Confirmed with Link: Bishop traded to Stars for 4th round pick
- Thread starter regulate
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Pandaman11
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2009
- 2,830
- 1,316
deeshamrock
Registered User
Darling isn't a 'backup' , he's a very good (.923 save % over the last 3 years, 4th behind Price, Dubnyk and Holtby) goalie who was on a team that had a legit starter. Now he'll get the chance to grow his game more, by playing more minutes as a starter. Something he deserves. And without the points he got for them, they would not have been as successful, esp this year and wouldn't have finished first.
https://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/hurricanes/scott-darling-next-cam-talbot/
I think the Canes hit a home run, goalie and #1 center were the holes they had to fill. And I think the rumors that they will move Faulk to get one will come to fruition. I watched a lot of their games this year, fun team to watch and a good team on the rise. Good group of young forwards and a really good young D. This is a perfect fit for him.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Darling and his agent actually didn't have any contact or knowledge of Canes interest in him before trade
Darling is younger and has presumably lower contract demands. More upside. Sure Bishop has more of a pedigree but he's older with higher contract demands. Also heading towards the tail end of his peak. Bish has a injury history greater than Darling.
I'm glad to get a 4th.
I'm glad to get a 4th.
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,196
- 24,109
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
kovacro
Uvijek Vjerni
Dunno if I would trade Faulk. Really good piece to continue to build with on the backend. I would prefer to hold onto him if I was the Canes.
I guess with the emergence of guys like Slavin and Pesce, it gives them options. Not sure what to make of Hanifin as of yet but it's still early days.
Btw, love Aho, exciting player and had an under the radar strong rookie season. Going to be a solid player in this league who will have the ability to consistently pot 30 goals/season.
Last edited:
Clearly Bishop wanted to go to Dallas. Weird that he's talking like he already signed there. Don't know why some of you are so upset about getting a pick for a UFA we weren't going to sign.
deeshamrock
Registered User
Me too, has all the tools and knows how to use them, he has a bright future. As for Faulk, love his game but they have a good crop of young d and more in the wings. And they do not have a #1 center, without which, they won't go anywhere. Good young talent at forward, need to get the center now. You have to give to get. And he'll get them Duchene, I think.
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,196
- 24,109
I'm not upset about getting a pick back in the slightest.
These circumstances, though some understandable, frustrate me though:
1) trading for Bishop in the first place
2) even if you want to justify acquiring him, the Kings acquiring him when Quick returned is nuts. They had games 2-60 to "go for it"
3) getting less for a Vezina finalist than a career backup
I am glad Blake salvaged something out of it, but that doesn't make things taste any less bitter.
deeshamrock
Registered User
I think he could He's never been given the opportunity until now, to become a legit #1. He's shown he can do it, every time he's been asked. He's not only younger but hasn't been the yearly injury risk that Bishop has become. I think he'll give the Canes security in net and thrive in that role.
And Bishop will be getting something in the 6-7M per neighborhood (x 6 reportedly). He deserved the Vezina nomination that year but this year, he had great numbers. But that was the anomaly. His GAA in every other year he's been in the league,taking out the high and low is a career 2.47. This past year,
he wasn't so good, but maybe part of that was seeing the handwriting on the wall.
There's no guarantee he'll find that 2.06 year again, given his history, he's more in the 2.3 to 2.4 range.
He's a good goalie, best of luck to him. But I wouldn't give him a multi year 6-7M deal.
And props to Dallas for rolling out the red carpet, but Bishop's agent will still go for the best deal. I don't think he'd want Vegas, they are too far away from a legit run in the next few years, but Calgary isn't. And they made it known that they wanted him. Jets could use an upgrade. Will all of that make Nill trigger happy?
Does that mean Nill overpays??? Maybe...
deeshamrock
Registered User
Didn't like the trade, and it didn't make them any better, they were worse after Quick came back. But I get the 'why' team wasn't scoring and Lombardi felt with two number one's tandem, they would have a better chance at winning 2-1 games. It backfired.
Career backup? He's been in the league 3 yrs, not 13. And his numbers thru those 70 are a lot better than Bishops thru his first 70. He's not a backup, he was on a team that had a #1, not unlike Martin Jones situation. And that was (by reports) the best offer the Kings had. Bishop can sign where he wants July 1, it doesn't have to be Dallas. Why give up a pick for that?
KingsFan7824
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2003
- 19,537
- 7,615
People aren't upset about getting a pick, it's that it wasn't a higher pick. If Dallas was a specific spot he wanted to go to though, even getting a 4th is good.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2003
- 19,537
- 7,615
I don't get it. What were you expecting? Tampa traded him, and a 5th rd pick, for another UFA goalie, a prospect that was drafted 2 years ago, and a 7th rd pick. He seems to want to sign with Dallas, because he went to high school in the area or whatever. Basically the Kings got a 4th and a 5th for Cernak and a 7th. If Cernak turns into a solid top 4 defensemen, then we can cry. Until then, what is wrong with a 4th for Bishop(or getting Bishop to begin with), who basically controls where his rights were traded to if he wanted to go somewhere specifically?
Where is the ouch?
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Reclamation Project
Cut It All Right In Two
- Jul 6, 2011
- 34,135
- 3,783
deeshamrock
Registered User
as stated, a misdirected 'ouch'. And also the best offer of the few (3?) they got. He's a UFA, and that was fair for the situation to get the first dibs at signing. Doesn't mean he'll sign, so GM's not going to offer much
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
I'll post it again because i think SHeng had a good take.
Like he says, Bishop wasn't great, but we rented him for 7 decent games played and got a good return on investment considering.
It would certainly look a lot better had we made the playoffs because of that, but going from essentially a 2nd and 7th to a 4th and a 5th is probably pretty close to the normal cost of doing business.
Like he says, Bishop wasn't great, but we rented him for 7 decent games played and got a good return on investment considering.
It would certainly look a lot better had we made the playoffs because of that, but going from essentially a 2nd and 7th to a 4th and a 5th is probably pretty close to the normal cost of doing business.
kingsfan28
Its A Kingspiracy !
Bishop , like Quick was good enough to win, unfortunately the team in front couldn't score. I think the Kings only scored more than 2 goals twice in all his starts. We still got something out of the deal instead of him just walking and signing with Calgary, who really wanted him from what I've read.
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Reclamation Project
Cut It All Right In Two
- Jul 6, 2011
- 34,135
- 3,783
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
And they're so money with their second rounders that they haven't found any NHL quality talent in that round since 2010. Yet somehow, I'm called out for being too critical when pointing out that little fact.
Selections like Simmonds, Voynov and Toffoli have been far fewer over the past seven years.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2003
- 19,537
- 7,615
Is there a no doubt guy they should've taken instead? It's not a wasted pick. It's just a pick. Some work, most don't. They didn't lose him for nothing, they turned him into another pick. A lower pick in a weaker draft, but they still didn't lose him for nothing.
There's no money round. The future down in the draft, the more you take a shot with a pick, and sometimes they work out really well. Teams have what, a 30% chance of taking a player in the 2nd round that plays 100 games? If the Kings happened to go 3 or 4 consecutive seasons where they got a guy in the 2nd round that was a productive player for years and years, that's bucking the trend. That's tremendous, and one of the reasons they were able to win as much as they did. A 30% chance is basically 1 out of every 3 drafts you could get a player beyond the 1st round. They went from 2007 to 2010 with getting someone. So in the 10 drafts since 2007, they got 4 guys in the 2nd round. That's much closer to 30% than the 100% run they were on. Go all the way back to Lombardi's first draft here, and 4 out of 11 is that much closer to 30%. Things even out over time. It's a regression to the mean.
The Kings lucked out for a while.
