IranCondraAffair
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2006
- 9,258
- 3,956
Senators fan coming in peace. Personally, I think this will be a win-win for both sides, and I can see that most of you guys see that already.
I've posted the same elsewhere but I think both teams gave up very replaceable (but equally valuable) assets. Sure, Bishop isn't a well established #1 starter, but then again, neither was Conacher a well established top-6 player. You guys seem to have a lot of NHL ready forward prospects, so losing Conacher isn't a huge loss. Same with Ottawa, we had three goalies and only two roster spots. Both Hasek and Kipprusoff were both acquired from similar situations, Ottawa might well regret giving up Bishop.
If Lindback didn't do well next season, without Bishop, the season would likely be a write-off. At best, Tampa would have had to make an expensive trade for a quality starter to replace him. With core guys like St. Louis and Vinny getting older it's not an option to waste years waiting for a prospect who may or may not develop. Tampa needed a second possible starter for next season, the only questions were "how to acquire one" and "how well established they needed to be". Either a #1 or a 1A/1B guy was needed.
Sure, Tampa could have spent some assets acquiring someone like Luo, Miller, etc.. instead of Bishop but then they have even less assets around to ensure that Miller was successful. If some people think Bishop was expensive, think about what Miller would have cost. Bishop has a good chance of becoming a starter and he's played well. A week ago he had the 2nd highest save % in the entire NHL. The goalie market wasn't great either. There isn't a true #1 available and only a few possible #1a/#1B guys and they're all worse than Bishop, IMO
Worst case scenario is that Bishop plays poorly and you gave up a good, but redundant, asset.. It's not the end of the world.
I've posted the same elsewhere but I think both teams gave up very replaceable (but equally valuable) assets. Sure, Bishop isn't a well established #1 starter, but then again, neither was Conacher a well established top-6 player. You guys seem to have a lot of NHL ready forward prospects, so losing Conacher isn't a huge loss. Same with Ottawa, we had three goalies and only two roster spots. Both Hasek and Kipprusoff were both acquired from similar situations, Ottawa might well regret giving up Bishop.
If Lindback didn't do well next season, without Bishop, the season would likely be a write-off. At best, Tampa would have had to make an expensive trade for a quality starter to replace him. With core guys like St. Louis and Vinny getting older it's not an option to waste years waiting for a prospect who may or may not develop. Tampa needed a second possible starter for next season, the only questions were "how to acquire one" and "how well established they needed to be". Either a #1 or a 1A/1B guy was needed.
Sure, Tampa could have spent some assets acquiring someone like Luo, Miller, etc.. instead of Bishop but then they have even less assets around to ensure that Miller was successful. If some people think Bishop was expensive, think about what Miller would have cost. Bishop has a good chance of becoming a starter and he's played well. A week ago he had the 2nd highest save % in the entire NHL. The goalie market wasn't great either. There isn't a true #1 available and only a few possible #1a/#1B guys and they're all worse than Bishop, IMO
Worst case scenario is that Bishop plays poorly and you gave up a good, but redundant, asset.. It's not the end of the world.