Friedman: Flames ownership killed Bishop trade to Flames last summer

[EldrickOnIce]

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.

No it isn't a fair comparison.
One guy is one of the top goalies in the NHL, the other guy is big.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by 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.

This one, if true, is very, very annoying.

Imagine having a guy like Bishop backing up Elliott in the first round... ? i have no doubt that Elliott would have gotten the hook earlier if we had a guy like Bishop as the backup...

the deadline deal doesn't guarantee we'd have to sign him either.... just loading up for a playoff run, with the addition benefit of having Bishop's right that could be flipped later, much like what LA did...

[killer_carlson]

Or perhaps the "awaiting Ken King's approval" was that Bishop was only prepared to come on the basis he was re-signed to a lengthy contract.

That makes much more sense to me than a suggestion that ownership is evaluating every trade - only those where there is a significant dollar figure attached.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

This one, if true, is very, very annoying.

Imagine having a guy like Bishop backing up Elliott in the first round... ? i have no doubt that Elliott would have gotten the hook earlier if we had a guy like Bishop as the backup...

the deadline deal doesn't guarantee we'd have to sign him either.... just loading up for a playoff run, with the addition benefit of having Bishop's right that could be flipped later, much like what LA did...

There was a poster that broke that inside knowledge a couple weeks ago and had several people (myself included) that simply could not believe it. Listening to the Shannon take this morning it does make a bit more sense. From the sounds of it Yzerman had a deal with Calgary and a deal with LA in place. The Flames had to go to ownership for approval again like they did in the summer and asked Yzerman to wait. He obviously didn't want to go down the same road he did in the draft and took the Kings deal which likely was nearly as good as the Flames deal.

When I first read it I simply didn't see how it was possible but it does make a little more sense now. Having Bishop down the stretch and in the playoffs could have made things very different in the first round

[dino7c]

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

Backlund or #6 plus other picks at the draft for Bishop is the deal people are glad the owners nixed

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ok well that's just stupid. Like what the #### does Ken King know about 1) the scouting reports on Bishop, 2) the scouting reports on the draft [if trading away draft picks], 2) the practice and performance reports on Elliott [when determining an upgrade] and 4) the reports on the opponents when determining said upgrade is required to beat the opponents

At no point should Ken King look at the operations value of a given transaction, only the financial value based on the operational values recommended by the OPERATIONS manager. If Treliving says theres value in bringing in Bishop, all Ken King has to ask is what are the financial impacts. Of its 2 million extra in costs, King must ask can that cost be recouped in playoff revenue. If the answer is no, then maybe you nix the deal.

Not having your ####ing phone on when Treliving texts,calls, or emails you should not be a reason a deal is nixed

[MarkGio]

** Assuming the reports are true

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Backlund or #6 plus other picks at the draft for Bishop is the deal people are glad the owners nixed

Yeah that's one deal where the pieces going back have been 100% speculative.

The second move is the Seguin trade that was rumored at the 2013 draft. The Bruins were rumored to want our 6th overall pick (Monahan) and Gaudreau (the summer before his last year of college).

I am glad that deal didn't go through as the team was just starting the rebuild. That was a Feaster draft though

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Backlund or #6 plus other picks at the draft for Bishop is the deal people are glad the owners nixed

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?).

[dying4acup]

1. We all know most of what happened at the draft. There was a trade in place. It didn't happen. Is it possible that ownership didn't sign off on the Bishop contract extension? I could see it. Context: remember that this would have been the richest contract in franchise history, and there was potential that this contract would have been surpassed twice in the months to follow by Gaudreau and Monahan. Might it have been smartly cautious by King and/or ownership to put the brakes on for a second?

2. No where (except in this thread) have I seen any speculation that the Flames were interested in bringing Bishop in at the deadline. At the time (roughly) the Flames and Elliot were playing their best hockey of the season. The Flames had just acquired Stone, and didn't really have Capspace for Bishop. Furthermore, Yzerman as much as said that the Kings offer was the only one made. The Kings were the only team to call for Bishop. Yzerman could have been lying, but the Kings got him for pennies on the dollar, so if the Flames wanted him, I have no doubt they had the assets to acquire him.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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

Not when goalie A is signed for $8.5 million (13% of cap) and goalie B is signed for $6.0-6.5 million tops (8.5% of cap)

Not when goalie A is signed for 7 years at age 32 and goalie B is signed for 6 years at age 30

Obviously this assumes the 6 x 6 or 6 x 6.5 are accurate to what Bishop signs for.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

1. We all know most of what happened at the draft. There was a trade in place. It didn't happen. Is it possible that ownership didn't sign off on the Bishop contract extension? I could see it. Context: remember that this would have been the richest contract in franchise history, and there was potential that this contract would have been surpassed twice in the months to follow by Gaudreau and Monahan. Might it have been smartly cautious by King and/or ownership to put the brakes on for a second?

2. No where (except in this thread) have I seen any speculation that the Flames were interested in bringing Bishop in at the deadline. At the time (roughly) the Flames and Elliot were playing their best hockey of the season. The Flames had just acquired Stone, and didn't really have Capspace for Bishop. Furthermore, Yzerman as much as said that the Kings offer was the only one made. The Kings were the only team to call for Bishop. Yzerman could have been lying, but the Kings got him for pennies on the dollar, so if the Flames wanted him, I have no doubt they had the assets to acquire him.

1) the Giordano contract was bigger than the one Bishop was set to sign. Obviously they do that deal the Gaudreau deal and the Monahan deal last summer the 3 contracts have an estimated value of a $120M over 6-7 years which is a huge commitment. Remember last summer Bishop was second in Vezina votes and coming off his second straight deep playoff run where he was a game away from going to the finals back to back. He was by far the best available goalie in a trade and came with elite pedigree unlike today where he is coming off a down year.

2) it was discussed on the FAN today and Flamesnation has an article that discusses the 3 times the Flames failed to acquire Bishop

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by 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

Let's not forget that Murray Edwards is +7 hours ahead in England. Guy has to sleep sometime.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Yeah that's one deal where the pieces going back have been 100% speculative.

The second move is the Seguin trade that was rumored at the 2013 draft. The Bruins were rumored to want our 6th overall pick (Monahan) and Gaudreau (the summer before his last year of college).

I am glad that deal didn't go through as the team was just starting the rebuild. That was a Feaster draft though

all of this is speculative...

[Locke]

I'll echo my sentiments from the Dallas thread:

'Fantastic.'

[Itse]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

Yzerman as much as said that the Kings offer was the only one made. The Kings were the only team to call for Bishop. Yzerman could have been lying, but the Kings got him for pennies on the dollar, so if the Flames wanted him, I have no doubt they had the assets to acquire him.

If the Flames never confirmed the trade offer on Bishop, then that's not an offer on the table for Yzerman. No lies there.

If the issue was that Yzerman didn't want to wait for Treliving to get confirmation from his bosses, he's not going to tell that to his fans, because they might be pissed about missing out on a better deal.

If the issue was that the ownership vetoed the trade, that's Flames internal politics and not something Yzerman should comment on publicly. (Nor would he want to get involved.)

[Jacks]

If the rumoured Seguin trade is true, 2013 6th overall and Gaudreau, then it was a mistake not to make that trade at the time IMO.

In hindsight you can look at it and be glad that we didn't make the trade but without the benefit of hindsight it's a different story. At the time of the trade we didn't know we would be getting Monahan or how well he would pan out, you have to give that pick the value of an average 6th overall, we could have just as easily gotten Lindholm if Carolina took Monahan. Also at the time we had no guarantee that Gaudreau was going to sign, he signed almost a year later and could have went UFA if he wanted to.

Iin an alternate universe where we lost Gaudreau to UFA the trade could easily have been Seguin (with no or little injury history) for Lindholm. That would be the kind of trade we would be lamenting that we let get away, people would be trashing Feaster for missing the boat.

[northcrunk]

If this is true that Ken King is failing to respond to sign off on FA then he should be canned. He shouldn't be meddling in hockey decisions anyway. Why the #### did they hire Burke if King is going to meddle? Fire Ken King if this is true.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Jacks

If the rumoured Seguin trade is true, 2013 6th overall and Gaudreau, then it was a mistake not to make that trade at the time IMO.

In hindsight you can look at it and be glad that we didn't make the trade but without the benefit of hindsight it's a different story. At the time of the trade we didn't know we would be getting Monahan or how well he would pan out, you have to give that pick the value of an average 6th overall, we could have just as easily gotten Lindholm if Carolina took Monahan. Also at the time we had no guarantee that Gaudreau was going to sign, he signed almost a year later and could have went UFA if he wanted to.

Iin an alternate universe where we lost Gaudreau to UFA the trade could easily have been Seguin (with no or little injury history) for Lindholm. That would be the kind of trade we would be lamenting that we let get away, people would be trashing Feaster for missing the boat.

I disagree agree with the benefit of hindsight. It's an operational failure of your scouts are wrong or ill-informed. The Flames have said in the past they thought Monaghan was more of a playmaker leading up to the draft. And now they didn't know what they had in Gaudreau!?!

That tells me not only should the scouts be fired, but so should the idiots listening to them. It's one thing if you don't have a good read on the other guy, but EVERY team should have a good read on their own guy.

Trading prospect Gaudreau and Monahan is never acceptable at any time. Obviously a team gives up a stud like Seguin for such a deal because that team can scout properly!

[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?