[News] Ben Bishop thought trade to Flames was 'close'

[Dion]

I'm quite happy to have Elliot over Bishop. I think the acquisition cost to get Bishop under a new contract would have been quite high and would have limited the amount of money the team would ahve to sign other players.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Dude, you're on the internet. You can take a sec to actually search for things instead of just spouting them off off the top of your head.





Only 29 goalies have played in 65+ games over the last eight seasons (some more than once). With all NHL goalies combined having 47 seasons of 65+ games played in the last 8 seasons, that's an average of less than 6 goalies per season. I guess there's only 5-6 starting goalies in the NHL at any given time.

He's about 10-15 games high on what a starter should be IMO.

You want your starter to give you at least 55 starts.

So he's wrong about that, but he's right to call out someone calling Elliot an ironman because he clearly hasn't been that.

Anyway, I think the Flames were right in taking Elliot over Bishop. I don;t think paying a goalie $7 million is an effective use of cap space unless he's super elite top 3 consistently.

I think in most years the difference between a $7 million goalie and a $4 million is pretty negligible.

[AC]

I agree Oil Stain.

I like Bishop better as a goalie, but committing the type of cap space to him as it would take would be a big issue for this team.

[StrykerSteve]

Suck it, Yzerman. You get no assets from us.

[CliffFletcher]

Looks like Treliving astutely played off the two teams against each other and took the best deal. I'm happy with Elliot. If Bishop makes it to UFA, he can still end up a Flame.

[Coach]

Much happier with Elliot. Cheaper acquisition cost, probably cheaper contract, at least as good IMO.

[btimbit]

Also happier with Elliot. One of the more underrated goalies in the leauge, doesn't have the injury problems, won't cost as much

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Looks like Treliving astutely played off the two teams against each other and took the best deal. I'm happy with Elliot. If Bishop makes it to UFA, he can still end up a Flame.

And I don't know how much market there will be for Bishop at the deadline, particularly if a guy like Fleury is also out there. Bishop would be the top fish, but are teams going to really give up a ton? I don't know if Yzerman played this one right.

[djsFlames]

Seems like Stevie Y asked too much for Drouin and Bishop. Ends up sitting with both. Luckily for him Drouin looks to be panning out. If he flopped or looked like a fringe player in the spring then he'd look awfully dumb for not attaining some good assets when he could. I kinda hope trying to sell too high on Bishop comes back to bite him in the rear...cause it's Tampa.

[Locke]

Yeah, count me is as another person happier with Elliott than Bishop.

Bishop was going to cost too much to acquire, too much to keep, for far too long and his injury history is very concerning.

Much happier with Elliott.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

And I don't know how much market there will be for Bishop at the deadline, particularly if a guy like Fleury is also out there. Bishop would be the top fish, but are teams going to really give up a ton? I don't know if Yzerman played this one right.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Yzerman hung on to both Bishop and Vasilevsky for another run at the Cup, and then let Bishop walk as a UFA. The Lightning's window is now.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I think he ends up in Dallas personally

Strong possibility but they'd probably have to move both goalies first.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Yzerman hung on to both Bishop and Vasilevsky for another run at the Cup, and then let Bishop walk as a UFA. The Lightning's window is now.

And by starting the framework for a contract extension during trade talks, Treliving will be ahead of the pack on July 1.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

A lot of people on here declaring they are far happier with Elliot than Bishop based on some pretty big assumptions around what Bishop would be eating up in cap space. It's almost like a reverse Wideman situation. People far to concerned about a cap hit that's going to be off the books in a year, and people far too enamoured with a cap hit that simply has to go up next year (if it doesn't it means we still haven't found a #1 goalie).

People need to recognize that the positive side if we were to be paying Bishop right now. And that would be we'd have our goalie situation locked in for the foreseeable future, and it would be solid. With Elliot we are still making short term moves and have not locked in our goaltending for the upcoming years as the team starts to peak. And if Elliot becomes that solution, he's going to need to get paid anyway.

Point being, the cap savings we are getting on Elliot right now aren't real, because we need whatever money we are saving there this year, to pay our starter, whoever that is next year.

Not saying BT made the wrong move, clearly Bishop convos got to a point where is was too rich or I think he'd be our goalie right now, but getting excited about Elliot's cap hit is silly because it's not a sustainable number for your #1 goalie spot.

[Coach]

The assumption is that Elliott will be paid less regardless. For some reason Bishop has a better reputation, but the numbers say Elliott is the better goalie and only barely older. They could both have seasons comparable to their previous few, but in that case Elliott will probably command less just based on name.

Some people are just underrated and thus have a tendency to be underpaid. Pretty much Elliott in a nutshell. Many don't think Bishop is worth his reported asking price, particularly term wise. You have to keep your eye on the cap, it's part of the game. What people are saying is that we don't see Elliott as any sort of downgrade on Bishop, so why pay out the wazoo for him? Cuz hes taller? No thanks.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

A lot of people on here declaring they are far happier with Elliot than Bishop based on some pretty big assumptions around what Bishop would be eating up in cap space. It's almost like a reverse Wideman situation. People far to concerned about a cap hit that's going to be off the books in a year, and people far too enamoured with a cap hit that simply has to go up next year (if it doesn't it means we still haven't found a #1 goalie).

People need to recognize that the positive side if we were to be paying Bishop right now. And that would be we'd have our goalie situation locked in for the foreseeable future, and it would be solid. With Elliot we are still making short term moves and have not locked in our goaltending for the upcoming years as the team starts to peak. And if Elliot becomes that solution, he's going to need to get paid anyway.

Point being, the cap savings we are getting on Elliot right now aren't real, because we need whatever money we are saving there this year, to pay our starter, whoever that is next year.

Not saying BT made the wrong move, clearly Bishop convos got to a point where is was too rich or I think he'd be our goalie right now, but getting excited about Elliot's cap hit is silly because it's not a sustainable number for your #1 goalie spot.

Yeah sure we need to sign one or both goalies for next year. One as our starter and another for the expansion draft. By signing the two we have we save about $3M this season. If we had to pay Bishop we probably couldn't have signed Brouwer so I'm fine with the reduced cost this season.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And by starting the framework for a contract extension during trade talks, Treliving will be ahead of the pack on July 1.

That depends on whether Bishop is an aware fellow or not. If he is, I'd say BT likely burned that bridge with Bishop by pulling out of the negotiations and going in another direction. If he's an aware guy, he has to know BT and the Flames can't like these details getting out, so suggest to me he's ok with pissing BT off.

If he's not aware, then he simply just opened his mouth.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That depends on whether Bishop is an aware fellow or not. If he is, I'd say BT likely burned that bridge with Bishop by pulling out of the negotiations and going in another direction. If he's an aware guy, he has to know BT and the Flames can't like these details getting out, so suggest to me he's ok with pissing BT off.

If he's not aware, then he simply just opened his mouth.

People can be pros, and I'll give Bishop the benefit on that one. You can't tell me that if your negotiating a 7 x 8mill contract, and the team ends up trading for a guy that makes 1/3 of that you would be personally offended. Even if you were, I am sure a call at end of next season explaining would smooth it over.

Then again maybe it wouldn't. I am sure these players take a lot personally. Especially if they feel used in some way.

Either way I think if you played in the league any number of years you get it is a business. As long as nothing crossed the line (ex: promises were broken) then you take it for what it is. Maybe Calgary isn't your #1 pick, but you understand and resist taking it personal.

[Yrebmi]

Elliot just makes more sense. Goaltending is just such an important position.

If Elliot flops , we assumably have Bishop available next season UFA with ground work for contract already in place.
If we had got Bishop for this season with an extension and he flops we are stuck with him. Elliot would likely no longer be an option.

I am not saying either tender is likely to fail, just that you never know for sure. The way we went allows more options if the worst happens.

[calgarywinning]

We are way ahead on this. We have options and choices. Would rather have a goaltender that wants to play and prove something than a mega deal that leaves us flopping in the wind should it not work out.