Oaklandblue wrote:You idiots decided that a choice HAD to be made.
Together, Ells and Allen were the two headed goalie monster we desperately needed. Calgary made Ells a Starter and has him riding pine. We could have done the exact same thing here and saved money, but thanks to people believing Jake Allen is a Starter (He is NOT, then again so isn't Elliott) and now you got a backup who has crap behind him and the funniest part is, yall are paying iirc twice the amount you were paying for Elliott and Allen. Should have kept the core together, but no, we HAD to make a choice? Just came back from the WCF, you'd THINK we would have kept the core together and built FROM it, not tear it apart. Like alot of the fans, a demand was made for immediate change through snap decisions with no forward thinking. Same kind of nonsense that has players like Lehtera on the dumb contract he is on and signing Yeo.
You basically signed Allen for the same kind of contract that Halak has; teams would like to have him in a role but simply can't afford the contract for his stats. Allen is 26. If he was going to show real signs of improvement, now would have been the time. He was given the opportunity and like all other opportunities he is given -alone-, he has fallen apart. Check the Blues numbers on opportunities they give the opposing teams on shots on goal, 'danger' areas and such. The system works for defense and has us in the top 10; this team just doesn't provide offense. Jake Allen doesn't have pressure to crumble under, but that's his MO and he is crumbling under it to the point where his stats and Ells stats, which are RISING at a phenomenal rate, is crumbling under the pressure.
While everything is not his fault, his play has been poor on a level that would have the backup in goal, and yes it's happen to Elliott at times, but at that point we had a goaltender we could turn to who could HELP carry the load. Allen can't carry it alone.
He will never, ever be a Starter and the longer yall delude yourselves with the fantasy of him being a Starter, the longer this will continue.
But this management is too high on the horse to admit they're wrong and get Elliott back and this management has mismanaged the contracts to the point that we can't afford a Starter without giving up more vital assets that we can't afford to lose.
Good work, guys.
I'm not going to say there isn't valid criticism to be had, but I think it's a little early for it and you're oversimplifying it.
When the trade happened I said something along the lines of, "I'd rather have 'Allen + Elliott' than 'Allen + (at the time) random backup + draft pick.'" I still feel that way, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable calculated gamble. Allen has been bad of late, but I still think he will be better than Elliott when all is said and done. If a decision had to be made, I would have chosen Allen then and I'd still choose Allen now.
As I said, I would have preferred Elliott + Allen. But, Elliott asked for a trade. Sure, they didn't have to honor his request. I'm not sure how it would have played out if they kept him. But, there was a history of problems between Elliott and Hitch, so it also would have been a risk keeping an unhappy player around that didn't want to be here.
It's also a bit early to judge Allen's career I think. He has been bad for ~2 months, give or take. His numbers have also trended down each month this season. That's concerning and I don't have tons of confidence in him at the moment. I think it's too early to write him off though. He's shown where his ceiling is. Maybe he won't get there on any sort of consistent basis. Some players don't. But, it would have been silly to judge him based on this mid-November stats (.914 SV%, 2.33GAA through a ~cherry picked 11-19). It's also kinda silly to say he's garbage based on his horrendous numbers since that point.
.