LouCifer Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Pitt's going to lose one of their goalies, and I will stick my neck out and say that happens with 100% certainty - whether it's to us, or in the upcoming expansion draft (if it occurs at the end of this upcoming season). I really don't see a way out (there is talk Pitt could offer picks to the expansion team to NOT take one of their goalies, but I think the NHL is putting in rules to restrict such occurrences that have happened in the past). Tampa is in less of a predicament than Pitt. Meaning, Bishop is a UFA at the end of the upcoming season. As such, his NMC doesn't count towards expansion protection (just like Wideman for us), and an expansion team would be foolish to pickup Bishop 10 days before he goes UFA and can sign anywhere else. The big concern for Tampa is as Travel_Dude and Phoenix said - all the players they have to sign this off-season and next. They need cap space for that, no way around it. If Stamkos and Bishop aren't in the fold, they've got $7.5mil + $6mil respectively to work with. Heck, they could take a run at Reimer to work along side Vasi at a much cheaper cap than what Bishop is currently making and projecting to make on his next contract. Personally, I like Bishop, but I'm concerned he'll want a raise from the $6mil he's currently making at the end of next season - I don't think that fits for the Flames or Tampa quite frankly. If anything, I like the media attention our goaltending situation is getting. It helps pit GMs with goalies to move against each other to get it done first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I disagree, affording Bishop is a choice they have to make. What happens with the others will depend on their decision, As a long-term plan, they either have to commit to their young players (Vasilevskiy, Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov) or to an aging, though elite, goalie. His next deal will be as bad or worse. Without Stamkos they could afford Bishop this year, possibly. But after this year? Tampa has big problems. This year and next year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamesLogic Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Thats the thing, Calgary cant afford Bishop with a raise next year either. Or would find it very difficult to do so with heavy investment in D and young forwards. So if its a one year thing as a stop gap then whats the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 .... Tampa is in less of a predicament than Pitt. Meaning, Bishop is a UFA at the end of the upcoming season. As such, his NMC doesn't count towards expansion protection (just like Wideman for us), and an expansion team would be foolish to pickup Bishop 10 days before he goes UFA and can sign anywhere else. Personally, I like Bishop, but I'm concerned he'll want a raise from the $6mil he's currently making at the end of next season - I don't think that fits for the Flames or Tampa quite frankly. Like I said, protection of Bishop is not the issue. Vegas can select him and then sign him to a monster deal. Or he goes UFA, which Tampa loses him to anyway. Lose-lose situation. If Bishop wanted $7m over 5 years, we could do that. We were over $8m this past season. Sure, we didn't have Monay, Johnny and Bennett making big bucks. It just means that we don't have any overpriced scrubs on the roster. A 3rd line center can't be earning $3.5m. A 4th line player can't be earning over $2m. A 3rd pairing defenseman can't be earning over $1.5m. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Like I said, protection of Bishop is not the issue. Vegas can select him and then sign him to a monster deal. Or he goes UFA, which Tampa loses him to anyway. Lose-lose situation. If Bishop wanted $7m over 5 years, we could do that. We were over $8m this past season. Sure, we didn't have Monay, Johnny and Bennett making big bucks. It just means that we don't have any overpriced scrubs on the roster. A 3rd line center can't be earning $3.5m. A 4th line player can't be earning over $2m. A 3rd pairing defenseman can't be earning over $1.5m. Exactly, and if we were to get him, im sure BT will already be looking ahead to that. With the exception of Stajan all ugly deals are off the books after this season. My personal feeling is its moot tho, just because I think Stamkos walks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Like I said, protection of Bishop is not the issue. Vegas can select him and then sign him to a monster deal. Or he goes UFA, which Tampa loses him to anyway. Lose-lose situation. If Bishop wanted $7m over 5 years, we could do that. We were over $8m this past season. Sure, we didn't have Monay, Johnny and Bennett making big bucks. It just means that we don't have any overpriced scrubs on the roster. A 3rd line center can't be earning $3.5m. A 4th line player can't be earning over $2m. A 3rd pairing defenseman can't be earning over $1.5m. They could, but I think that is low. Lundqvist is an 8.5 cap hit. Bishp is better. Bobrovsky is a 7.4 cap hit. Bishop is better Rask is a 7 million cap hit but signed it 3 years ago when the cap was lower. Indexed to the current cap thats an 8 mill AAV Rinne is at 7 mill but again signed when cap was lower. closer to 8 mill AAV. Problem I have with going after Bishop is his market value is closer to 8, not 7. When you combine what you are going to have to give up to get him I agree that he isn't the best target. People will differ on this way so I get that, but for me I don't think you can afford to have so much tied up into goaltending. The Flames can technically make it work after this coming season but with how many holes they have long term its VERY risky and its going to hamper their abilty to build their team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 As a long-term plan, they either have to commit to their young players (Vasilevskiy, Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov) or to an aging, though elite, goalie. His next deal will be as bad or worse. Without Stamkos they could afford Bishop this year, possibly. But after this year? Tampa has big problems. This year and next year. Why would the assumption be that Bishop would get any increase with his next contract ? Why would TB be any different than say CHI who can work their roster around to afford Crawford, Toews, Kane and Hossa at max prices ? TB is a contending team and will likely be again next year and they may stay with the horse that gets them there. If anything maybe they are talking to him to extend now. The goalie I would want BT talking to TB about is Vasilevskiy, he is a goalie with great potential that can grow with our core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 They could, but I think that is low. Lundqvist is an 8.5 cap hit. Bishp is better. Bobrovsky is a 7.4 cap hit. Bishop is better Rask is a 7 million cap hit but signed it 3 years ago when the cap was lower. Indexed to the current cap thats an 8 mill AAV Rinne is at 7 mill but again signed when cap was lower. closer to 8 mill AAV. Problem I have with going after Bishop is his market value is closer to 8, not 7. When you combine what you are going to have to give up to get him I agree that he isn't the best target. People will differ on this way so I get that, but for me I don't think you can afford to have so much tied up into goaltending. The Flames can technically make it work after this coming season but with how many holes they have long term its VERY risky and its going to hamper their abilty to build their team True. The idea term for Bishop would be 3 years. Gives us the chance to get Gillies (or MacDonald or whoever) up to speed, ready to be the #1. Elliott, in my mind, is the better choice of the two. He will get paid, but not as much. I actually think Elliott will be available. He is not their goalie of the future. If they protect a goalie next year, it will be Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Why would the assumption be that Bishop would get any increase with his next contract ? Why would TB be any different than say CHI who can work their roster around to afford Crawford, Toews, Kane and Hossa at max prices ? TB is a contending team and will likely be again next year and they may stay with the horse that gets them there. If anything maybe they are talking to him to extend now. The goalie I would want BT talking to TB about is Vasilevskiy, he is a goalie with great potential that can grow with our core. Youre right, he may not get much of a raise, whoever he gets it from..unless he goes UFA, then as we all know somebody will overpay for him. Vasilevsky however is going nowhere..not even for 6OA. One way or the other Tampa moves on from Bishop within now to a year from now and its going to be Vasilevsky s team. Nobody else in the organization is ready. If they keep Bishop, theyve already proven with Stamkos its cup or bust, theyll keep the UFA if it means a cup run. If only because of the expansion draft I guarantee there are no extension discussions. If they keep Bishop hes going to UFA. The ONLY reason he gets moved earlier is due to cap reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Why would the assumption be that Bishop would get any increase with his next contract ? Why would TB be any different than say CHI who can work their roster around to afford Crawford, Toews, Kane and Hossa at max prices ? TB is a contending team and will likely be again next year and they may stay with the horse that gets them there. If anything maybe they are talking to him to extend now. The goalie I would want BT talking to TB about is Vasilevskiy, he is a goalie with great potential that can grow with our core. The difference between Tampa and Chicago is the young core they have, mostly on ELC's and cheap contracts. Vasilevskiy is affordable now and into the future, but will likely be the one that they protect. If they can afford both this season, they will keep both and try to trade Bishop or just let him be selected/walk. If Vasilevskiy was available, it would cost similar to what Murray would (a 1st plus other pieces). I don't know that for a fact, but suspect it to be the case. And to make that clear, Murray is not going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartbreaker Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I think we should go after Matt Murray. He'd be a really great fit for us. He's the right age, and the right caliber goaltender. If we can't get him for a third and a sixth next year, maybe we should look at Vasilevskiy. Love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 And to make that clear, Murray is not going anywhere. Its not inconcrivable, but this is also part of the dangerous chess game Rutherford seems to be playing. If MAF refuses to waive his NMC then Murray will be exposed. MAF holds all the cards here. If I were Rutherford id he selling Fleury on the benefits of Calgary and moving him as quick as I could, and take what I can. If im a 30 yr old goalie on probably my last money contract, with a very real potential to win 1-3 more cups, in a city I seem to love, im not agreeing to be exposed to an expansion draft where I very realistically will never see the playoffs again, im not "taking one for the team" He asked for and received a NMC for a reason..their most common reason is to stay away from basement teams.and to have control over my destination, if they agree to move at all. But , im sure I could be sold on a playoff ready team that could make noise, where im promised to be the #1 especially a Canadian market for a Canadian player. I think today will be a turning point, if they do announce expansion and the rules along with it Ill even take this one step further, if I'm MAF and im open to moving to Calgary, im telling Rutherford to get it done before July 1, or im never waiving my NMC. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Ill even take this one step further, if I'm MAF and im open to moving to Calgary, im telling Rutherford to get it done before July 1, or im never waiving my NMC. I think this is what it is going to take if the Flames are going to get Fleury. I dont' think the Pens are going to move him unless its a really good return. I think they will take the risk of keeping him next year and having him in case Murray falters at all. I think if you want Fleury you are going to have to really pay for him becuae the more I've thought about it, the less sense it makes for Pittsburgh to move him. There are so many ways around the expansion draft for the Penguins and Fleury that they are in no rush. However, as i've said before Fleury himself is more the wildcard and I think the only reason the Penguins move Fleury is if he askes for it, or they get an offer that is really worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouCifer Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Some expected posturing by Rutherford, suggesting he has the option to go with both goalies next season... I mean sure, he could be able to convince Fleury to go 50-50 with Murray next season... but what happens after that? What's omitted is what his plans are for the tandem when next season concludes He'll still have to deal with Fleury's NMC and have to convince him to waive it for Vegas... Or, find a trading partner that Fleury is willing to waive for, within a 10 day period, for a starting goalie making almost $6mil and 2 years left on his contract. Quite frankly, that sounds foolish when the alternative is resolving the situation this off-season. But, say what you must Rutherford. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rutherford-not-ruling-fleury-staying-penguins/ And hey, if expansion doesn't happen, this is all moot anyways. Hi Reimer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Some expected posturing by Rutherford, suggesting he has the option to go with both goalies next season... I mean sure, he could be able to convince Fleury to go 50-50 with Murray next season... but what happens after that? What's omitted is what his plans are for the tandem when next season concludes He'll still have to deal with Fleury's NMC and have to convince him to waive it for Vegas... Or, find a trading partner that Fleury is willing to waive for, within a 10 day period, for a starting goalie making almost $6mil and 2 years left on his contract. Quite frankly, that sounds foolish when the alternative is resolving the situation this off-season. But, say what you must Rutherford. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rutherford-not-ruling-fleury-staying-penguins/ And hey, if expansion doesn't happen, this is all moot anyways. Hi Reimer! yup, I said at one point that I expected next years rotation to be Reimer and Ramo . Thats looking more and more realistic as this plays out . They're not ready to allocate 30-40 games to Ortio, and that's the wildcard on Reimer. I'll be honest , i would be totally ok with that rotation. More options will come up during the season if we need to add someone for some reason. maybe Gillies will earn a look for a few games. Backup money is all Ramo will get on the market now, right or wrong , its just the way its playing out . All i know from what Ive seen is BT wont be held hostage to paying a ridiculous price for some reason . If he was, he could have flipped our 6 to Anaheim.. im sure it was asked for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouCifer Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 yup, I said at one point that I expected next years rotation to be Reimer and Ramo . Thats looking more and more realistic as this plays out . They're not ready to allocate 30-40 games to Ortio, and that's the wildcard on Reimer. I'll be honest , i would be totally ok with that rotation. More options will come up during the season if we need to add someone for some reason. maybe Gillies will earn a look for a few games. Backup money is all Ramo will get on the market now, right or wrong , its just the way its playing out . All i know from what Ive seen is BT wont be held hostage to paying a ridiculous price for some reason . If he was, he could have flipped our 6 to Anaheim.. im sure it was asked for Agreed. I'm liking the way BT is running the team thus far. Doesn't seem to make impulse or rash decisions, and is content to take the time he needs to evaluate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Youre right, he may not get much of a raise, whoever he gets it from..unless he goes UFA, then as we all know somebody will overpay for him. Vasilevsky however is going nowhere..not even for 6OA. One way or the other Tampa moves on from Bishop within now to a year from now and its going to be Vasilevsky s team. Nobody else in the organization is ready. If they keep Bishop, theyve already proven with Stamkos its cup or bust, theyll keep the UFA if it means a cup run. If only because of the expansion draft I guarantee there are no extension discussions. If they keep Bishop hes going to UFA. The ONLY reason he gets moved earlier is due to cap reasons. With all the shuffling of goalies expected this summer due to the upcoming expansion draft (all we're waiting for is the official announcement as the BoG already approved it) teams will have their #1 goalie in place. Bishop can ask any amount he & his agent want but with little to no market he'll have to settle for the best offer from the few teams wanting an upgrade (& most of those would need to find a way to get rid of their #1 to afford it). It's like 2011 but now there is no Homer as GM of the Flyers to jump the gun & overpay Bryzgalov. The rest of the UFA goalies that year took pay cuts just to land a job. Stevie Y might be counting on that & keep Bishop for the year, let him go UFA so he needn't be protected in the expansion draft & then sign him @ a discount. Bishop is my 1st choice of the goalies rumored to be available. If he waives his NMC for Calgary we have as good a chance of re-signing him @ a decent price after he sees there is no market as TB currently does. & with our dearth of goalies to protect we could re-up him prior to July 1 so he never hits UFA, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouCifer Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Here's a list of 2017 UFA Goalies (that make a minimum of $1m) so we can see which teams may have a need for a Goalie next offseason. Of course, some can and will be re-signed by their respective teams. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/freeagents.php?team=all&type=UFA&year=2017&pos=G Miller, Ryan VAN G UFA 6,000,000 Bishop, Ben TB G UFA 5,950,000 Pavelec, Ondrej WIN G UFA 4,750,000 Bernier, Jonathan TOR G UFA 4,150,000 Mason, Steve PHI G UFA 4,100,000 Elliott, Brian STL G UFA 2,700,000 Greiss, Thomas NYI G UFA 2,000,000 Neuvirth, Michal PHI G UFA 1,750,000 Markstrom, Jacob VAN G UFA 1,600,000 Berra, Reto COL G UFA 1,500,000 Both of Vancouver's goalies are in this list, and there's already talk that Miller may want out. So, a potential starting goalie vacancy with Vancouver if they don't believe Markstrom is ready. Winnipeg already has Hutchinson and Hellebuyck, methinks Pavalec is looking for a new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Agreed. I'm liking the way BT is running the team thus far. Doesn't seem to make impulse or rash decisions, and is content to take the time he needs to evaluate. Totally.. we may all have to be prepared for the real possibility he doesn't hit a home run on a goaltender. Posturing is indicating that teams see us as desperate.. and think we will pay the cost. Im almost 100% sure it wont happen, but.. if we enter the season with Ramo and Ortio, its because he didn't overpay, and i for one will give him Kudos for it. That being said Im sure he can Glean the UFA list and put together a very good tandem if he has to . Heck, offer Bryz a PTO..why not ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimensiondark Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Would it be worthwhile trading up to 3 in the draft and taking Bobrovski back at same time? Flames get the coveted RW they want and a decent starting G. Or should Brad opt for looking elsewhere for a G and maybe stay out of the move to 3rd as it will be expensive and instead take a run at FA Lucic. Lucic fits the truculent profile while having a scoring touch but will likely come with a hefty price tag causing Flames to move out some of their own bad money such as Wideman and Engelland, Stajan or Bouma. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Dont the goalies get taken away till next year that is when the team plays not this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 i think BOBO is very expensive gamble for his injury history. at this point , Im settling into a wish that we stay at 6, hit UFA for a goalie(s) and spend the money up front. Unless we can use Wideman to move up (i still think Edmonton would consider it) .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimensiondark Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 i think BOBO is very expensive gamble for his injury history. at this point , Im settling into a wish that we stay at 6, hit UFA for a goalie(s) and spend the money up front. Unless we can use Wideman to move up (i still think Edmonton would consider it) .. Is MAF not also plagued by concussions? I would still like to see him with a flaming C if the deal is right. Certainly would walk away if price is too high as reported. I think the quality of player drafted at 6 will be similar to who is drafted at 4. I would not trade with EDM. Waste of a trade unless it is solely to get rid of Wides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Is MAF not also plagued by concussions? I would still like to see him with a flaming C if the deal is right. Certainly would walk away if price is too high as reported. I think the quality of player drafted at 6 will be similar to who is drafted at 4. I would not trade with EDM. Waste of a trade unless it is solely to get rid of Wides. 7.5 is a much bigger gamble than 5.5 as tight as we are we need that 2M and it does more than that .. it benefits them , we get #4 and our pick of the 2nd tier of players.(Tkachuk/Dubois). we have what they need.. RHS dman and their pool of options is drying up fast .. last thing they need to do is draft another fwd and they need D now, not in 3-4 yrs If they are still content to trade down 6 is very marketable still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 When do the drafted option open for expansion this year or next the team doesnt play till next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now