Proposal: Tampa and Ducks Trade...

tjs*

Registered User
Mar 18, 2016
2,103
0
Fair enough. Our primary need is at RHD though so I'm not sure you have much else that would entice us to trade Bishop.
 

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,060
4,520
702
Bishop makes no sense for the Ducks. They've hitched their wagon to Gibson and can't afford to spend assets on a rental Bishop. The only deal that might make sense between the Ducks/Lightning would be something involving Vatanen for a guy like Palat.
 

DFC

Registered User
Sep 26, 2013
46,843
22,687
NB
bottom-sixer with a little bit of finish to his game (capable of double digit goals), who can kill penalties and do grunt work on the pp if needed. preferably durable. health is becoming a huge concern all over our roster.

anybody who plays like our own brian boyle, on the wing, and i'd probably pull the trigger at this point.
 

tjs*

Registered User
Mar 18, 2016
2,103
0
Bishop makes no sense for the Ducks. They've hitched their wagon to Gibson and can't afford to spend assets on a rental Bishop. The only deal that might make sense between the Ducks/Lightning would be something involving Vatanen for a guy like Palat.

The problem with that sort of deal is that trading for a quality defenseman would mean having to protect him and therefore exposing and possibly losing Koekkoek to expansion, which would severely decrease the value of the deal to us.

The same issue exists with the Bishop-for-Manson trade I proposed, of course, but the key difference with that scenario is that we'd only be giving up a guy we're going to let walk at the end of the season anyway. So if we traded Bishop for Manson and then lost either Manson or Koekkoek to Vegas we'd be no worse off than if we hadn't made the deal in the first place - we'd simply have traded a rental for a rental. If we trade somebody like Palat and the same thing happens, however, now we've lost a quality top six forward for little to no gain. So I'm much more inclined to trade Bishop for a defenseman than one of our young forwards.
 

Vipers31

Advanced Stagnostic
Aug 29, 2008
20,351
2,094
Cologne, Germany
If you look at the trades made over the last 5+ years, the Ducks under Murray are among the very last teams that should be expected to make a trade for a big name impending UFA. It's just not a part of their / Murray's philosophy on staying competetive.
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,361
2,277
The problem with that sort of deal is that trading for a quality defenseman would mean having to protect him and therefore exposing and possibly losing Koekkoek to expansion, which would severely decrease the value of the deal to us.

The same issue exists with the Bishop-for-Manson trade I proposed, of course, but the key difference with that scenario is that we'd only be giving up a guy we're going to let walk at the end of the season anyway. So if we traded Bishop for Manson and then lost either Manson or Koekkoek to Vegas we'd be no worse off than if we hadn't made the deal in the first place - we'd simply have traded a rental for a rental. If we trade somebody like Palat and the same thing happens, however, now we've lost a quality top six forward for little to no gain. So I'm much more inclined to trade Bishop for a defenseman than one of our young forwards.

Now that you've covered TB's point of view can you see why trading an asset that could return a quality scoring forward (which they need) for a rental goalie probably wouldn't be of interest to the Ducks? Not to mention that the money doesn't come close to working out.
 

tjs*

Registered User
Mar 18, 2016
2,103
0
Now that you've covered TB's point of view can you see why trading an asset that could return a quality scoring forward (which they need) for a rental goalie probably wouldn't be of interest to the Ducks? Not to mention that the money doesn't come close to working out.

Oh, I'm not arguing that you should trade a defenseman for Bishop. You guys asked what it would take to get Bishop and I answered; whether or not you want to pay that price is entirely up to you. I've never understood why people on this forum insist on arguing with fans of other teams when those fans say they wouldn't want to make a trade - I always assume that most people know their own team's needs better than I do and act accordingly. By the same token, however, you have to understand that as long as we're still in the playoff hunt we aren't going to trade our starting goalie cheaply. So I'd say there probably isn't a deal to be made at this time.
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,361
2,277
Makes sense... didn't catch that OP was a Ducks fan since it doesn't seem to make much sense from their perspective.
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,980
15,338
Worst Case, Ontario
Bishop + Palat for Bernier + Vatanen + Jones?

Someone else will be willing to make you an offer for Bishop that's miles better than anything Anaheim would offer - our GM will not pay up for top rentals.

Plus if we could afford a guy like Bishop, we wouldn't have traded Andersen. The wagon is hitched to Gibson, that's just the way it is.

Pushing all the other pieces aside, Vatanen for Palat is a somewhat interesting framework.
 

HoseEmDown

Registered User
Mar 25, 2012
17,452
3,681
Someone else will be willing to make you an offer for Bishop that's miles better than anything Anaheim would offer - our GM will not pay up for top rentals.

Plus if we could afford a guy like Bishop, we wouldn't have traded Andersen. The wagon is hitched to Gibson, that's just the way it is.

Pushing all the other pieces aside, Vatanen for Palat is a somewhat interesting framework.

It's not really a rental trade though. The main pieces are Palat and Vatanen. Bishop and Bernier are both UFA's so a goalie swap and it keeps the cap close. Jones is there because you are trading from a position of strength, D, for a weakness, top 6 LW, and the difference between Bishop and Bernier.
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,980
15,338
Worst Case, Ontario
It's not really a rental trade though. The main pieces are Palat and Vatanen. Bishop and Bernier are both UFA's so a goalie swap and it keeps the cap close. Jones is there because you are trading from a position of strength, D, for a weakness, top 6 LW, and the difference between Bishop and Bernier.

There's a fair bit wrong here....

First of all, the idea of a top 6 LW being the Ducks weakness is outdated. We're perfectly fine with Rakell, Cogliano and Ritchie manning the left side in our top 9. Rakell can also shift to RW if needed, meaning the Ducks can simply target the best fit available.

"Jones is there because you are trading from a position of strength, for a weakness..."- this part makes no sense at all. Obviously the point of any trade is to improve and balance one's team, that doesn't mean the Ducks need to kick in extra value. :laugh:

So putting that nonsense aside, the Ducks are moving Jones in order to upgrade rental goalies. That part doesn't work whatsoever. We can't afford to keep Bishop (contract or expansion), and our GM doesn't move his top young pieces for short term gain. Anaheim is one of the last teams in which you should be considering when trying to figure out where Bishop is going, it's not any sort of fit whatsoever.
 

Rschmitz

Finding new ways to cheat
Feb 27, 2002
15,748
8,070
Tampa Bay
There's a fair bit wrong here....

First of all, the idea of a top 6 LW being the Ducks weakness is outdated. We're perfectly fine with Rakell, Cogliano and Ritchie manning the left side in our top 9. Rakell can also shift to RW if needed, meaning the Ducks can simply target the best fit available.

"Jones is there because you are trading from a position of strength, for a weakness..."- this part makes no sense at all. Obviously the point of any trade is to improve and balance one's team, that doesn't mean the Ducks need to kick in extra value. :laugh:

So putting that nonsense aside, the Ducks are moving Jones in order to upgrade rental goalies. That part doesn't work whatsoever. We can't afford to keep Bishop (contract or expansion), and our GM doesn't move his top young pieces for short term gain. Anaheim is one of the last teams in which you should be considering when trying to figure out where Bishop is going, it's not any sort of fit whatsoever.

Hose was talking about fit, Jones is there to even the value out. Way too much in Anaheims favor without him or a 1st. I'm against this trade, there are better fits for the Lightning.
 

lanceuppercut75

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
2,878
1,128
Toronto area
This trade only happens IMO if Tampa plummets down the standings and looks like a lottery team at the deadline.

Bishop (UFA)

for

Bernier (UFA)
and
really good pick(s) and/or prospect(s)
 

mightyquack

eggplant and jade or bust
Apr 28, 2010
26,374
5,068
This trade only happens IMO if Tampa plummets down the standings and looks like a lottery team at the deadline.

Bishop (UFA)

for

Bernier (UFA)
and
really good pick(s) and/or prospect(s)
Why does it make sense for Anaheim to give up really good picks and/or prospects for a UFA Bishop?
 

Ducks in a row

Go Ducks Quack Quack
Dec 17, 2013
18,004
4,356
U.S.A.
Ben Bishop

for

??

Can we make a trade here? Ducks seriously need a upgrade on goalie.

If we trade for Bishop we would need to get rid of Bernier

I'd do Bishop for Manson.

We are not trading Manson who is signed for very cheap for another season and will still be RFA. We can offer Vegas something not to take Manson in expansion draft (if we are unable to find a good deal for Fowler or Vatanen)

Bishop + Palat for Bernier + Vatanen + Jones?

We are not weakening our defense for this season.

This trade only happens IMO if Tampa plummets down the standings and looks like a lottery team at the deadline.

Bishop (UFA)

for

Bernier (UFA)
and
really good pick(s) and/or prospect(s)

If we traded for Bishop it wouldn't involve a 1st round pick considering we have only 1 such pick for the upcoming draft and we love to draft in round 1 only one time not drafting in round 1 in our franchise history. We are also not trading any recent 1st round drafted players either or any other prospects of high value.
 

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
Wait ducks needs a goalie? Gibson hasn't been good? Didn't they chose him over Andersen this summer? Is he injured or something? I would understand Bernier but can a ducks fan chime in and tell me whats up with Gibson?
 

93Ducks

Go Ducks
May 15, 2010
1,490
15
It's gonna be Gibson or bust for the Ducks. He's young - he'll have rough patches they will need to ride out with him.
 

LTIR Trickery

Plz stop pucks
Jun 27, 2007
23,821
2,587
Scrip Club
Why would the ducks target Bishop? Gibson hasn't had the best start, but he'll come around. They need to shore up other parts of that roster.
 

Goose of Reason

El Zilcho
May 1, 2013
9,564
9,111
Wait ducks needs a goalie? Gibson hasn't been good? Didn't they chose him over Andersen this summer? Is he injured or something? I would understand Bernier but can a ducks fan chime in and tell me whats up with Gibson?

We "chose" him over Freddie because of contract demands when Gibson was much cheaper. You guys have the better goalie of the two. Gibson is pretty inconsistent still.
 

Vipers31

Advanced Stagnostic
Aug 29, 2008
20,351
2,094
Cologne, Germany
Wait ducks needs a goalie? Gibson hasn't been good? Didn't they chose him over Andersen this summer? Is he injured or something? I would understand Bernier but can a ducks fan chime in and tell me whats up with Gibson?

There's not much up with him. He's still young, and still has some holes in his game - there was a reason Freddie was the 1A last year, while Gibson was the 1B. If there really was any "choosing" between Gibson and Andersen, it wasn't a just short term decision in favour of Gibson. The financial aspects made it a rather obvious call - the cap hits may mask this, but the Ducks are paying $3.65M in actual dollars for goaltending right now, Freddie's new deal wouldn't have worked without big sacrifices elsewhere.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->