Friedman: Flames ownership killed Bishop trade to Flames last summer

[Northendzone]

I find it interesting to read that the flames ownership may not have been available to give the ok.

I wonder how long they were not available for? I wonder if they are routinely not available.

anwyas, for the flames it would have been perfect if they could have got bishop on a 4 year deal; however, bishop would likely never sign anything like that because it is highly likely he will get a 6 yr deal from someone

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

1st, Lundqvists contract was for 13.2% of the cap when it was signed. Bishop signing for $6.5 million with an estimated $75 million cap is 8.6% of the cap.

2nd, Lundqvists first year of that deal he was 32 taking him to 39, Bishop would be 30 and a 6 year deal (rumored) would take him to 36.

3rd, Lunqvist deal hasn't hurt them yet. He had a down year for him, but they were still a top 5 team in the league. Remains to be seen if he bounces back or the team starts to suffer.

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

You mean the guy who was just the best goalie in the playoffs not named Rinne or Allen? Yeah definitely wouldn't want that.

Also - Lundqvist was 32 when his extension kicked in. Bishop will be 30 (turning 31 in November).

Man two guys sensitive on Lundqvist.

I wouldn't want a 35 year old goalie who is still top 10, but no longer top 1 or 2 making 8.5M for the next 4 seasons.

I didn't say he should be euthanized in a Manhattan hospital.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by AC

Add the reports of Treliving needing Ken King's approval to trade for Bishop again at the deadline and not getting an answer in time...

Kinda amazing Treliving even wanted to come back.

Though it sounds like his new contract comes with a guarantee of no Ken King meddling:

@LarryFisher_KDC
Big condition in Brad Treliving's new contract/re-signing with #Flames was full autonomy, meaning he can now make moves without King consent

Good.

Eff you King. As incompetent as they come.

[Tyler]

Larry Fisher‏ @LarryFisher_KDC

Source also said #Flames made move for Bishop at trade deadline (similar to #Kings package), but fell through awaiting Ken King's approval.

[Dentoman]

Source reads (or is) CP?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man two guys sensitive on Lundqvist.

I wouldn't want a 35 year old goalie who is still top 10, but no longer top 1 or 2 making 8.5M for the next 4 seasons.

I didn't say he should be euthanized in a Manhattan hospital.

Well, we don't and we wouldn't have. My only issue really, was you comparing a Bishop signing to the Lundqvist contract. Not a fair comparison IMO.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man two guys sensitive on Lundqvist.

I wouldn't want a 35 year old goalie who is still top 10, but no longer top 1 or 2 making 8.5M for the next 4 seasons.

I didn't say he should be euthanized in a Manhattan hospital.

I mean, I take Lundqvist right now on Calgary. That's a heck of a lot more appealing than any of the other options right now. Top 10 goalie for $8.5 mil? Sign me right up.

Also - Pekka Rinne was about the same age as Bishop is now was when he signed his 7x7 deal - how do you think Nashville feels about paying 34 year old Rinne for a couple more years?

[Toonage]

I'd be fine being saddled for a few more years of that contract if it meant having had the playoff success the NYR have had the past 5-6 years.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Well, we don't and we wouldn't have. My only issue really, was you comparing a Bishop signing to the Lundqvist contract. Not a fair comparison IMO.

Signing a goalie in their 30's to a long term contract isn't a good comparable to Lundqvist?

I'll beg to differ.

Add in the Bishop injury history and I'd be very worried about it.

If they did it I could understand the thinking ... plug the spot with a top ten goalie and worry about 4 years from now in 4 years, but there has to be a way to avoid that future head ache.

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

I mean, I take Lundqvist right now on Calgary. That's a heck of a lot more appealing than any of the other options right now. Top 10 goalie for $8.5 mil? Sign me right up.

Also - Pekka Rinne was about the same age as Bishop is now was when he signed his 7x7 deal - how do you think Nashville feels about paying 34 year old Rinne for a couple more years?

7M isn't 8.5M

and 2 years isn't 4

[TheFlamesVan]

IMO Ben Bishop is not a comparable goaltender to Henrik Lundqvist.

[troutman]

Active goalie playoff wins:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/recor...s-leaders.html

Lundqvist
Fleury
Crawford
Quick
Niemi
Luongo
Rinne
Rask
Holtby
Miller

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Bingo

7M isn't 8.5M

and 2 years isn't 4

Right - and what kind of contract do you think Bishop will get? 6x6 probably? SO he will be younger than Rinne and Lundqvist when the contract ends and make less money.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What 2 scary moves are these?

Bishop 6x6 is market value for a goalie with his resume.

What was the other? The rumored deal for Seguin was during the Feaster years

Was the rumored Seguin trade Feaster or Treliving? I honestly don't know.

As for the Bishop rumor, it's not so much the money but the rumored acquisition cost. Seems I have heard different things (the Tkachuk pick or Backlund and some 2nd's.

If having Seguin and Bishop meant no Gaudreau, Monahan, and either Tkachuk or Backlund and draft picks, well I can confidently say being swept in the playoffs this year would not have happened.

One interpretation is that ownership is saying they are prepared to be patient during a rebuild.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Was the rumored Seguin trade Feaster or Treliving? I honestly don't know.

Feaster

[Strange Brew]

If the Flames ever develop or acquire a goalie as good as Lundqvist, he will be signed to a long and expensive contract. That 's how it works with elite players. Saying we want no part no part of such a scenario seems unrealistic. It's like saying we don't want good players. I agree there's no need to trade for them towards the end of their careers.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Right - and what kind of contract do you think Bishop will get? 6x6 probably? SO he will be younger than Rinne and Lundqvist when the contract ends and make less money.

Well he's 31 when the contract starts in the fall (month into the season), so a 6 year deal takes him to 36.5 in the last season.

I'm guessing year 4 is decent, then 5 and 6 are an issue for the Stars. Must my opinion obviously.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Here is what we know:

Since Treliving has been GM, the Flames have attempted to acquire Ben Bishop on 3 different occasions.

The First time, the player waived his no-trade clause except the deal was nixed apparently from ownership.

The Second time, Ownership was not available to give the OK.

The Third time, the player in question seemingly preferred another destination.

These events do not lead me to believe that the Flames ownership group was interested in acquiring Ben Bishop.

We can speculate as to the why, but it seems obvious to me that there is a disconnect between what hockey ops wants to do and what ownership will allow them to do.

Maybe the owners just really didn't like Bishop, maybe they didn't want to spend the money, but either way, it gives credence to the rumour that Treliving was only willing to re-sign if he had autonomy from that kind of interference.

In light of getting swept in the playoffs on a bucket of bad goaltending, that ownership interference looks much worse, but it may have given Treliving the ample evidence he needed to justify the lack of oversight. "This is what happens when you're involved in hockey ops."

We don't know most of that as incontrovertible fact. It is mostly speculation.

This type of thinking is understandable, given our inclination to want to have everything explained with clear reasoning, not to mention the satisfaction of connecting the dots and alleviating our dislike of the unknown.

There is without questions enough rumours swirling for this to warrant some 'what if' discussion. But I think we really need to stop short of concocting these elaborate narratives that give credence to tiny shreds of information that fall far short of being concrete evidence.

It seems that way too many of these rumours, innuendo and theories are quickly becoming written history of the events as if they are gospel. As time goes by it gets more and more entrenched into the people's minds becoming unquestionable truth.

[iloveicedhockey]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Also - Pekka Rinne was about the same age as Bishop is now was when he signed his 7x7 deal - how do you think Nashville feels about paying 34 year old Rinne for a couple more years?

I agree with you on Lundquist, I'll have him on my team every day of the week. Not so much on Rinne, who despite playing on one of the best defensive teams for a good chunk of his career, has very inconsistent numbers, with a good year usually followed by some very average ones (0.917, 0.911,0.93,0.922,0.91, 0.902,0.923,0.908,0.918). He playing lights out at the moment but as recently as last season (15-16) he was seen as a potentially huge anchor (his 0.908 included a late season resurgence).

I have an inkling that we won't regret missing out on Bishop, though there's a chance we will. I think it's directly linked to his injuries going forward.

I'm interested to see our solution next year. It's a shame Saros is exempt.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Jacks

When you put it that way it sounds worse.

Moreso in hindsight.

IIRC, we needed to waive 1 player. Treliving waived Raymond and Byron. The reason he waived Byron was because Treliving wanted flexibility for the roster.

Byron had just come off a season where he had sat most of the end of the season, had off season wrist surgery, dealing with high ankle sprain and other ailments. He had a terrible camp due to the fact he wasn't fully healthy. Management thought they could sneak him into the minors for an extended conditioning stint sort of situation and juggle players during the pre-season with less risk of losing a player on waivers. Most teams had max contracts and couldn't claim him anyways IIRC.

Kassian crash several hours before waiver clearance IIRC. Montreal terminated contract (had a spot) and acquired Byron. The reason they were interested in him was because of the "failed breakaway" vid from Youtube. Montreal was one of the last in line for waiver priority so it's very likely that Treliving was right that it was likely they'd be able to sneak Byron down.

Byron then did not play for Montreal for another month or so while rehabbing his injuries.


Looking at the way Treliving explained himself I can see why he did it. The outcome sucks but he did his due diligence and the odds did seem very low Byron would be claimed. If Kassian had not been involved in his incident or we had waived Byron one day earlier, or Montreal had not watched that breakaway video, I think Byron would still be a Flame. But things happen.

Metaphorically, I think it's like holding a strong winning hand all game in a game of Hold'em until the final card on the river and getting blown away by a straight flush or something.

I don't blame Treliving and I'm pretty sure Treliving would love to get a mulligan on Byron if he could.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

We don't know most of that as incontrovertible fact. It is mostly speculation.

Albeit a lot of speculation coming from well connected folk and not the Orange Julius Guy.

Here's what's getting me though, this is all in regards to just potential deals for just Ben Bishop... how much are they getting in the way in regards to folk not named Ben Bishop? This is just the interference that we're hearing about there has got to be a whole lot more that we aren't.