HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Tampa Bay Lightning (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Confirmed with Link: [TB/OTT] Ben Bishop to TB for Cory Conacher and a 4th round pick (2013) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1394061)

Jacko95 04-03-2013 07:52 AM

[TB/OTT] Ben Bishop to TB for Cory Conacher and a 4th round pick (2013)
 
Well I somehow have the feeling that he could be a Lightning soon, I know we all (me included) said we don't need him, but EE said no talks about Miller, no talks about Luongo (I really hope so), and we need another solid goalie.
And Janus decided he will stay in the KHL for one more year: http://www.hcslovan.sk/en/spravy/jan...second-season/

So I start to like the idea to get Bishop, at least he would give us an upgrade over Garon as backup and the chance that one of two goalies pans out is higher than one of one. :naughty:

For the right price, I would be willing to trade for him.
I think they would want an AHL goalie back, along with a 2nd/ good prospect.

As I am not that sure if Panik will really hit his ceilling, I would be willing to trade Panik and Helenius/Desjardins for him.
But I would prefer to make it Brown and one of the goalies.
And 2nd and one of the goalies would be okay as well for me.

The YzerJesus 04-03-2013 08:13 AM

Do not want

2 Weekes Notice 04-03-2013 08:14 AM

Just can't say I'm sure about Bishop. I do think he's more advanced than Lindback at the moment, but I also think he would put us at a really weird organizational logjam at goalie, especially if we have to give up something of value for him.

I think I'm of the mind that if you acquire Bishop, you have to try to recoup some of Lindback's value. Otherwise, you've invested an absurd amount of picks into 3 young, fairly unproven goalies. It feels like buying a bunch of scratch-off tickets just because you're more likely to win with several.

Xenophobia Catalyst 04-03-2013 08:21 AM

I do not think he is the answer.

Jacko95 04-03-2013 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Weekes Notice (Post 63116519)
Just can't say I'm sure about Bishop. I do think he's more advanced than Lindback at the moment, but I also think he would put us at a really weird organizational logjam at goalie, especially if we have to give up something of value for him.

I think I'm of the mind that if you acquire Bishop, you have to try to recoup some of Lindback's value. Otherwise, you've invested an absurd amount of picks into 3 young, fairly unproven goalies. It feels like buying a bunch of scratch-off tickets just because you're more likely to win with several.

Right now we have an incredible logjam at top6 prospects and we will have to move one or two of them, they can't all play for us. And I would prefer to have a logjam at a position, we have sucked for years than on our strongest postion.

I don't think we would destroy anything. Let's say both pan out to be solid starter goalies. We can play them 50-50 next year and the year after, then we can still move one of them to a team for picks/prospects and maybe get even more than we paid. If Lindbäck doesn't pan out, we have a real problem until Vasya comes. So Bishop gives us insurance.

Right now I can't see any good backup on the FA market this summer and we need an upgrade over Garon.

2 Weekes Notice 04-03-2013 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacko95 (Post 63117031)
Right now we have an incredible logjam at top6 prospects and we will have to move one or two of them, they can't all play for us. And I would prefer to have a logjam at a position, we have sucked for years than on our strongest postion.

I don't think we would destroy anything. Let's say both pan out to be solid starter goalies. We can play them 50-50 next year and the year after, then we can still move one of them to a team for picks/prospects and maybe get even more than we paid. If Lindbäck doesn't pan out, we have a real problem until Vasya comes. So Bishop gives us insurance.

Right now I can't see any good backup on the FA market this summer and we need an upgrade over Garon.

Well, sure, but it's a weird logjam because it's a logjam of could-bes. Ottawa has a logjam too, but they've got a bona-fide #1, a backup with upside, and a stud prospect. That's a nice set of goalie to have. If we acquire Bishop, we'd have a good backup with upside, a developing backup with upside, a known backup, and a stud prospect (a few years away). That doesn't seem to solve much, certainly not at the rumored cost of 2nd + prospect.

I agree that we have a logjam of forward prospects. That's why, if we do clear some of them out, I'd rather see it for something closer to an established #1, so that our goalie depth can resemble Ottawa's instead of....post-lockout Tampa Bay.

2 Weekes Notice 04-03-2013 08:47 AM

FWIW, I think Bishop ends up in Philadelphia.

One question that brings up: what happens if Philly amnesties Bryz? Would a (remarkably) less obnoxious atmosphere and a new (absolutely non-Frantz Jean) GK coach be able to coax some of the better Bryz back out of the guy? He might be willing to sign on the relative cheap if he's getting paid out the balance of his Philly contract anyway.

Not that I think it's a basket we should be putting eggs into, but I'm just not sure if I've heard any speculation. Obviously it would be during the offseason.

Benders Lindyhop 04-03-2013 08:49 AM

Holy crap, this thing has legs on it. Apparently we've been inquiring about him. Bad idea Stevie.

Oops, my bad. It was just a Garrioch tweet. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Felonious Python 04-03-2013 08:55 AM

SN reports that TB made an outside call to see what Ottawa wants for Bishop.

Alivesi 04-03-2013 09:03 AM

Janus, in Sweden with Slovak national team, said of story he will be with HC Slovan in 13-14, "They made it up, like a rumor or something." Don't scratch janus out....

MattM92 04-03-2013 09:07 AM

If Yzerman makes this trade, he is officially losing 'SFY' status with me. Ridiculous trade to make that won't help us at all. There is absolutely no point to have 2 young goaltenders that need games to develop, where are we going to find playing time for both guys. I believe in Lindback and I see him being a very good #1 goalie, but only if he gets playing time. The only goalie I'd be willing to give up more assets for is AN ESTABLISHED #1. Hear that Stevie?! Don't make this ****ing senseless trade!!

TBLbrian 04-03-2013 09:09 AM

we need a 2b guy for next year. If the cost is low, why not?

who else is going to be Lindback's backup next year? Goalie competition is a good thing. Not saying Bishop is the answer but its a body with NHL games

The Fear Boners 04-03-2013 09:09 AM

Janus isn't going to be in Europe next year. He wants back over.

As for saying Bishop is more advanced than Lindback... I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Benders Lindyhop 04-03-2013 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattM92 (Post 63119721)
If Yzerman makes this trade, he is officially losing 'SFY' status with me. Ridiculous trade to make that won't help us at all. There is absolutely no point to have 2 young goaltenders that need games to develop, where are we going to find playing time for both guys. I believe in Lindback and I see him being a very good #1 goalie, but only if he gets playing time. The only goalie I'd be willing to give up more assets for is AN ESTABLISHED #1. Hear that Stevie?! Don't make this ****ing senseless trade!!

I understand, but I actually think it could work out. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, I would rather have Miller, but it could work. Split the time, maybe a touch in favor of Bishop. Have two good, young, huge developed goalies. At the very least one becomes a great future trade piece.

MattM92 04-03-2013 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBLbrian (Post 63119857)
we need a 2b guy for next year. If the cost is low, why not?

who else is going to be Lindback's backup next year? Goalie competition is a good thing. Not saying Bishop is the answer but its a body with NHL games

No team has ever won with a 1A/1B. We need a #1 and a #2. That's it. If we don't trade for an ESTABLISHED #1, then ride Lindback for 60 games next year. That's it.

Felonious Python 04-03-2013 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattM92 (Post 63120099)
No team has ever won with a 1A/1B. We need a #1 and a #2. That's it. If we don't trade for an ESTABLISHED #1, then ride Lindback for 60 games next year. That's it.

Niemi/Crawford

TBLbrian 04-03-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattM92 (Post 63120099)
No team has ever won with a 1A/1B. We need a #1 and a #2. That's it. If we don't trade for an ESTABLISHED #1, then ride Lindback for 60 games next year. That's it.

even if he is just a backup, we still need another goalie. Of course I'd rather have a top tier goalie, but Garon will not be back IMO

RussianGuyovich 04-03-2013 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattM92 (Post 63120099)
No team has ever won with a 1A/1B. We need a #1 and a #2. That's it. If we don't trade for an ESTABLISHED #1, then ride Lindback for 60 games next year. That's it.

Khabi/Grahame

Vieille Barbe 04-03-2013 09:22 AM

However this all plays out, if it's true there has been no interest in Miller or Luongo, we're basically saying the Bolts head into next season without a proven NHL starter in goal - again. Not saying acquiring Miller or Luongo would be a good move, but here we go down the same road again, just with a different cast on board.

From my seats, Lindback looked like he could still could pan out, so it's not such a negative outlook. Just uncertain, as usual.

Xenophobia Catalyst 04-03-2013 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianGuyovich (Post 63120689)
Khabi/Grahame

Not even close. Grahame was no where near #1 status.

2 Weekes Notice 04-03-2013 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBLbrian (Post 63119857)
we need a 2b guy for next year. If the cost is low, why not?

who else is going to be Lindback's backup next year? Goalie competition is a good thing. Not saying Bishop is the answer but its a body with NHL games

I think therein lies the problem with Bishop, if the rumors are any indication.

MattM92 04-03-2013 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felonious Python (Post 63120241)
Niemi/Crawford

That year was a fluke because they played the circus of Phili in the Finals. And even so, that's 1 in the past 10+ years in special circumstances. You think those are good odds? Plus don't forgot that Chicago had/has 2 #1 dmen in Keith and Seabrook. We have 1 that is still developing. You can have a mediocre defense with a strong tender or a strong defense with a mediocre goaltender and have a chance at success. We have a mediocre defense and a mediocre tender. Can't win with that

MattM92 04-03-2013 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianGuyovich (Post 63120689)
Khabi/Grahame

Umm, Khabi was the #1. Just because Grahame played well in 20 games doesn't mean he was a 1B

Felonious Python 04-03-2013 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattM92 (Post 63122425)
That year was a fluke because they played the circus of Phili in the Finals. And even so, that's 1 in the past 10+ years in special circumstances. You think those are good odds? Plus don't forgot that Chicago had/has 2 #1 dmen in Keith and Seabrook. We have 1 that is still developing. You can have a mediocre defense with a strong tender or a strong defense with a mediocre goaltender and have a chance at success. We have a mediocre defense and a mediocre tender. Can't win with that

I'd rather be lucky than good.

MattM92 04-03-2013 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felonious Python (Post 63122579)
I'd rather be lucky than good.

Really? I'd rather be both.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.