prior to a deal IMO

Can you do that? Sign a player with term(one year) remaining on his contract.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Don't see how Bishop would cost the same or less than Anderson? IMO he costs more. Fleury should cost less than Anderson, but that GM is off his rocker at the price he wants back in trade.

Simply because you're only getting one year of Bishop before he can walk. In any other situation, where he's under contract for multiple years, he's obviously cost more.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Par

Can you do that? Sign a player with term(one year) remaining on his contract.

starting July 1st you can.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

well yes he has been better, and on a much worse team.

so he had no pressure, played half the games, never a starter

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Par

Can you do that? Sign a player with term(one year) remaining on his contract.

Yes, you can. Think Giordano, inked him early and his new contract only starts kicking in next season. Up until now, he's been on his old, bargain deal.