Confirmed with Link: Bishop signs 2 year extension ($2.300 million per year)

MattM92

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
6,925
516
FL
Damian Cristodero ‏@LightningTimes
No surprise, the Lightning announced a 2-year contract extension for goaltender Ben Bishop. He was scheduled to be a restricted free agent.

Edit:
TB Lightning Feed ‏@TBLightningFeed
Lightning sign G Bishop to two-year, $4.6M extension

So 2.3M per year. Not bad
 
Last edited:

Yzlamic Preacher*

Guest
Guessing around 2.5. If it was a longer term then I could see a little more of price increase. 2 years is a testing ground to see if he has he ability to stay.
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
You guys are crazy. This is an absolute ****ing failure by Yzerman. The guy was a RFA who had played like 40 games in the NHL and only like 8 with your team. He made $650k and could have been qualified for $715k. Sure I could see offering him like 1M per to give him a bone but 2.3m per is an atrocity. What a blatantly pathetic use of cap space. You have the guy by the balls and you let him kick you in the throat. A guy with no leg to stand on is gonna hold out on and you and not play hockey for multiple years because he wants more than 1m for two years? Highly doubt it, and if he did is that really who you want on your team?

And for those that will say, well if he pans out to be the guy then 2.3m isn't too bad. You're right, it's not, but 1M looks exponentially better. And there's zero reason he shouldn't have gotten that.

On top of that what does that say to Lindback who was in nearly the exact same situation when he signed. You got him for 1.5M per but Bishop is now worth almost a million more.

I'm sorry but this is terrible management by Yzerman here.
 

Jacko95

Registered User
Sep 19, 2012
2,971
18
You guys are crazy. This is an absolute ****ing failure by Yzerman. The guy was a RFA who had played like 40 games in the NHL and only like 8 with your team. He made $650k and could have been qualified for $715k. Sure I could see offering him like 1M per to give him a bone but 2.3m per is an atrocity. What a blatantly pathetic use of cap space. You have the guy by the balls and you let him kick you in the throat. A guy with no leg to stand on is gonna hold out on and you and not play hockey for multiple years because he wants more than 1m for two years? Highly doubt it, and if he did is that really who you want on your team?

And for those that will say, well if he pans out to be the guy then 2.3m isn't too bad. You're right, it's not, but 1M looks exponentially better. And there's zero reason he shouldn't have gotten that.

On top of that what does that say to Lindback who was in nearly the exact same situation when he signed. You got him for 1.5M per but Bishop is now worth almost a million more.

I'm sorry but this is terrible management by Yzerman here.

Well I had expected he gets the same money as Lindbäck, but otherwise, he played better on teams with worser defense. I don't think the 700k will make that much of a difference, but I would have preferd Lindbäcks money.
 

MattM92

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
6,925
516
FL
You guys are crazy. This is an absolute ****ing failure by Yzerman. The guy was a RFA who had played like 40 games in the NHL and only like 8 with your team. He made $650k and could have been qualified for $715k. Sure I could see offering him like 1M per to give him a bone but 2.3m per is an atrocity. What a blatantly pathetic use of cap space. You have the guy by the balls and you let him kick you in the throat. A guy with no leg to stand on is gonna hold out on and you and not play hockey for multiple years because he wants more than 1m for two years? Highly doubt it, and if he did is that really who you want on your team?

And for those that will say, well if he pans out to be the guy then 2.3m isn't too bad. You're right, it's not, but 1M looks exponentially better. And there's zero reason he shouldn't have gotten that.

On top of that what does that say to Lindback who was in nearly the exact same situation when he signed. You got him for 1.5M per but Bishop is now worth almost a million more.

I'm sorry but this is terrible management by Yzerman here.

Lindback got 1.8/year. Bishop is getting 2.3/year. 500k is the difference in their level of proving themselves. Bishop had split starting duties in Ottawa when Anderson got injured with Lehner. Lindback never split starting time. Not to mention Bishop played better than Lindback in their short stints. 500k really isn't a killer, IS.
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
Lindback got 1.8/year. Bishop is getting 2.3/year. 500k is the difference in their level of proving themselves. Bishop had split starting duties in Ottawa when Anderson got injured with Lehner. Lindback never split starting time. Not to mention Bishop played better than Lindback in their short stints. 500k really isn't a killer, IS.

Completely missing the point man. Bishop had ZERO leverage for this contract. None whatsoever. And Yzerman still backed the Brinks truck up.

And 500k isn't an issue. How about 1.5M? We couldn't use that?
 

Stammer Time*

Sons of Pirates
Dec 6, 2003
29,306
1
St.Pete, Florida
Lindback's cap hit is only $500,000 less while having less experience and worse career numbers. This is fair. Give him nothing but a qualifying offer and you run the risk of him signing and then leaving as a UFA next year or signing as an RFA with another team knowing that Yzerman would be forced to match because it would be a PR nightmare if he didn't.

Good goalies are worth a lot of money. Look at Jimmy Howard about to sign for 5.3M a year for six years.
 
Last edited:

MattM92

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
6,925
516
FL
Completely missing the point man. Bishop had ZERO leverage for this contract. None whatsoever. And Yzerman still backed the Brinks truck up.

And 500k isn't an issue. How about 1.5M? We couldn't use that?

I agree that Bishop had little to no leverage for this contract, but what happens if this guy does turn out to be legit and you played hardball with him and underpayed just because you could? Then in a year WE'VE got no leverage and he walks for nothing. Makes much more sense from a management standpoint to give the guy what he's worth when it really isn't very expensive, rather than underpaying the guy just because right now he has no power.
 

ArmchairGoalie

Registered User
May 18, 2011
166
0
Largo, FL
I agree that Bishop had little to no leverage for this contract, but what happens if this guy does turn out to be legit and you played hardball with him and underpayed just because you could? Then in a year WE'VE got no leverage and he walks for nothing. Makes much more sense from a management standpoint to give the guy what he's worth when it really isn't very expensive, rather than underpaying the guy just because right now he has no power.

Good points.

Now with this money, maybe Bishop can go buy himself a Tampa Bay goalie mask and stop using Ottawa's. :sarcasm:
 

AUSTRIANbolt

Registered User
Jun 10, 2010
249
0
Waterworld
Good points.

Now with this money, maybe Bishop can go buy himself a Tampa Bay goalie mask and stop using Ottawa's. :sarcasm:

Too late ;)

Ben+Bishop+Tampa+Bay+Lightning+v+Washington+fCdRexnstvdx.jpg
 

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
You guys are crazy. This is an absolute ****ing failure by Yzerman. The guy was a RFA who had played like 40 games in the NHL and only like 8 with your team. He made $650k and could have been qualified for $715k. Sure I could see offering him like 1M per to give him a bone but 2.3m per is an atrocity. What a blatantly pathetic use of cap space. You have the guy by the balls and you let him kick you in the throat. A guy with no leg to stand on is gonna hold out on and you and not play hockey for multiple years because he wants more than 1m for two years? Highly doubt it, and if he did is that really who you want on your team?

And for those that will say, well if he pans out to be the guy then 2.3m isn't too bad. You're right, it's not, but 1M looks exponentially better. And there's zero reason he shouldn't have gotten that.

On top of that what does that say to Lindback who was in nearly the exact same situation when he signed. You got him for 1.5M per but Bishop is now worth almost a million more.

I'm sorry but this is terrible management by Yzerman here.

How exactly doesn't Bishop have a leg to stand on in negotiations? He knows full well how many teams were after him at the trade deadline.

If Yzerman came in with a $1m offer, then all Bishop had to do was wait to hit RFA and see how many teams are willing to sign him at $3m and give up a second round pick as compensation.

Makes sense to pay him what he is worth instead of lowballing.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
You can't compare Lindback and Bishop's contracts. Lindback was coming off an entry level deal, Bishop is two contracts removed from his and likely had arb rights and then UFA. If Bishop was coming off an entry-level deal SY would have more leverage to sign him to a cheaper deal.
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
How exactly doesn't Bishop have a leg to stand on in negotiations? He knows full well how many teams were after him at the trade deadline.

If Yzerman came in with a $1m offer, then all Bishop had to do was wait to hit RFA and see how many teams are willing to sign him at $3m and give up a second round pick as compensation.

Makes sense to pay him what he is worth instead of lowballing.

Club elected arbitration, which by my quick look, he was eligible for. Boom no more possibility offer sheets. Not that I think for one second any other team would even give him one.

You can't compare Lindback and Bishop's contracts. Lindback was coming off an entry level deal, Bishop is two contracts removed from his and likely had arb rights and then UFA. If Bishop was coming off an entry-level deal SY would have more leverage to sign him to a cheaper deal.

His second contract was a thanks for giving me a chance in the NHL contact. It was nothing more than an extended ELC.

He and the club I believe had arbitration rights. What makes you think Bishop has done anything to warrant anything close to what he was signed for in an arbitrators eyes? It's not what will you do for me, it's what have you done for me. The answer right NOW, is not much.

I get the points being made, I do really. However this is a bad signing money wise. He should have been able to get him for much less. That's all I'm saying.
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
How did he have no leverage?

How about this. What leverage DID he have?

42 NHL games, 20 of them as a "starter"? His plummeting SV% and GAA since coming here?

He hasn't dont anything of note and is still looking to establish himself. He has no leverage.
 

MattM92

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
6,925
516
FL
How about this. What leverage DID he have?

42 NHL games, 20 of them as a "starter"? His plummeting SV% and GAA since coming here?

He hasn't dont anything of note and is still looking to establish himself. He has no leverage.

Not fair to fault him for that. Every goalie in the past 10 years has had terrible numbers here. That goes beyond just Bishop
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
Not fair to fault him for that. Every goalie in the past 10 years has had terrible numbers here. That goes beyond just Bishop

While i agree, it doesn't matter. In an arbitration the team would most certainly put those stats forward. Those meetings are nasty.
 

MattM92

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
6,925
516
FL
While i agree, it doesn't matter. In an arbitration the team would most certainly put those stats forward. Those meetings are nasty.

Are you sure that arbitration was available? I'm sure that if arbitration was the best route, Yzerman would've taken it. If it was available, I'm sure there's something we don't know about that made avoiding arbitration the best option.
 

IdealisticSniper

Registered User
Nov 9, 2008
10,974
2
Are you sure that arbitration was available? I'm sure that if arbitration was the best route, Yzerman would've taken it. If it was available, I'm sure there's something we don't know about that made avoiding arbitration the best option.

Like I said before I glanced through and it seemed to me it should have been. But arbitration is always a last resort and considering he still had a good two plus months to try to negotiate a contract I don't see how Yzerman came in low on an offer at any point in the negotiation.
 

Butchered

I'm with Kuch
Apr 30, 2004
6,338
1
I think it's hilarious people are up in arms over 2.3 mil but don't bat an eye at Lecavaliers abomination of a contract.

Bishop was due a raise and like several people have said, makes not much more than Lindback who is frankly not the better of these two goalies.

Would have been a nice slap in the face to Bishop to qualify him for the minimum. That's how you show confidence in a guy who you hope is going to carry your team into the playoffs next season!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->