total BS Elliot came into training camp on a 2 way deal won the back up position and dominated the league as one of the best goalies last year in the entire NHL. craig anderson didn't play as well as elliot did... and you expect Bishop to beat him out?
Are you suggesting St Louis knew Elliott was a better goaltender than Bishop on July 1, 2011 when they signed him?
What Elliott achieved after the fact has no bearing on decisions made months prior.
St Louis must have had concerns about Bishop's readiness for the NHL, realizing (as Qward has pointed out) they would lose Bishop if he didn't play in at least 15 NHL games that season.
The point, St Louis obviously didn't think Bishop was a sure thing, as some fans on this board do.
As far as Elliott being one of the best goaltenders or dominant, some may think this is pure BS.
Elliott had a great 38 games statisically, no debating this fact.
However Elliott faced half the number of shots of top goaltenders like Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, and Smith. Elliott definitely benefited playing behind the best defensive team in the NHL through the regular season.
When it really mattered, he posted a .904SA% and 2.37GAA, not dominant numbers by any stretch of the imagination.
Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 11-30-2012 at 12:01 PM.
4: They knew they were going to lose him at the end of the season. So they moved him for the best they could get. A 2nd from Ottawa.
Next time you want to call me out, have the evidence to back it up.
Called you out, not at all.
I stated where he finished the year, which I took from the AHL site. According to the AHL site, Bishop had a .928 SA%, 2.26GAA when he was traded, almost identical to the way he finished the year.
I agree Ben needed 15 more NHL games for St Louis to maintained his rights, which really was the point of my response.
If Bishop was as "many consider him to be the best goalie in the AHL" and according to the GM "they were very equal in training camp", why would St Louis be so prepared to lose him? Armstrong claims the decision was made because of Elliott's experience, he must have missed the 2010/11 season.
IMO if St Louis believed he had the potential some of the Senators fans now suggest, giving Bishop 15 games to maintain his rights would have been a no-brainer.
Armstrong may have made a mistake, the Sens the benefactor. However I haven't seen enough from Bishop to make that judgement regardless of what his stats were in 2011/12.
I also believe Murray felt the same way, only signing him for one year, a year unfortunately that may be wiped out.
In my experience 99.9% of the time where a prospect is demoted, doesn't get a call up, or traded results in the GM saying nice things about that player.
This is a fact, not necessarily what the GM says.
Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 11-30-2012 at 01:53 PM.