Speculation: Eklund Bishop rumor

[Sky04]

Are we really doubting the best young goaltender in the game because of a 15 game stretch?

Have a bit of faith in him.

I absolutely get some of you wanting to keep Bishop if we're on a spot to win the cup, even though I think Vasi could do it just as well, but at the moment we look like a contender to get a lottery pick so don't see the point. The trade would be great as long as we could extend Shattenkirk for something nice, which I doubt.

Vasi could do just as well? I think he sank that ship last time he had a chance.

You talk like his career stats before those 15 games were extraordinary or something.

lol @ "best young goaltender" that title doesn't belong to him, most potential? Yes best young goaltender? No. I'd like to see you argue him over Gibson who has significantly better stats at nearly double the sample size. Even Murray is currently better.

 

[Finbolter]

Bishop + Garrison to shattenkirk + Yakupov?

Yzerman pull the trigger changes need to come.

 

[Todd1a]

Bishop + Garrison to shattenkirk + Yakupov?

Yzerman pull the trigger changes need to come.

St. Louis wants to unload cap like we do that would not work for them

 

[Werewolf]

~~~

Vasi could do just as well? I think he sank that ship last time he had a chance.

You talk like his career stats before those 15 games were extraordinary or something.

lol @ "best young goaltender" that title doesn't belong to him, most potential? Yes best young goaltender? No. I'd like to see you argue him over Gibson who has significantly better stats at nearly double the sample size. Even Murray is currently better.

The first ~10 games of the season he was the NHL's leading goaltender with a ~.940 S% and sub ~1.50 GAA. Cooper rode him hard without a break even playing him on back to backs three times and three in fours 3 times - don't know of many goaltenders that are asked to pull that sort of weight let alone a 22 year old playing in front of half a Syracuse lineup. The last two times out he has been good ... .933 and .917 S% now that he can get back into rhythm.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

What's the book on Shatty? I rarely ever get to see him play. It's obvious this dude has peak offensive talent but how good is he defensively?

Decent defensively, but i'd like to see a bigger sample size away from a team like St. Louis. Produces points well, generates a lot of shots (though again that could be a product of St. Louis), and does fairly well at shot suppression. I think putting him in a bit more of a free-wheeling system could help, but he also doesn't have the best foot speed.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

Trying to think of an add-in forward that could help bridge the gap to guys like Erne making the roster.

Shatty + Jaskin for Bishop + pick/Koekkoek/prospect

Jaskin hasn't had any big years, but @ 1m he is a serviceable risk for the rest of the year (+1) and a chance to replicate a 13 goal season as a bottom sixer. Shatty serves a purpose we have already discussed.

Ben clears almost 6 million in salary (minus 1m for Jaskin, 4.25m in Shatty, 5.25 total for this season), and you can look at shifting other contracts around and work on signing him, if he has interest.

 

[These Are The Days]

This Shattenkirk stuff needs to just flicker out and fade away already. For one, only two teams have EVER made the playoffs after being in last in their conference this late in the year (97 Ottawa, 09 Blues) and there's no point to this trade because we are effectively out of the playoff race. Second, why give up assets for a pending UFA? Third, if we DID trade for Shattenkirk then how in the name of all that is holy are we gonna sign this guy?

The Vasilevskiy debacle taught us one thing... he's not ready and that retaining Bishop is the most important thing we can do.

Acquiring Shattenkirk is like applying to buy a $3 million home a few weeks after declaring bankruptcy.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

This Shattenkirk stuff needs to just flicker out and fade away already. For one, only two teams have EVER made the playoffs after being in last in their conference this late in the year (97 Ottawa, 09 Blues) and there's no point to this trade because we are effectively out of the playoff race. Second, why give up assets for a pending UFA? Third, if we DID trade for Shattenkirk then how in the name of all that is holy are we gonna sign this guy?

The Vasilevskiy debacle taught us one thing... he's not ready and that retaining Bishop is the most important thing we can do.

Acquiring Shattenkirk is like applying to buy a $3 million home a few weeks after declaring bankruptcy.

Not quite, but you make a fair point with UFA.

 

[Todd1a]

This Shattenkirk stuff needs to just flicker out and fade away already. For one, only two teams have EVER made the playoffs after being in last in their conference this late in the year (97 Ottawa, 09 Blues) and there's no point to this trade because we are effectively out of the playoff race. Second, why give up assets for a pending UFA? Third, if we DID trade for Shattenkirk then how in the name of all that is holy are we gonna sign this guy?

The Vasilevskiy debacle taught us one thing... he's not ready and that retaining Bishop is the most important thing we can do.

Acquiring Shattenkirk is like applying to buy a $3 million home a few weeks after declaring bankruptcy.

Yes id trade bishop for shatty now if you don't think shatty will resign then move him to the rangers as a rental for a 1st round pick in the 2017 nhl draft.

 

[MattM92]

This Shattenkirk stuff needs to just flicker out and fade away already. For one, only two teams have EVER made the playoffs after being in last in their conference this late in the year (97 Ottawa, 09 Blues) and there's no point to this trade because we are effectively out of the playoff race. Second, why give up assets for a pending UFA? Third, if we DID trade for Shattenkirk then how in the name of all that is holy are we gonna sign this guy?

The Vasilevskiy debacle taught us one thing... he's not ready and that retaining Bishop is the most important thing we can do.

Acquiring Shattenkirk is like applying to buy a $3 million home a few weeks after declaring bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bishop was playing lights out.

As Werewolf explained above, putting a 22 year old with like 50 games of NHL experience into a situation where he is playing back to backs, 3 in 4s and playing in front of half an AHL lineup isn't exactly conducive to success. If you set a kid up to fail and he fails, you're really going to stand there with hands on your hips and tell him he's not ready?

 

[These Are The Days]

Not quite, but you make a fair point with UFA.

Well I know I'm exaggerating but rather than deal Bishop I think it's been made clear that we need to get creative in ways that we can retain him. Obviously that means a deal on or after July 1st and expansion but as it comes to Shattenkirk I would love to have him around but I can't justify any of it. Vasilevskiy almost singlehandedly cost us this season.

Coach deserves a fair share of flack for starting Vasi over and over again but the EGREGIOUS lack of conventional wisdom makes me wonder if it was not done on purpose to give Yzerman a chance to evaluate him.

I strongly believe more was at play than we know about.

 

[These Are The Days]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bishop was playing lights out.

As Werewolf explained above, putting a 22 year old with like 50 games of NHL experience into a situation where he is playing back to backs, 3 in 4s and playing in front of half an AHL lineup isn't exactly conducive to success. If you set a kid up to fail and he fails, you're really going to stand there with hands on your hips and tell him he's not ready?

Normally I would agree if Bishop hadn't played lights out in front of a lineup far worse than that in 2013-2014. That defense was HORRIBLE and god knows the bottom lines weren't much better. And normally I'd agree if Vasilevskiy wasn't put into situations FAR worse than this one. Being asked to win in Chicago in the SCF or carry the Lightning against juggernaut Penguins team in the ECF the next year is far more unfavorable than this.

Vasilevskiy was indeed thrown into the fire but his lack of mental fortitude, lack of rebound control and all around lack of competency in net was not and is not a Jon Cooper coaching issue. Frantz Jean on the other hand? Yeah... I'm wondering why it's years later and I'm STILL seeing the same problems with Vasilevskiy that we've seen since he first came into the NHL.

We needed Vasilevskiy to step up and he played like total garbage. What were we supposed to do? Pat him on the back and say, "Oh that's okay. Here we'll play Adam Wilcox (who has never played in the NHL at all) or Kristers Gudlevskis (who can barely muster average in the AHL) instead while you figure it out?" What's the point in even having a backup then? So what does that leave us? Passing the buck to somebody else?

If we're gonna be pissed off at Cooper for anything it's not for putting Vasilevskiy through the gauntlet this year. It's for spending 2 years feeding him easy games and babying him to the point where he was completely unprepared for any more responsibility beyond a weekly start.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Normally I would agree if Bishop hadn't played lights out in front of a lineup far worse than that in 2013-2014. That defense was HORRIBLE and god knows the bottom lines weren't much better. And normally I'd agree if Vasilevskiy wasn't put into situations FAR worse than this one. Being asked to win in Chicago in the SCF or carry the Lightning against juggernaut Penguins team in the ECF the next year is far more unfavorable than this.

Vasilevskiy was indeed thrown into the fire but his lack of mental fortitude, lack of rebound control and all around lack of competency in net was not and is not a Jon Cooper coaching issue. Frantz Jean on the other hand? Yeah... I'm wondering why it's years later and I'm STILL seeing the same problems with Vasilevskiy that we've seen since he first came into the NHL.

We needed Vasilevskiy to step up and he played like total garbage. What were we supposed to do? Pat him on the back and say, "Oh that's okay. Here we'll play Adam Wilcox (who has never played in the NHL at all) or Kristers Gudlevskis (who can barely muster average in the AHL) instead while you figure it out?" What's the point in even having a backup then? So what does that leave us? Passing the buck to somebody else?

If we're gonna be pissed off at Cooper for anything it's not for putting Vasilevskiy through the gauntlet this year. It's for spending 2 years feeding him easy games and babying him to the point where he was completely unprepared for any more responsibility beyond a weekly start.

I wouldn't say the 13-14 team was worse than the current lineup. The top 6 is almost the same, I would say Johnson and Palat back then we're better, Kucherov was St. Louis, Drouin is an upgrade to Purcell, Carle played better that year than Stralman is currently, Brewer and Salo were about as good as Garrison and Coburn. The bottom 6 is hard to compare, that team had a lot of callups of young players too, it also had a young Kucherov in the bottom 6. Bishop was also 5 years older than Vasilevskiy was when he was asked to be the starter.

I like how you say Vasilevskiy was asked to step up but played like total garbage but so did the goalie who was a 2 time Vezina finalist in the last 3 years. He shouldn't be sucking worse than a kid asked to do it for the first time.

 

[Todd1a]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bishop was playing lights out.

As Werewolf explained above, putting a 22 year old with like 50 games of NHL experience into a situation where he is playing back to backs, 3 in 4s and playing in front of half an AHL lineup isn't exactly conducive to success. If you set a kid up to fail and he fails, you're really going to stand there with hands on your hips and tell him he's not ready?

cooper was needing a win badly and wilcox would have been blown up worse then vasy he had no other option otherwise. It's why Vasy made 9 starts in a row both our goalies suck bishop just got blown up by the lowest scoring team in the nhl our at least almost lowest scoring team in the coyotes.

 

[HoseEmDown]

cooper was needing a win badly and wilcox would have been blown up worse then vasy he had no other option otherwise. It's why Vasy made 9 starts in a row both our goalies suck bishop just got blown up by the lowest scoring team in the nhl our at least almost lowest scoring team in the coyotes.

Gudlevskis would have done alright if given the chance. The kid isn't consistent in the AHL so his numbers don't look good but he plays above his talent in big situations. Helping the team stopping the bleeding would've been one of those, think he would've kept us in one of the blowouts.

 

[These Are The Days]

I wouldn't say the 13-14 team was worse than the current lineup. The top 6 is almost the same, I would say Johnson and Palat back then we're better, Kucherov was St. Louis, Drouin is an upgrade to Purcell, Carle played better that year than Stralman is currently, Brewer and Salo were about as good as Garrison and Coburn. The bottom 6 is hard to compare, that team had a lot of callups of young players too, it also had a young Kucherov in the bottom 6. Bishop was also 5 years older than Vasilevskiy was when he was asked to be the starter.

I like how you say Vasilevskiy was asked to step up but played like total garbage but so did the goalie who was a 2 time Vezina finalist in the last 3 years. He shouldn't be sucking worse than a kid asked to do it for the first time.

The defense had Hedman just coming into his own that year. After that it was rookie Sustr, Brewer, Carle, Barberio, Salo on his legs and Gudas. The bottom 6 had Crombeen, Pyatt and guys like Brown and Paquette who were no better than AHLer's getting their first real time in the NHL like Bournival and Dumont are now. Same applied to Johnson and Palat and Kucherov at the time. That whole team was nothing but rookies.

As for Bishop he's an entirely different story. Matt's criticism of Cooper (while not unjustified) falls upon how he put out Vasilevskiy night after night when he CLEARLY needed out. For me I'm not so big on that because I would have thought a young man with 2 years of backup experience would be able to handle it by now. And Bishop despite his age at the time had even less NHL experience than Vasilevskiy does this year.

I see what you're getting at but you're looking at it from the wrong angle. I'm not defending either goaltender because they've both played awful. I'm basing my claim on that I've got 3 years of Bishop playing lights out hockey for me to fall back on. And that we need to keep him and drop this "What if we trade him for Shattenkirk?" talk and figure out how to sign the guy who has been getting it done for us despite the year he has had

 

[Todd1a]

Gudlevskis would have done alright if given the chance. The kid isn't consistent in the AHL so his numbers don't look good but he plays above his talent in big situations. Helping the team stopping the bleeding would've been one of those, think he would've kept us in one of the blowouts.

crunch fans seem to say he sucks

 

[Sky04]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bishop was playing lights out.

As Werewolf explained above, putting a 22 year old with like 50 games of NHL experience into a situation where he is playing back to backs, 3 in 4s and playing in front of half an AHL lineup isn't exactly conducive to success. If you set a kid up to fail and he fails, you're really going to stand there with hands on your hips and tell him he's not ready?

Bishop's not playing lights out but he's a lot more reliable as a starter than Vasi is. Once he has a bad game, do we need to keep him in his room for 3 weeks until his confidence is up again?

Difference between Vasi and Bishop will only be about 3m~, and he's clearly not ready to be a starter, if we're serious about competing anytime soon, Vasi for an impact player makes sense as well.

 

[VinikToWinIt]

This Shattenkirk stuff needs to just flicker out and fade away already. For one, only two teams have EVER made the playoffs after being in last in their conference this late in the year (97 Ottawa, 09 Blues) and there's no point to this trade because we are effectively out of the playoff race. Second, why give up assets for a pending UFA? Third, if we DID trade for Shattenkirk then how in the name of all that is holy are we gonna sign this guy?

The Vasilevskiy debacle taught us one thing... he's not ready and that retaining Bishop is the most important thing we can do.

Acquiring Shattenkirk is like applying to buy a $3 million home a few weeks after declaring bankruptcy.

1. The asset we are rumored to be giving up is also a pending UFA.

2. If we retain Bishop, we lose Vasy to Vegas. If we are already considering this season a loss, I'd rather keep Vasy for the long term. Maybe he's not ready - but apparently neither is our team. Plus, if we're judging our goalies based on this year, Bishop has been pretty bad too.

3. If we can't re-sign Shattenkirk, how would we re-sign Bishop? I doubt their contracts are that far off. Plus we could actually protect Shattenkirk along with Hedman and Stralman, and leave Garrison/Coburn exposed.

 

[DFC]

1. The asset we are rumored to be giving up is also a pending UFA.

2. If we retain Bishop, we lose Vasy to Vegas. If we are already considering this season a loss, I'd rather keep Vasy for the long term. Maybe he's not ready - but apparently neither is our team. Plus, if we're judging our goalies based on this year, Bishop has been pretty bad too.

3. If we can't re-sign Shattenkirk, how would we re-sign Bishop? I doubt their contracts are that far off. Plus we could actually protect Shattenkirk along with Hedman and Stralman, and leave Garrison/Coburn exposed.

The idea is that if we DO trade Bishop, it shouldn't be for another UFA. That move would make no sense. If we want to acquire Shattenkirk, we should see what we can offer him as a UFA (after clearing the necessarily space) and deal Bishop for whatever asset he can get us. That way we get an asset whether we land Shattenkirk or not.

To take Sunny's lead, acquiring Shattenkirk right now would be like buying new tires for a car that's on fire.

 

[VinikToWinIt]

The idea is that if we DO trade Bishop, it shouldn't be for another UFA. That move would make no sense. If we want to acquire Shattenkirk, we should see what we can offer him as a UFA (after clearing the necessarily space) and deal Bishop for whatever asset he can get us. That way we get an asset whether we land Shattenkirk or not.

To take Sunny's lead, acquiring Shattenkirk right now would be like buying new tires for a car that's on fire.

That situation is obviously ideal, but fails if some other team trades for Shattenkirk and he never make it to free agency.

I think the Bishop-Shattenkirk trade has to center around both players signing with their new teams. We need a number 3. They need adequate goaltending. Yzerman has shown he doesn't like rentals (and obviously more so when you're not even playoff bound), so we won't be acquiring him without an extension in place. But if this is what he thinks it will take to acquire a #3 long term, I could see him pulling the trigger.

 

[DFC]

That situation is obviously ideal, but fails if some other team trades for Shattenkirk and he never make it to free agency.

I think the Bishop-Shattenkirk trade has to center around both players signing with their new teams. We need a number 3. They need adequate goaltending. Yzerman has shown he doesn't like rentals (and obviously more so when you're not even playoff bound), so we won't be acquiring him without an extension in place. But if this is what he thinks it will take to acquire a #3 long term, I could see him pulling the trigger.

If we knew Shattenkirk would sign, or even that we had a solid chance at getting him signed, then yeah. But the benefit of getting him here so no other team can trade for him and sign him is outweighed by the risk of bringing him in and then having him sign elsewhere, thus wasting one of our better trade chips on a season that's already lost.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

Ah, we're doing the Gudlevskis thing again. He just isn't good enough.

 

[Flat Ronnie]

If we knew Shattenkirk would sign, or even that we had a solid chance at getting him signed, then yeah. But the benefit of getting him here so no other team can trade for him and sign him is outweighed by the risk of bringing him in and then having him sign elsewhere, thus wasting one of our better trade chips on a season that's already lost.

Hes only our trade chip for a couple more months. I guess you have to ask yourself what else Bishop is going to get us? You say he is one of our best trade chips, but if we can't get anything else worth a damn for him the Shattenkirk wine and dine might be worth it.

Agree?

 

[Todd1a]

Hes only our trade chip for a couple more months. I guess you have to ask yourself what else Bishop is going to get us? You say he is one of our best trade chips, but if we can't get anything else worth a damn for him the Shattenkirk wine and dine might be worth it.

Agree?

yes let vinik and yzerman wine and dine him into the nice Florida life for less cap hit