Goaltending

[The_People1]

Sounds a whole lot like, "son, you can marry any woman you want...

 

... As long as I approve."

[MAC331]

3 hours 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. 

Let's face it, Bishop was not meant to be for whatever the reasons.

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Sounds a whole lot like, "son, you can marry any woman you want...

 

... As long as I approve."

Social Media Rumor out Elliott to WPG "not confirmed} just rumor as a good place for him.

[conundrumed]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Sounds a whole lot like, "son, you can marry any woman you want...

 

... As long as I approve."

Or I'm not paying for the wedding and giving you a house as a gift, lol.

 

I doubt it peeps, there are so many loose ends imho, it's sprouting from over-speculating and coming from one's own conclusions.

For now I'll count down the days to Bishop's Vezina, lol.

Dallas needs a transformation from the run and gun, should be fun to watch.

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Or I'm not paying for the wedding and giving you a house as a gift, lol.

 

I doubt it peeps, there are so many loose ends imho, it's sprouting from over-speculating and coming from one's own conclusions.

For now I'll count down the days to Bishop's Vezina, lol.

Dallas needs a transformation from the run and gun, should be fun to watch.

 

But, "you are the GM and you manage the roster... As long as I approve..".  There better be clauses in place to prevent owners from meddling in GM duties.  If you don't trust the GM, then find one you can trust.

 

Things usually go from bad to worst when you have too many chefs in the kitchen.

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Or I'm not paying for the wedding and giving you a house as a gift, lol.

 

I doubt it peeps, there are so many loose ends imho, it's sprouting from over-speculating and coming from one's own conclusions.

For now I'll count down the days to Bishop's Vezina, lol.

Dallas needs a transformation from the run and gun, should be fun to watch.

They should trade those two redundant goalies to VAN for the Sedin twins to slow things down. LOL

 

[conundrumed]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

But, "you are the GM and you manage the roster... As long as I approve..".  There better be clauses in place to prevent owners from meddling in GM duties.  If you don't trust the GM, then find one you can trust.

 

Things usually go from bad to worst when you have too many chefs in the kitchen.

Allegedly. Hard to imagine with BB as PoHO. None of it really adds up. Just tough negotiations and needing to think it through hard, imho.

[CheersMan]

I believe Bishops preference was to be in Dallas.  He approved the trade and he signed for considerably less than what he would have gotten July 1.  He took less money to be where he wanted to be.  Goodbye Bishop, and hello to the $30M still in Calgary's pocket.

[The_People1]

12 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Allegedly. Hard to imagine with BB as PoHO. None of it really adds up. Just tough negotiations and needing to think it through hard, imho.

 

It's hard to imagine pretty boy Justin Trudeau having his strings pulled by Central Bankers, Globalists, Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, and the Saudi Royal family.

 

9/11 was an inside job.  

 

7/11 was a part time job.

 

Stay with me now.

[conundrumed]

43 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's hard to imagine pretty boy Justin Trudeau having his strings pulled by Central Bankers, Globalists, Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, and the Saudi Royal family.

 

9/11 was an inside job.  

 

7/11 was a part time job.

 

Stay with me now.

Oh we're going there now are we?

I have this half-full glass of inconsequential liquid substance, depending on tolerance, would you like it?

 

The Flames' War and Peace saga here with Bishop....

Don't even know what to say, phishing stories?

Fun to pretend we know, like Friedman.

The only conspiracy is that good mgrs don't divulge, or they don't last.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

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

 

Not normally when he reports things that have already happened. He speculates alot and puts things out there for discussion, but when it comes to reporting something that went down I find almost always he's right mostly becuase he won't report something unless he gets good confirmation. Also, John Shannon and Chris Johnstone have backed up Friedman on this one. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

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 that I want to argue tooth and nail here, but I will point out that the Seguin trade was reportedly an agreed upon trade. The difference with Mackinnon was that was an offer made to :Colorado and the Avs said No. Boston - Flames had a deal, again according to reports. 

I actually the think the opposite on the bolded. I've been hearing a lot that the reason ownership is getting move invovled, and the reason they didn't want to negotiate mid season with Treliving, is that they are tired of "wasting" money. I actually can't say I blame them but you factor in that for about 3 years in a row this club was paying 2 head coaches at a time, paid Hartley apparently around 2 mill last year not to coach, buried Hagman at 3 mill, bought out Raymond etc etc etc.  Some of that is going to happen in this business but some of it is avoidable as well. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

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 

 

It's not surprising that Ownership would have to ok an extension as they were rumored to be giving Bishop, that isn't a shock and from what I understand its the norm. You are spending their money, so i see nothing wrong with giving the ownership group a heads up that you are about to guarantee a player 40 million dollars. Whether or not they should stop a deal that is open to debate but at the end of the day as the owners of the team its well within their right to do so I would just prefer that they stay out of it because why is King/Edwards more qualified to make hockey decision than Treliving/Burke?

 

It's a discussion point so i've continued it but I will say i'm not trying to rip the Flames here or suggest they are incompetent. My dislike for King is well known on this forums so naturally anything that I hear about that he is involved in from a hockey ops perspective isn't going to make me very happy so that is certainly blurring my perspectives on this. However, I agree with what Peeps said in that usually the more people involved in a decision the high the chance some is going to go wrong. I'd prefer that King stay out of hockey ops and there are rumors out there to suggest he has to now. 

[The_People1]

22 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Oh we're going there now are we?

I have this half-full glass of inconsequential liquid substance, depending on tolerance, would you like it?

 

The Flames' War and Peace saga here with Bishop....

Don't even know what to say, phishing stories?

Fun to pretend we know, like Friedman.

The only conspiracy is that good mgrs don't divulge, or they don't last.

 

Based on the fake news phenomenon, I am of the opinion the mainstream narrative on Bishop/Flames is not true.

 

[The_People1]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

However, I agree with what Peeps said in that usually the more people involved in a decision the high the chance some is going to go wrong. I'd prefer that King stay out of hockey ops and there are rumors out there to suggest he has to now. 

 

Nothing is worse than a case of "hey, you got your guy last time, it's my turn to get my guy."  And the end result is no coherence in the roster and no clear direction.  Just a bunch of players that a group of managers/owners personally like and put together.  And of course nothing works and player styles clash.

 

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Nothing is worse than a case of "hey, you got your guy last time, it's my turn to get my guy."  And the end result is no coherence in the roster and no clear direction.  Just a bunch of players that a group of managers/owners personally like and put together.  And of course nothing works and player styles clash.

 

 

In short, the Jay Feaster Era Calgary Flames. 

[redfire11]

I think there are better goalie options available to us.

 

At the end of the day;

Dallas used a Castle to get the Bishop, We tried to use a Pawn, but the King said no.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I think there are better goalie options available to us.

 

At the end of the day;

Dallas used a Castle to get the Bishop, We tried to use a Pawn, but the King said no.

 

Agreed. My bad for taking us a little off topic but at the end of the day i'm not that beat up about losing Bishop. Good talent, but on a 6 year deal he scared me and I think that's a deal you regret in 3 season, 4 if your lucky. 

 

The goalie search is reminding me of the coaching search. Everyone will exhaust the key names and we'll debate them back and forth and then Treliving will acquire someone we didn't discuss and we will be surprised. Get the sense they are after someone we don't even know is available, that's Treliving's MO. 

[JTech780]

Now that some of our options seem to dwindling down, Darling to Carolina, Bishop to Dallas, it is sounding like Fleury is going to Vegas, I am starting to take a look at some of the secondary options. One guy that is kind of growing on me as an option is Mike Smith. He has put up some solid numbers while playing on a downright terrible Arizona team. There are concerns, he is 35 and he does have two years left at $5.6m. I have zero gauge on acquisition cost.

 

I wonder what is going on in Jersey, would they give up Schneider? My gut says no, but I have seen his name pop up a couple of times as speculation. Jersey might be deciding to go full rebuild here so maybe our 1st plus a couple of prospects lures Schneider out of Jersey. Maybe he doesn't want to go through a rebuild and hints that he would like to be traded.

 

 

[conundrumed]

51 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Based on the fake news phenomenon, I am of the opinion the mainstream narrative on Bishop/Flames is not true.

 

Reporters need stories.

They get hyperventilated...

Everyone has a take, regardless of how "official" the rumour is.

It's over, don't care. Why make it a story now?

Let's move on.

Don't know, don't pretend to, don't care.

We've got bigger fish to fry.

Who needs the distraction?

Maybe Friedman should worry more about `breaking news` on teams still playing.

We are not one of them, so FO.

We can`t afford him. Mention that part...and what he potentially would have cost us.

[DirtyDeeds]

On 5/14/2017 at 6:07 PM, travel_dude said:

 

If the Flames were big on MAF, they could offer the rights to CJ or Elliott in exchange.  JR would need to sign him, but that gets worked out as part of the deal.  Flames need to sweeten the pot, but how much more would we really need to go?  PITTS issues are fixed in one fowl swoop.  

 

We should play hardball with PITTS.  They needn't get a 1st for him.  Not if we are one of the few options they have.  I think they end up paying more to have Vegas not take Murray.     

Of course Pens could just pay LV to take someone else instead of Fleury or Murray. There is no rule that says LV has to take a goaltender from Pens.

[DirtyDeeds]

On 5/14/2017 at 6:28 PM, conundrumed said:

Agreed. But I don't know the expansion rules well enough regarding the extent of pre-draft duplicity allowance.

That was a mouthful, lol.

Is LV on the market now? Or not until their draft?

Can we expect a "LV sends their 2017 1st rd pick to Van for the Sedins" announcement in the morn?

Can they do that right now, I guess is what I'm asking? Can they make trades? Or just sign KHL guys not affiliated with the NHL?

I heard or read somewhere that LV is not allowed to trade away their 1st round pick for 3 seasons..

[phoenix66]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Agreed. My bad for taking us a little off topic but at the end of the day i'm not that beat up about losing Bishop. Good talent, but on a 6 year deal he scared me and I think that's a deal you regret in 3 season, 4 if your lucky. 

 

The goalie search is reminding me of the coaching search. Everyone will exhaust the key names and we'll debate them back and forth and then Treliving will acquire someone we didn't discuss and we will be surprised. Get the sense they are after someone we don't even know is available, that's Treliving's MO. 

Agreed, at the end of the day all will be fine... at the rate we're going we have about a month until  the MAF riddle is solved.. gotta kill time somehow LOL

 

tho this is an interesting quote from Bishop..

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1301650-bishop-admits-to-vegas-talks-they-were-thinking-younger

 

The Vegas Golden Knights were not ready to take a gamble on Ben Bishop.

The newest member of the Dallas Stars joined Sportsnet's Hockey Central at Noon on Monday, where he admitted that while a deal was never close, there were some minor talks between his camp and the Golden Knights prior to inking a long-term deal with the Stars.

"There was some talk of it," Bishop said, according to Sportsnet's Luke Fox. "From what I heard, they were thinking younger and a different direction. They’re going to be a competitive team.

"I definitely would’ve thought of the option if it was there."

 

If that ends up being true, then MAF wont be their focus either..but they will jump all over Murray if given the opportunity ..or jump at MAF to turn him into assets in a trade 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Of course Pens could just pay LV to take someone else instead of Fleury or Murray. There is no rule that says LV has to take a goaltender from Pens.

 

Of course that is possible.  If that's the case, MAF would be off the table.  PITTS could stretch the talks out, knowing they had no intention of trading MAF, but what does that get them?  

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Of course that is possible.  If that's the case, MAF would be off the table.  PITTS could stretch the talks out, knowing they had no intention of trading MAF, but what does that get them?  

Can you only protect 1 goalie in the expansion formula ? or can they protect both and expose more skaters ?

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

Can you only protect 1 goalie in the expansion formula ? or can they protect both and expose more skaters ?

only 1 goaltender can be protected .. and you must make at least one available .

 

tho I never did find out what is the penalty for not making one available?

[rickross]

Not salty over Bishop going to the Stars at all either. He's a good goalie with size...but with a history of lower body injuries and that contract length...there are better deals to be had. I'm not surprised if BT pulls off another show stealing trade to get us a solid #1 goalie...and I'm also not surprised if Elliot and Johnson end up back in Flames silks next year either.