View Single Post
Old
04-03-2013, 08:34 AM
  #6
2 Weekes Notice
Registered User
 
2 Weekes Notice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Non-traditional Land
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacko95 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote