Brian Elliott to Calgary for 35th pick & Cond 2018 3rd Rd

[midgensa]

Count me as one who has very little problem with this trade other than sentiment.

Jake Allen is six years younger ... and almost unarguably more TALENTED than Brian Elliott. His numbers are not THAT different from Elliott's over the last couple of years, despite getting less time in the net. But ... there is also little argument that Elliott consistently exceeds his talent level and has really been a grinder at times.

But lets be honest here ... Elliott was a reason we struggled against the Sharks. He makes good saves regularly, rarely gives a bad goal ... but a stronger netminder often outshines him. I, personally, never felt we would win a Cup with Elliott.

His numbers are very much a product of our defensive (or lack of caring about offense?) system and I think many mid-tier goalies would look better with us than they actually are.

In the end ... only Elliott or Allen was going to be the guy here and having the two of them together only caused more back-and-forth than was needed. One of them had to go, Elliott saw it, and requested it.

We got some value in return, I am sure that we let it be known we were shopping him and this was the best offer we got ... so we move on.

I will miss Moose. I think he played his heart out for us. I will always be thrilled knowing we got more out of him than any thought he had. I will remember this past playoff run very fondly (as I do with CuJo's best runs), but it was time to move on.

I wish him nothing but the best in Calgary, and I am ready for the Jake Allen era to begin.

[Mojo_Jojo]

The Jake Allen era will be over almost as quickly as it began. Mark my words.

I hope Husso is everything richter sais he is and he gets here fast.

[glen a richter]

The way some of you guys are talking, it's like Jake Allen slept with your sister. He's not a bad goalie. He'll be fine and y'all need to relax. If you want to talk about guys who never won the Cup in the note you can go ahead and list everyone. Someone will be the first, or they won't. Who knows? It could just as easily be Allen who does it, or Binnington or Husso or whoever. I think the plan all along was Husso, and this brings them a step closer by locking him in at #1 on the Wolves for the season. Binnington and Copley suffered the same fate that Elliott/Allen did--a tandem that neither could really get going. Having the #1 to himself, at least for this season, will be mentally and developmentally good for both Jake at the NHL level and Ville at the AHL level.

[WaukeeBlues]

Am I missing something here?

People are talking about Phoenix Copley and Jordan Binnington in the past tense like we traded them or they died.

I am assuming they are still in our system?

In any event, the other positive that this trade has is opening a bit more healthy competition between our goalie prospects, yes.

[ecbm]

Blues will now pay $5.5M for goalies next season who will in all likelihood be less effective than this season and who, combined, have exactly 8 playoff starts between them.

I don't get this, I really don't.

[WaukeeBlues]

Blues will now pay $5.5M for goalies next season who will in all likelihood be less effective than this season and who, combined, have exactly 8 playoff starts between them.

I don't get this, I really don't.

True but Jake Allen's experience with Minnesota I think will be invaluable moving forward.

[ecbm]

Blues will now pay $5.5M for goalies next season who will in all likelihood be less effective than this season and who, combined, have exactly 8 playoff starts between them.

I don't get this, I really don't.

True but Jake Allen's experience with Minnesota I think will be invaluable moving forward.

Maybe? He didn't play very well against a team that isn't offensively gifted. I really don't understand why you wouldn't just give Elliott the starting job after last season. I'd trust him & Binnington or Copley more than Allen & Hutton. Salaries would have been a wash, Allen could have been traded for a prospect/pick and Elliott given a 3-year deal to keep the seat warm for Copley or Husso, who seem like the real prospects in the system.

I just don't get how a management set up who thought Allen merited not even a sniff in the playoffs have decided he's the man going forward. And why not extend him before shipping Elliott when, you know, you have leverage?

It's seeming to me like dealing Shattenkirk at the draft was the cornerstone of Armstrong's offseason plans and now he's flailing. Signing Perron seems completely off the wall-Rattie's quite likely to be at least as productive. Are they looking to waste cap space intentionally? Did I mention that I don't get it?

[dmiles2186]

Blues will now pay $5.5M for goalies next season who will in all likelihood be less effective than this season and who, combined, have exactly 8 playoff starts between them.

I don't get this, I really don't.

You are leaving out the part that Ells asked the Blues to trade him if he wasn't going to be #1.

That and for all the flack Army gets for bad contracts (and some are warranted), the Blues have been extremely fortunate since acquiring Halak and Ells and then promoting Jake up to the NHL that they were getting incredible bang for their buck in goaltending. I mean, look at Dallas' goaltending situation...they pay somewhere around 8 mil combined for two crap goalies. The Blues going with the 1a/1b model for years allowed them to get contracts below their market value while getting league elite numbers. That wasn't going to last forever.

Ells forcing the issue (as well as impending UFA and expansion draft taking one of them away from us for nothing) brought us out of that era.

[glen a richter]

Gents, it's so obvious what's going on here. Allen for 4 years, Hutton for 2. The expectation is that Vegas won't draft either of them. When Hutton's contract is up, Husso will have logged two full seasons in Chicago and be ready to be Allen's NHL back-up for two seasons. Five seasons from now when Husso is 25/26 years old, he'll be stepping into the #1 role for the next decade. I'm not against this plan because I think we have the team in front of the goalies to not suck for five years. Allen isn't chopped chicken liver and Hutton is a fine backup who will do perfectly well in the role. Let's not jump off any bridges.

[ecbm]

You are leaving out the part that Ells asked the Blues to trade him if he wasn't going to be #1.

Sorry for the delay-was away without access to internet. The #1 part here is key. Elliott only asked to be traded because he wasn't going to be the #1. I'd really like it explained how Elliott, who had been the starter since Allen went down including throughout the playoffs, was deemed not up to being the #1 but Allen, who only got a start in the playoffs when Elliott faltered and then Hitchcock went right back Elliott, was deemed to be a suitable #1 essentially the day after the season ends. Not only that, he's so worthy he gets a huge raise.

I don't get it, I really don't. I've been as willing to criticize Elliott as anyone but in the second half and the playoffs he did far more to show me he's a starter than Allen (who is talented and may work out fine) ever has. That's without even considering that Allen has melted under pressure at several levels.

Personally, I would have given Elliott the deal they gave Allen, given Allen basically the deal they gave Hutton. The draft pick is particularly uninspiring considering the Blues paid an extra pick to move up two spots in round one to take a massive reach.

[cardsfan04]

You are leaving out the part that Ells asked the Blues to trade him if he wasn't going to be #1.

Sorry for the delay-was away without access to internet. The #1 part here is key. Elliott only asked to be traded because he wasn't going to be the #1. I'd really like it explained how Elliott, who had been the starter since Allen went down including throughout the playoffs, was deemed not up to being the #1 but Allen, who only got a start in the playoffs when Elliott faltered and then Hitchcock went right back Elliott, was deemed to be a suitable #1 essentially the day after the season ends. Not only that, he's so worthy he gets a huge raise.

I don't get it, I really don't. I've been as willing to criticize Elliott as anyone but in the second half and the playoffs he did far more to show me he's a starter than Allen (who is talented and may work out fine) ever has. That's without even considering that Allen has melted under pressure at several levels.

Personally, I would have given Elliott the deal they gave Allen, given Allen basically the deal they gave Hutton. The draft pick is particularly uninspiring considering the Blues paid an extra pick to move up two spots in round one to take a massive reach.

I'm mostly speculating, but here's what I think the Blues were thinking. I think they decided that they weren't going to extend Elliott and wanted Allen to take over as the number 1. With both only signed through next season (prior to Allen's extension), they probably didn't want to risk Allen leaving because he wasn't the #1 and Elliott leaving (either by his choice or theirs) and being in a pickle in net.

I hate to go Blues apologist on this, but from a business/security standpoint, the route they took makes sense if for no other reason than it's safer than risking losing both after the year. At the least I think it's defensible. If we lost both next offseason, people would have Armstrong's head.

[ecbm]

I think they decided that they weren't going to extend Elliott and wanted Allen to take over as the number 1.

Yeah, buy the question is why they would extend Allen and not Elliott. That's exactly what I don't understand. Goalies have relatively long careers and frankly Allen has proven nothing at this point other than that he's an ok NHL goalie behind an awesome defense...in the regular season.

it's safer than risking losing both after the year.

But you wouldn't lose both next year, only one-which we have done anyway. If Elliott wouldn't/couldn't be extended, he walks and you protect Allen and a scrap heap backup. I think another year of a quality starter at $2.5M is worth A Carter Hutton is available as an FA at any given time.

What am I missing here?

[cardsfan04]

I think they decided that they weren't going to extend Elliott and wanted Allen to take over as the number 1.

Yeah, buy the question is why they would extend Allen and not Elliott. That's exactly what I don't understand. Goalies have relatively long careers and frankly Allen has proven nothing at this point other than that he's an ok NHL goalie behind an awesome defense...in the regular season.

it's safer than risking losing both after the year.

But you wouldn't lose both next year, only one-which we have done anyway. If Elliott wouldn't/couldn't be extended, he walks and you protect Allen and a scrap heap backup. I think another year of a quality starter at $2.5M is worth A Carter Hutton is available as an FA at any given time.

What am I missing here?

I love what Elliott has done for us, but I think Allen has a bigger upside. And while Elliott isn't old per se, Allen being 6 years younger and heading into his prime instead of exiting it as Elliott is adds some value. While I fully supported Elliott being the number 1 last year (how could anybody not support that?), I've always liked Allen better longterm, especially with him being 6 years younger. I may end up being off the mark on Allen, but I fully expect him to be a very good starting goaltender in this league.

I believe Allen was going to be a free agent after the season, but maybe that was just RFA, not UFA. I was thinking we could have lost both to free agency, but I guess we could have matched an offer sheet if somebody went after Allen. Still, when you're cap-strapped, having to match an offer sheet on a promising young goaltender isn't ideal though.

[Robb_K]

Allen is 6 years younger, more athletic, and thus, still has a decent upside potential. He has been adequate and should get better. With both becoming free agents soon, and Elliott a UFA, and the expansion draft coming, it was clear that The Blues needed to get rid of one of them. Elliott was playing a bit better than Allen, but, in no way is he a difference-maker goalie. He is fairly steady, behind a strong defence, but, so was Allen this season until his injury. Both of them have some holes in their games. I think they made the right move in moving Elliott. He hasn't proven he can keep up a strong level of play playing the majority of games in a full season. Although he improved his positioning, rebound control greatly, and even his stickhandling (a bit), he still is a much weaker stickhandler than Allen, and that skill is important in The Blues possession game, which needs quick exits from the team's own zone. Elliott still weakens after several straight games, and has the odd weak game.

The difference between goaltenders' abilities are less important to teams with strong defences. It is better for them to put more money into their scoring capabilities.

I think that Allen has matured enough to play adequately for this team, even if he doesn't improve tremendously. If so, he can hold the fort until Husso can take over. And if he DOES turn into a Top 10-12 NHL goalie, The Blues will be in good shape.

[Oaklandblue]

Allen is 6 years younger, more athletic, and thus, still has a decent upside potential. He has been adequate and should get better. With both becoming free agents soon, and Elliott a UFA, and the expansion draft coming, it was clear that The Blues needed to get rid of one of them. Elliott was playing a bit better than Allen, but, in no way is he a difference-maker goalie. He is fairly steady, behind a strong defence, but, so was Allen this season until his injury. Both of them have some holes in their games. I think they made the right move in moving Elliott. He hasn't proven he can keep up a strong level of play playing the majority of games in a full season. Although he improved his positioning, rebound control greatly, and even his stickhandling (a bit), he still is a much weaker stickhandler than Allen, and that skill is important in The Blues possession game, which needs quick exits from the team's own zone. Elliott still weakens after several straight games, and has the odd weak game.

The difference between goaltenders' abilities are less important to teams with strong defences. It is better for them to put more money into their scoring capabilities.

I think that Allen has matured enough to play adequately for this team, even if he doesn't improve tremendously. If so, he can hold the fort until Husso can take over. And if he DOES turn into a Top 10-12 NHL goalie, The Blues will be in good shape.

Let me make sure I got this straight:

1. We are paying more for goaltending but you're saying 'it is better for them to let Elliott go and put the money they are saving on this into scoring?'

2. Brian Elliott IS the better netminder over Jake Allen. Regular season they are about a wash, but come playoff time and Jake Allen falls apart or maybe you missed the Wild series or ANY of his pre-NHL playoff games. They're pretty bad and I'd advise you to seek them out.

3. "For a backup", Brian Elliott puts a great deal of starting netminders to shame with consistant stats since he wore Blue. I also advise that you seek those out, some of which actually led the league in areas -- I have yet to see a single stat that Jake Allen has led among even the mid-range netminders in this league.

4. Brian Elliott owns some hardware and the majority of St. Louis Blues franchise netminding records for playing backup netminding minutes. That alone says a great deal on it's own.

5. If we allowed Ells to start and had him and Jake Allen together, the chance of one or the other getting injured is a doable situation - both are good enough to carry the other for the most part. But if Jake gets hurts, our backup needs to be able to play starter minutes, something no netminder in many, many moons has done for this team - durability may become a possible issue.

6. Brian Elliott kept his job despite the front office not liking him over the likes of Halak, Miller and even Allen. You don't give away a guy with that kind of perserverance. Those are the kind of guys you desperately need, who will carry you to a Cup.

7. You don't break up the core of a team coming off the WCF and Elliott was a primary part of it. You tool around, upgrade offense and go after the Cup, especially with an expansion team on the horizon. With the amount of netminders 'downstairs', it simply isn't necessary.

8. Every single postseason series victory has come with Elliott in net and the same group that played in front of Elliott for the most part, played in front of Miller.

In short, there is not a rational, sensible reason on any realm of reality or even fantasy that we couldn't have said 'Elliott, this is yours to lose' and see what happens; it would not have affected anything and if we lost Elliott or chose to let him walk, Allen would still be the man. I feel like people on this forum think he's the next Ben Bishop instead of what he actually is: a backup netminder.

Everything the front office has done has been fast, off-the-hip responses that has done nothing but weaken the team as a whole, from signing Hitch to a one year contract which simply does not happen in the NHL, to signing a four-year contract for a coach the team hasn't even met yet and the front office has no idea how he will work into their system. Too much emphasis on a future that is idealized in boardrooms and lunches with staff who want to discuss the future... the real future is now and they're too blind to see it.

[Oaklandblue]

The way some of you guys are talking, it's like Jake Allen slept with your sister. He's not a bad goalie. He'll be fine and y'all need to relax. If you want to talk about guys who never won the Cup in the note you can go ahead and list everyone. Someone will be the first, or they won't. Who knows? It could just as easily be Allen who does it, or Binnington or Husso or whoever. I think the plan all along was Husso, and this brings them a step closer by locking him in at #1 on the Wolves for the season. Binnington and Copley suffered the same fate that Elliott/Allen did--a tandem that neither could really get going. Having the #1 to himself, at least for this season, will be mentally and developmentally good for both Jake at the NHL level and Ville at the AHL level.

Selling the Rivermen was a huge, huge mistake.

[ecbm]

While I fully supported Elliott being the number 1 last year (how could anybody not support that?), I've always liked Allen better longterm, especially with him being 6 years younger.

Who would you have started in that final game of the Sharks series? If Allen, why? If Elliott, why would you decide the next day that he can't be a starter? Age really doesn't matter. Goalies have relatively long careers, the Blues have a farm stocked with quality goalie prospects and Allen had to be extended anyway.

In short, there is not a rational, sensible reason on any realm of reality or even fantasy that we couldn't have said 'Elliott, this is yours to lose' and see what happens

Exactly. Unless that 6 years of age difference means more to the decision-maker than the actual quality of the player and the team, since

Brian Elliott IS the better netminder over Jake Allen. Regular season they are about a wash, but come playoff time and Jake Allen falls apart or maybe you missed the Wild series or ANY of his pre-NHL playoff games.

and

You don't break up the core of a team coming off the WCF and Elliott was a primary part of it.

and

Every single postseason series victory has come with Elliott in net and the same group that played in front of Elliott for the most part, played in front of Miller.

Been watching this team for 30+ years and I'm very weary of planning for a future that never comes.

[WaukeeBlues]

(1) What were the conditions on the 2018 pick? Do we know yet? I apologize if its in the post I just missed it.

(2) You guys can kick and scream all you want but we weren't taking Elliott and Allen into the offseason next year without one of them walking away for nothing; either via UFA or being claimed in the expansion draft. SO, we trade one now or we trade one later. Elliott's agent said flat out (deservedly so) that his client deserved to be a #1 goaltender in this league and if it wasn't his net he wanted to get dealt. Harsh reality #2: The Blues felt because of his talent and age that Allen was an increasing asset and Elliott probably a diminishing asset. One thing that is apparently lost on all of you is that the performance Brian Elliott put together in the second half of last season was an outlier for his entire career. Unlikely to be duplicated. Armstrong made a judgment call and one I don't fault him for: trade Elliott, get what you can for him right now (getting into the 2016 draft as a result, getting another asset in the pipeline NOW as opposed to a 2017 pick, etc), tab Allen as your man, who you were leaning towards anyway and go from there.

I still don't understand the vitriol with this trade. As much as I have hated some of Armstrong's moves in the past this one makes the most sense of almost any of the others he's done. But, that's just me.

[Toasted Oates]

Allen will be fine. He was great last year till he got hurt, probably came back too soon, and wasn't the same. Not to diminish Elliott and his contributions, but the truth is the truth. They can assess Jordan Kyrou down the road, but one thing's for sure: the 2017-18 season was coming without Elliott regardless.

The main concern should be the top 6 forwards. Backes and Brouwer leaving is fine, but who replaces that production? Doug said in a radio interview last week he expects 40 pts from Sobotka which is, frankly, absolute propaganda bullshit.

If they can't get on the scoreboard, the goaltending can only take them so far. They may be waiting on Schwartz's contract to trade Shatty so I'll wait till that shakes out before heading for the cliff's edge.

[glen a richter]

Before joining the Blues, Ells was crap. Whether he was the beneficiary of a great defense or a late bloomer is irrelevant. Probably both, but why can't Allen be the same? Upset because Elliott got us to our first WCF in ages? Where's the love for Roman Turek then?