Goaltending

[cross16]

Not the first I have heard of this, nor the first it's been reported but Bishop again today confirms he thought he was going to Calgary. Friedman, and others, recently have come forward to say they believe it was Flames ownership that nixed the trade.

 

also sounds like the Flames circled back on Bishop recently at both the trade deadline and a few weeks ago but given how things went down last summer Bishop said no and did not want to entertain offers from the Flames. 

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/bishop-thought-deal-done-flames-last-year/

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not the first I have heard of this, nor the first it's been reported but Bishop again today confirms he thought he was going to Calgary. Friedman, and others, recently have come forward to say they believe it was Flames ownership that nixed the trade.

 

also sounds like the Flames circled back on Bishop recently at both the trade deadline and a few weeks ago but given how things went down last summer Bishop said no and did not want to entertain offers from the Flames. 

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/bishop-thought-deal-done-flames-last-year/

 

I think it was Chris Johnston on fan 960 who was speculating the Bishop camp felt left at the alter twice by the Flames in the past so decided he didn't want to deal with us again/anymore.  Makes sense.

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not the first I have heard of this, nor the first it's been reported but Bishop again today confirms he thought he was going to Calgary. Friedman, and others, recently have come forward to say they believe it was Flames ownership that nixed the trade.

 

also sounds like the Flames circled back on Bishop recently at both the trade deadline and a few weeks ago but given how things went down last summer Bishop said no and did not want to entertain offers from the Flames. 

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/bishop-thought-deal-done-flames-last-year/

only thing i dont buy in all of it is the ownership thing , there'd be no reason for them to nix that.. unless they were trading johnny's rights or something 

I could see maybe Burke saying it was too much too long?.. but personally i think it came down to the trade details between BT and Yzerman

 

another factor, is remember we didnt know our cap situation with J&M needing to be signed, somebody may have thought it could jeopardize those situations

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

only thing i dont buy in all of it is the ownership thing , there'd be no reason for them to nix that.. unless they were trading johnny's rights or something 

I could see maybe Burke saying it was too much too long?.. but personally i think it came down to the trade details between BT and Yzerman

 

amother factor, is remember we didnt know our cap situation with J&M needing to be signed, somebody may have thought it could jeopardize those situations

 

Some have speculated the deal was Backs and 2 2nds and some have said it involved the 6th overall pick but nothing really concrete either way. Extension was 6 years at about a million more/season than he just signed with Dallas. Burke wouldn't have shot it down that would have been a King/Edwards call. 

 

I won't speculate on the return etc all I will say that it wouldn't shock me at all if Flames ownership did nix it. Based on things i've heard they are overly involved in hockey ops and have nixed deals in the past. Just too much smoke around their involvement in hockey ops for me not to believe there is at least some truth there. 

 

Edit: Just to make something clear though its actually pretty standard that if a team is going to make a commitment to a player, and a 6 year almost 40 million dollar commitment is a big commitment, it is common that ownership be looped into that conversation. Them saying no is not as common, but I just don't want to make it sound like the Flames are completely dysfunctional here because they are not. Perfectly reasonable that ownership be informed of the Bishop deal prior to it being made. 

[phoenix66]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The only rumored return i've heard was that it was Backlund and 2 2nds for Bishop and the Extension was 6 years at about a million more/season than he just signed with Dallas. Burke wouldn't have shot it down that would have been a King/Edwards call. 

 

I won't speculate on the return etc all I will say that it wouldn't shock me at all if Flames ownership did nix it. Based on things i've heard they are overly involved in hockey ops and have nixed deals in the past. 

this is where I take all rumors with a grain if salt.. I heard BT was insisting Drouin be in the deal if our 1st was involved.. another report had Bishop quoted saying contract terms were never discussed cuz it was just in the preliminary and he was in the middle of calling friends to see what Calgary was like.. or it could be a mix of all of them .

Only reason i dont see ownership as having nixed it , is KIng has said more than once that BB runs the hockey.. all have said they have a blank cheque to spend the cap..  the signing of a player doesn't strike me as an exception ..certain ones potentially being moved out might (eg..Johnny sells a lot of jerseys..)

but again I can totally Buy the Buck stopping with Burke.. he could have totally nixed, and if so, thats his job 

 

Before Burke, they totally nixed a few.. Iggy ones especially .. I heard Brian Sutter , once state that Craig Button had an earlier deal for Conroy ready that was "much better than when it did happen"  but ownership killed it.. but we were also a budget team then 

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

this is where I take all rumors with a grain if salt.. I heard BT was insisting Drouin be in the deal if our 1st was involved.. another report had Bishop quoted saying contract terms were never discussed cuz it was just in the preliminary and he was in the middle of calling friends to see what Calgary was like.. or it could be a mix of all of them .

Only reason i dont see ownership as having nixed it , is KIng has said more than once that BB runs the hockey.. all have said they have a blank cheque to spend the cap..  the signing of a player doesn't strike me as an exception ..certain ones potentially being moved out might (eg..Johnny sells a lot of jerseys..)

but again I can totally Buy the Buck stopping with Burke.. he could have totally nixed, and if so, thats his job 

 

should talk all rumors with a grain of salt and i'm certainly not advocating this story is fact just passing off info.

 

However, as much as King can say this his history conflicts with it. King has always been overly involved in Hockey ops before and after Burke despite the fact he consistently tries to tell people he doesn't "meddle" you hear way too many stories that conflict with it to completely dismiss it. At least for me. 

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

should talk all rumors with a grain of salt and i'm certainly not advocating this story is fact just passing off info.

 

However, as much as King can say this his history conflicts with it. King has always been overly involved in Hockey ops before and after Burke despite the fact he consistently tries to tell people he doesn't "meddle" you hear way too many stories that conflict with it to completely dismiss it. 

 

I have heard that the delay in BT re-signing was that he wanted autonomy.  He supposedly got it.  Having the owners or Burke ok every deal would have been hard to take.  Like buying out Wideman.  Or trading for Bishop, if that's what you had landed on.  Too difficult to make draft table deals if you need daddy to sign off.

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I have heard that the delay in BT re-signing was that he wanted autonomy.  He supposedly got it.  Having the owners or Burke ok every deal would have been hard to take.  Like buying out Wideman.  Or trading for Bishop, if that's what you had landed on.  Too difficult to make draft table deals if you need daddy to sign off.

I can see that .. i think it was the Burke interview immediately after he signed,  they were talking about deals.. and BB made the comment to the effect of " as a GM you have hits and misses , but I cant complain about about any of his deals cuz I signed off on them "

 

and thats the other thing ;BB can walk any time he chooses to(he has no term contract), and I cant see him allowing a babysitter 

[JTech780]

55 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not the first I have heard of this, nor the first it's been reported but Bishop again today confirms he thought he was going to Calgary. Friedman, and others, recently have come forward to say they believe it was Flames ownership that nixed the trade.

 

also sounds like the Flames circled back on Bishop recently at both the trade deadline and a few weeks ago but given how things went down last summer Bishop said no and did not want to entertain offers from the Flames. 

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/bishop-thought-deal-done-flames-last-year/

 

I thought heard a rumour too that Calgary was close to acquiring Bishop at the deadline, but Treliving wasn't able to get ahold of Ken King in time to get approval for the trade, so Tampa moved on.

 

This goes along with the rumor that Treliving was looking for a clause in his new contract where he didn't have to go through King to make moves.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I thought heard a rumour too that Calgary was close to acquiring Bishop at the deadline, but Treliving wasn't able to get ahold of Ken King in time to get approval for the trade, so Tampa moved on.

 

This goes along with the rumor that Treliving was looking for a clause in his new contract where he didn't have to go through King to make moves.

 

Yup and added to the fact that apparently they've nixed trades in the past and Feaster at one of the Season Ticket holder meetings I went to even said publicly that anytime he wants to do something he got put through his paces and had to explain and justify every move he wanted to make. 

 

Just too much smoke to not believe there is some meddling going on. I really hope the rumors of the clause that Treliving got in his new deal are true. 

[CheersMan]

15 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I thought heard a rumour too that Calgary was close to acquiring Bishop at the deadline, but Treliving wasn't able to get ahold of Ken King in time to get approval for the trade, so Tampa moved on.

 

This goes along with the rumor that Treliving was looking for a clause in his new contract where he didn't have to go through King to make moves.

Come on now.  I doubt the Flames are that mismanaged.  So King was not available?  Elliott deal happened the same afternoon as discussions were going on with Bishop, where was King then?  TB moved on?  Bishop stayed there all year.

[JTech780]

1 minute ago, CheersMan said:

Come on now.  I doubt the Flames are that mismanaged.  So King was not available?  Elliott deal happened the same afternoon as discussions were going on with Bishop, where was King then?  TB moved on?  Bishop stayed there all year.

 

Elliott trade happened at the draft, and I was talking about at this year's trade deadline. Different time line.

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Come on now.  I doubt the Flames are that mismanaged.  So King was not available?  Elliott deal happened the same afternoon as discussions were going on with Bishop, where was King then?  TB moved on?  Bishop stayed there all year.

 

They said that KK was in the air at the time of the TDL and couldn't be reached.  

[cross16]

Well to be fair, Bishop was moved 3 days before the TDL so it wasn't a matter of the Lightning needing an answer in a time sensitive manor or they were up against the deadline. 

 

What would be more plausible is LA and CGY had similar offers for Bishop but Flames needed approval and LA didn't. Yzerman has already been down the road of getting an agreement with the Flames only to have ownership nix it so this go around he said "thanks but not thanks" and moved Bishop to LA rather than wait and maybe have LA pull their offer and be left with no one especially when it sounds like there was very little activity on Bishop at the deadline. Also could have been a scenario where they went back to Bishop with it and he said No, not wanting to go down the whole "ownership approval" thing again. 

 

Speculation of course. I personally have a hard time seeing a deal falling apart because King wasn't available but plausible a deal fell apart because of the Flames organizational structure. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

Well to be fair, Bishop was moved 3 days before the TDL so it wasn't a matter of the Lightning needing an answer in a time sensitive manor or they were up against the deadline. 

 

What would be more plausible is LA and CGY had similar offers for Bishop but Flames needed approval and LA didn't. Yzerman has already been down the road of getting an agreement with the Flames only to have ownership nix it so this go around he said "thanks but not thanks" and moved Bishop to LA rather than wait and maybe have LA pull their offer and be left with no one especially when it sounds like there was very little activity on Bishop at the deadline. 

and yet I heard BT asked to speak to the agent and player again and was told No by Yzerman 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

and yet I heard BT asked to speak to the agent and player again and was told No by Yzerman 

 

Pretty common that at the TDL that you won't get to talk to the agent/player. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

Pretty common that at the TDL that you won't get to talk to the agent/player. 

i Dunno.. the only way the TDL story makes even a shred of sense, is the fact that as it stands , due to bonuses etc.. we exceed the cap..  so to add Bishop at a larger cap hit even prorated ( cuz one of the fringe players would have gone down) would have been a further excess..meaning penalties.. that for sure I can see ownership needing to sign off on 

 

not to mention the recurrence of the 3 headed monster

[cross16]

16 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

i Dunno.. the only way the TDL story makes even a shred of sense, is the fact that as it stands , due to bonuses etc.. we exceed the cap..  so to add Bishop at a larger cap hit even prorated ( cuz one of the fringe players would have gone down) would have been a further excess..meaning penalties.. that for sure I can see ownership needing to sign off on 

 

not to mention the recurrence of the 3 headed monster

 

I don't believe it either. for me, I think its much more plausible that ownership nixed the deal last summer and when Treliving called to inquire around the TDL was told no by Bishop. based on how the summer went down. 

[phoenix66]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't believe it either. for me, I think its much more plausible that ownership nixed the deal last summer and when Treliving called to inquire around the TDL was told no by Bishop. based on how the summer went down. 

that makes more sense, and even then.. the trade floor is pretty hectic, cant see BT and BB saying , hold on while we call Ken for permission..

 

what I see is more likely ?

We were kicking tires on all the Goalies.. even I didnt believe St Louis would jump the gun a year early and make Elliot available

Got told No on MAF at that time.. probably St Louis was thinking it over.. and while looking at the Bishop option , Armstrong called and put Elliot in play

There wasn't anybody at the time who didn't think it was the steal of the draft trade floor..

 

based on some real uncertainty with cap and contracts , getting (many thought) just as good a goalie for 2.5 M and a 2nd round pick.. instead of a 6x6 one you could always just revisit next year when hes a UFA (oops) and a higher return(consensus seems to be 1st rounder was in play) ?  he probably took it as soon as Armstrong offered it .. there are many who would argue Elliot was probably his first choice .

 

HIndsight can be an evil thing .. but the reality is  had he done , yes, we likely may have seen even better goaltending this year , but we'd be likely doing it without Versteeg and Tkachuk

 

 

oh..and based on the cap crunch, likelihood was hed' have been forced to re-sign Ortio as backup on the cheap ...    that's another debate as to whether that would been a good or bad thing

[travel_dude]

51 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Speculation of course. I personally have a hard time seeing a deal falling apart because King wasn't available but plausible a deal fell apart because of the Flames organizational structure. 

 

It sort of amounts to the same thing.  If you can't finalize a deal with one team, but the other can be, would you bother waiting?

I fail to see why trading for Bishop at TDL would need any sign off, though.  It doesn't hamstring you to a long term deal; you are just paying out the remainder of his deal for a few months.

 

After Sutter and Feaster messed up the team, I can understand the concern with the owners.  It's one thing to agree to be a cap team (spend up to it no problem), but taking on long-term committment is another.  Feaster offering the big term to Brad Richard.

OS for ROR.  

 

 

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

It sort of amounts to the same thing.  If you can't finalize a deal with one team, but the other can be, would you bother waiting?

I fail to see why trading for Bishop at TDL would need any sign off, though.  It doesn't hamstring you to a long term deal; you are just paying out the remainder of his deal for a few months.

 

After Sutter and Feaster messed up the team, I can understand the concern with the owners.  It's one thing to agree to be a cap team (spend up to it no problem), but taking on long-term committment is another.  Feaster offering the big term to Brad Richard.

OS for ROR.  

 

 

That's why I facepalm at the notion  of this ..

 

Feaster it makes sense, plus he reported directly to Ken King, so it makes sense KK had to sign off on Feaster's moves.

This is precisely why they hired Burke. and Burke is not the type to be a puppet..why even hire him if BT has to call KK for permission .

 

also , lets not forget .. that means King signed on all those Bonehead moves

[cross16]

22 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

that makes more sense, and even then.. the trade floor is pretty hectic, cant see BT and BB saying , hold on while we call Ken for permission..

 

what I see is more likely ?

 

 

I'd love to believe this but given King's history, my lack of trust for him, and the fact that several reputable hockey insiders have reported it I just cannot dismiss it. It be different if it was just some blogger, but I've just heard from too many sources to dismiss that it didn't happen. Sorry but I 100% believe Friedman when he said that ownership nixed it. Not saying it was the right or wrong call and I can't unless I know what the return was supposed to be in the deal. perhaps the ownership did the Flames a favor. They did nix a deal that was going to send Gaudreau and the pick used for Monahan to Boston for Segin and I'm glad they nixed that one. 

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'd love to believe this but given King's history, my lack of trust for him, and the fact that several reputable hockey insiders have reported it I just cannot dismiss it. It be different if it was just some blogger, but I've just heard from too many sources to dismiss that it didn't happen. Sorry but I 100% believe Friedman when he said that ownership nixed it. Not saying it was the right or wrong call and I can't unless I know what the return was supposed to be in the deal. perhaps the ownership did the Flames a favor. They did nix a deal that was going to send Gaudreau and the pick used for Monahan to Boston for Segin and I'm glad they nixed that one. 

 

Too bad they didn't nix the Iggy or JBow deals.  All we have from either is a pair of prospects.  We traded a 2nd this year for a higer-ranked 1st rounder.     

[conundrumed]

Lots of great thoughts re Bishop here, though bare in mind it's all speculation.

Even Friedman. You hear things and you try to justify your conclusion.

Great thoughts cross, what would we have lost last yr for Bishop. It really looks like a migraine.

And what would Stevie's plan have been had we traded for Bishop prior to camp?

I'm guessing circle back on Elliott to help Vasilevsky, good cap move for him. If BT messed that up on him, maybe he's tender about trading him to us at TDL.

Do we give up last yrs first? If I'm BT I would have balked and did exactly what he did, we knew we were getting a very good player, just didn't know which one.

There's about 20 directions here, it's fun to prognosticate, so I'm adding in "what was Stevie's plan if we'd taken Bishop prior to camp"?

As for the whole KK was in the air at tdl causing the nix...that's almost impossible to believe imo.

Was he going to Australia with 4 stop-overs and no phone service? Did he drop his phone in the toilet? lol

I'm not shedding any tears regardless, now he can deal with Hitchcock ripping him, I'm sure he'll be happy, lol.

[phoenix66]

17 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'd love to believe this but given King's history, my lack of trust for him, and the fact that several reputable hockey insiders have reported it I just cannot dismiss it. It be different if it was just some blogger, but I've just heard from too many sources to dismiss that it didn't happen. Sorry but I 100% believe Friedman when he said that ownership nixed it. Not saying it was the right or wrong call and I can't unless I know what the return was supposed to be in the deal. perhaps the ownership did the Flames a favor. They did nix a deal that was going to send Gaudreau and the pick used for Monahan to Boston for Segin and I'm glad they nixed that one. 

 I get ya, but its just the inconsistencies that throw me off..

and Friedman has been known to grasp from time to time.

 

Ok , so he (KK) nixed a Gaudreau and an unknown Monahan for Seguin..  but he was ok with all 3 1st rounders for essentially Mckinnon?

he Nixes a trade for a Vezina caliber goalie, after we have the worst goaltending in the league.. but yet doesn't get involved at all in the signings of Johnny and Monahan?(trust me.. we would have known , and it would have been done way faster cuz I'm sure ownership were saying to just pay the kid).. and again that was under Feaster's watch..

 

not saying its not out  there , but that article is the very first time I have read anything about owners meddling since BB was put in place , and I tend to read everything .

 

and assuming its true, I just see nothing in the trade for a goalie that would even suggest KK would even care (especially after ok'ing Feasters gems)

 

Playing devils advocate, Maybe ownership has to approve any deals over 4 years?  over 5 Mill?.. that's the only plausible reasoning that would suggest any sense whatsoever