Confirmed with Link: [LAK/DAL] Ben Bishop UFA Rights - Signs 6 years / $29.5 million

Ajacied

Stay strong Appie! ❤
Apr 6, 2002
25,136
911
Netherlands
I'm just glad we fixed this glaring hole without giving up assets. Assets we could sure use getting ourselves a LD and quality winger(s).
 

BigG44

Registered User
Jul 12, 2007
24,127
1,579
Contract is front loaded. Last 3 years only at 3.5 million per. Buyout at that point significantly less.

Assuming he's bought out after 3 or more years

He'd be at $2,583,334 for the remaining contract years, and then he'd be at $1,166,667 for the remainder of the buyout.

If he can play 4 years at a high to average level, that wouldn't be terrible.
 

Benneguin

Original Recipe
May 26, 2015
1,604
474
For Ben's sake I hope he whispers in Nill's ear to upgrade the defense in case he forgets again.
 

Magic Mittens

Registered User
Nov 2, 2006
6,861
3,117
Calgary
For Ben's sake I hope he whispers in Nill's ear to upgrade the defense in case he forgets again.

He won't. Nill will add a LHD, who is the question. I imagine they'll look into Alzner if he hits FA

I'm hoping they make a deal with Vegas for someone like Brodin if he gets selected in the ED
 

BigG44

Registered User
Jul 12, 2007
24,127
1,579
This new reported wrinkle to the Bishop deal is interesting.



These signing bonuses complicate a potential buyout. You gain no more than $1.65 million in cap space on his remaining years, but the plus would be the additional years would be below $ 1 million.

Buyout with 3 years remaining:

SEASON|SALARY|INITIAL CAP HIT|ACTUAL COST|SAVINGS|BUYOUT CAP HIT
2020-21|$1,000,000|$4,916,667|$666,667|$333,333|$4,583,334
2021-22|$2,500,000|$4,916,667|$666,667|$1,833,333|$3,083,334
2022-23|$2,500,000|$4,916,667|$666,667|$1,833,333|$3,083,334
2024-25|$0|$0|$666,667|-$666,667|$666,667
2025-26|$0|$0|$666,667|-$666,667|$666,667
2026-27|$0|$0|$666,667|-$666,667|$666,667

Buyout with 2 years remaining:


SEASON|SALARY|INITIAL CAP HIT|ACTUAL COST|SAVINGS|BUYOUT CAP HIT
2012-22|$2,500,000|$4,916,667|$833,333|$1,666,667|$3,250,000
2022-23|$2,500,000|$4,916,667|$833,333|$1,666,667|$3,250,000
2023-24|$0|$0|$833,333|-$833,333|$833,333
2024-25|$0|$0|$833,333|-$833,333|$833,333

Buyout with 1 year remaining:

SEASON|SALARY|INITIAL CAP HIT|ACTUAL COST|SAVINGS|BUYOUT CAP HIT
2022-23|$2,500,000|$4,916,667|$833,333|$1,666,667|$3,250,000
2023-24|$0|$0|$833,333|-$833,333|$833,333
 

Ghost of Kyiv

Wanted Dead and Alive
Feb 1, 2015
4,213
695
Schrödinger's Box
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the lower then expected AAV; betcha it's "buyout proof" (or at least partially in this case).

This one's not the worst at least.

*****​

On the positive side, it might make it easier to trade in the last couple years of his contract.

Signing bonuses are paid on July 1st every year. So, if Bishop declines significantly and Dallas wanted to dump him 5 years from now, they can just wait till July 2nd on the year they wish to trade him. That way, $1 million of his yearly income is already paid by the Stars. The acquiring team would only have to pay $2.5 million in real money. And that could be big for a budget team.

Similar thing happened last year with Bernier. $2 million of his $4.15 million salary was in signing bonus. So, the Leafs waited till after July 1st, ate $2 million dollars and traded him to the Ducks getting rid of his entire cap hit in the process. The Ducks only had to pay Bernier $2.15 million last season against rather than his full $4.15 million cap hit.

Granted, Gagliardi would still have to open the purse strings and pay the million dollars. But, if we're up against the cap, that's a get out of jail free card.
 

Ghost of Kyiv

Wanted Dead and Alive
Feb 1, 2015
4,213
695
Schrödinger's Box
Think there are going to be a lot more signing bonuses over the next 5 years. CBA expires in 2022, if there is another compliance buyout window, agents are going to want as much money as possible in these "buyout proof" signing bonuses. Could be an extra couple million in their clients pockets.

Apparently, that's what agents are trying for nowadays.



Edit: Actually, if there is another compliance buyout window, we wouldn't even have to worry about the cap hit. It would be gone completely. Not that we can reasonably assume another compliance buyout window will come around in June 2022.
 

Ghost of Kyiv

Wanted Dead and Alive
Feb 1, 2015
4,213
695
Schrödinger's Box
Oh jeez, that all makes me sound like I hate the deal. I don't. By UFA standards it's a relative bargain.

As a rule of thumb, when you're singing a high end free agent (or upcoming in this case), you have to be willing to overpay. The best case is just the player living up to the salary. Not much chance of their play exceeding their cap hits. Bishop might actually.

Only the 17th highest cap hit for a goalie, didn't expect that :)

Also, I fully acknowledge that goalies are voodoo. Anything could happen with this player and it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 

Benneguin

Original Recipe
May 26, 2015
1,604
474
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the lower then expected AAV; betcha it's "buyout proof" (or at least partially in this case).

This one's not the worst at least.

*****​

On the positive side, it might make it easier to trade in the last couple years of his contract.

Signing bonuses are paid on July 1st every year. So, if Bishop declines significantly and Dallas wanted to dump him 5 years from now, they can just wait till July 2nd on the year they wish to trade him. That way, $1 million of his yearly income is already paid by the Stars. The acquiring team would only have to pay $2.5 million in real money. And that could be big for a budget team.

Similar thing happened last year with Bernier. $2 million of his $4.15 million salary was in signing bonus. So, the Leafs waited till after July 1st, ate $2 million dollars and traded him to the Ducks getting rid of his entire cap hit in the process. The Ducks only had to pay Bernier $2.15 million last season against rather than his full $4.15 million cap hit.

Granted, Gagliardi would still have to open the purse strings and pay the million dollars. But, if we're up against the cap, that's a get out of jail free card.

He's basically trade proof. If he's already declining at age 35 nobody will want him. There are always better cheaper options.
 

Ghost of Kyiv

Wanted Dead and Alive
Feb 1, 2015
4,213
695
Schrödinger's Box
He's basically trade proof. If he's already declining at age 35 nobody will want him. There are always better cheaper options.

Under the scenario you quoted, he'd only have to be worth $2.5 million dollars to a budget team.

It's not unrealistic in the slightest to think Ben Bishop might be worth $2.5 million as a 35 year old.
 

BigG44

Registered User
Jul 12, 2007
24,127
1,579
I don't disagree that someone might value him as a $2.5 million backup. That said, if he's playing that well, wouldn't you assume Dallas just keeps him? The idea we're talking about there is the typical steep decline of a mid-30's goalie. We're not really talking about Dallas cap problems.

That said, if there were cap issues, the reason he'd be attractive to a budget team is the fact his cap hit is almost double his salary in that scenario. I was surprised the cap is projected to rise to $76 million this year. They're adding a 31st team, and there's very little chance this doesn't eventually expand to 32. The cap is going to continue to rise which is going to continue to drag the floor up. Nearly every year teams are fighting to get to the floor so it's probably more reasonable to assume teams would appreciate the free cap space more than the play.

Betting on any of that seems pretty unlikely. I think the best you can hope for is to get 4 good years out of him that make the minor (hopefully not major) headache of dealing with him for an extra 2 years. Goalies playing well into there mid-30's are rare. Nill knows that, and there's really nothing I've seen that can predict who that goalie might be. They took a calculated risk hoping that he can be above average for 3 or 4 years making the headache of term worth it. The fact that he somehow got the cap hit below $5 million is pretty impressive though. I thought below $6 would be a win.
 

brighteststars

Registered User
Feb 11, 2014
781
347
I'm stoked with this signing. We're finally getting a legit goalie who is also great at moving the puck.
 

FirstRowUpperDeck

Registered User
May 20, 2014
5,386
1,410
Arlington, TX
Not surprised, given how Nill keeps valued assets like draft picks. Refused to meet asking price for Talbot, Bishop pre UFA, etc. Took second choice in Niemi.

Think most of us were leaning to Darling, too. But, as in our draft discussion, if Bishop was only a bit behind Darling in Nill's ranking, then maybe keeping the third was the right choice.
 

BigG44

Registered User
Jul 12, 2007
24,127
1,579
lmao

didnt want to give up a 3rd round pick jesus ****ing christ

According to Friedman, Chicago wanted Darling in the Eastern Conference. This quoted article makes little sense. If Dallas was willing to give up a 3rd round pick, they still weren't going to get him.

I'm not saying this report is entirely incorrect, but if you just think about the situation with any logic at all plus add Friedman's recent comment, the actual story is probably Dallas was unwilling to pay more than a 3rd round pick for Darling. That would have been the only way Chicago moves him to Dallas.

So no I don't think it's a wrong move. More than a 3rd round picks means a 2nd or maybe another 3rd or 4th round pick for a guy who isn't signed. There's no way any team is giving up a player for an unsigned free agent. Multiple picks or a 2nd for Darling wouldn't have made sense.
 

BigG44

Registered User
Jul 12, 2007
24,127
1,579
On a radio program, Friedman threw out today like it was common knowledge Bishop and Calgary had a deal in place last summer which was overruled by ownership. Did you all know that?

I remember Dallas and Calgary pursuing him, and I vaguely remember he and Calgary couldn't get a deal done. I don't recall any report though that they had agreed on a 6 year $36-$39 deal which ownership said no.
 

Ghost of Kyiv

Wanted Dead and Alive
Feb 1, 2015
4,213
695
Schrödinger's Box
On a radio program, Friedman threw out today like it was common knowledge Bishop and Calgary had a deal in place last summer which was overruled by ownership. Did you all know that?

I remember Dallas and Calgary pursuing him, and I vaguely remember he and Calgary couldn't get a deal done. I don't recall any report though that they had agreed on a 6 year $36-$39 deal which ownership said no.

Knew that Bishop had agreed to a deal with them last July, and that it fell through in the last minute on Calgary's end. This is the first I've heard of it being ownership as to the reason why. It may be worth noting that there are rumors of Treliving and ownership maybe not seeing eye to eye.

I think originally it was reported at 7x7, with Bishop himself later denied that figure saying that it was actually lower. $36-$39 million is new information to me as well.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,604
15,489
South of Heaven
I think this is a good thing. Last summer, Nill played the game of not wanting to overpay for a goalie. Nill playing it safe there contributed to a lost season.

He let Darling get away, but he made a decisive move to get Bishop. Good for Nill. This team was long overdue for change in goal, and Nill made it happen.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->