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

[ecbm]

Ergo, you believe Elliott is better than Allen. If he's better, he ought to outperform the guy you think he's better than. Do you believe that?

Yes, I believe that. What follows from that is that Blues would have been better with Elliott than with Allen. There are myriad intervening factors involved in projecting how they'll compare on different teams. Though as a betting man, I'd probably take Elliott at this point. Consider this: Calgary actually allowed fewer shots per game than the Blues last season but were sunk by also having the worst team sv% in the league. I'm predicting Elliott alone probably has them in the playoffs next season. They also scored more goals per game than the Blues last season, are younger and have actually improved their roster. We may have a chance to directly regret this trade sooner than later...

So the Blues gave them, literally, exactly what they needed...for a second round pick.

Blues fans would rather foam at the mouth over who the goalie is than the deeper issues w/ the roster.

There are literally several posts on this very thread right here explaining how a critical view of this move fits into an evaluation of the Blues' front office generally. Moving Elliott for a second-to a team who desperately needs a goalie-to theoretically clear up cap space and then to spend $2M more than we did last season for what will likely be inferior goaltending while watching 2 of the team's other best performers in the playoffs walk and adding only Perron while being unable to lock up Schwartz says to some of us: there is no plan other than to keep the team ticking over, that is, there is no plan to ever get this team over the hump if it doesn't just happen on its own. (The most charitable reading is that there was a plan that blew up all over the launch pad when Edmonton wouldn't bite on 22.)Which clearly is not going to happen; that's not how it goes-thus, also, the comparison to the moves other more successful teams have made. All this stuff is related.

I'm expecting a significant-not necessarily disastrous-decline from the Blues next year, and I think that should get Armstrong fired. I'm not holding my breath though.

[WaukeeBlues]

Once again, I went into that post with the understanding of the FACT that Armstrong believes that Jake Allen is the future of this team in goal. At least for right now. You can argue if Armstrong should have felt that way but he did.

Again, pull up Elliott on hockeydb. Last season was an outlier. An aberration of an otherwise average to below/average career and prior to the second half of last season/playoffs was putting up numbers virtually on par with Jake Allen, who I, once again, feel to be a good goaltender.

100% agree that Minnesota loss was on the whole da*n team. You can't pick one player top to bottom and say "their fault." That's not fair.

We were also a double post away from losing that first round series to the Blackhawks before you go around parading how Elliott won it virtually single-handedly as you sound like you're saying. Also: Troy Brouwer scored the game winner and was NOT on the team two years ago so, again, no, not the same team. Not even close.

Multiples of you are screaming "win now" with little/no regard for the future. Oh ok so we should offer sheet every single phenomenal young player RFA yet to sign with their club? No? But you just said don't worry about the future?! Who cares about those 5 first round picks!? WIN NOW!!! </sarcasm> The best GM's in this league balance the desire to win immediately with an eye to not mortgaging too much of the future. No, this team is not better post Elliott trade than it was beforehand. I'm not arguing that. But it was a move I understand and Armstrong felt had to be made. Agree to disagree.

[glen a richter]

How many Cups did Brian Elliott win for the Blues? I forget, the way you guys are acting it's like he won three or four in a row. Correct answer: zero. How many Cups did Allen win? Also zero. As Blues fans, we should be well aware that we're still seeking Cup #1. We should also be aware that the problem with this team has run way deeper than the goaltending. Net is not an issue, and blaming Allen because the whole (Franking) team forgot how to play hockey against Minnesota is typical Blues fan mentality. Always blame the goalie. Forget that our offense is paper thin beyond a 2/3rds good 1st line (Lehtera freakin' sucks and doesn't belong any higher than 3rd line) and 2/3rds of a good 2nd line. I suspect the anger is more with Armstrong's general inactivity to create a better offensive team and since the biggest splash he made was trading Elliott we're focusing hard on how the team technically got worse.

Here's news: Jake Allen is good, Carter Hutton is good, our offense needs a facelift which is the wart on Armstrong this offseason. The offseason isn't over yet, and as teams get closer to camp and realize a more desperate need for defense, it's possible someone will grossly overpay for Shatty. Or he'll stay in the note, who knows. But getting pissed about a non-situation is ridiculous. We need offense, we've always needed offense. Trading for Bouwmeester and trading for Miller were trades just to make trades. They were Armstrong addressing non-needs, which is his biggest problem. Even if Elliott was still here, we still don't have the offense to go to the Cup so as much as you all loved Moose, it's irrelevant if the important needs aren't being met. Our defense is good enough to make any goalie successful, case in point: Elliott. Address the damn needs.

[ecbm]

Always blame the goalie.

For (Frank) sake, I'm getting really tired of the conflation of criticizing this trade and the belief that goaltending is the problem on this team. That's a red herring, a straw man-nobody is arguing that.

Can someone please explain to me how a 2nd-round pick makes it a good idea to go into next season with inferior goaltending that will cost more? Anyone? Anyone?

Again, pull up Elliott on hockeydb. Last season was an outlier.

Compared to his pre-Blues career (between the ages of 22-25, when he played 142 of his 322 total games) sure. But his numbers last year were his joint-second-highest win total for the Blues, his third-best GAA and his second-best sv%. These numbers are right in line with what he's done with the Blues and his development arc compares with other goalies like, say, Devan Dubnyk (good for a 6-year deal with a $4.3M cap hit with a playoff team)-both had their first good seasons as starters at age 26. And the "goalies who had multiple good seasons after their 30th birthday" club is a pretty good one: Hasek, Brodeur, Roy, Mike Vernon, Lundqvist, Fuhr, John Vanbiesbrouck, Belfour, Nikolai Khabibulin, Tom Barrasso, Vachon, Billy Smith, etc., etc.

As Blues fans, we should be well aware that we're still seeking Cup #1.

If you mean the club-I don't see it. I don't see how exchanging Elliott, Backes, Brouwer and probably Shattenkirk for Hutton, Perron and ? indicates that the Blues are going all out for a cup. Most commentators agree with me too, seeing the Blues as having taken a step back due to concerns about the cap down the line.

After last season, I should be as enthused about the Blues as I ever have been but that sure isn't how I feel.

[WaukeeBlues]

Also if you look at the top teams in each conference, virtually every single one of them either got worse or stayed roughly where they were at before.

Welcome to the salary cap. Where the top teams can't (usually) afford to keep everyone, have to make some tough decisions and let some good players go. I'm not implying Elliott being moved was strictly a cap move (though it helped), it's that the Blues aren't unique: Virtually every top team this offseason has gotten worse, not better. So this constant baggering of "why hasn't Armstrong made moves to improve?!" sometimes its just damage control. Ask Bowman.

I think '17-'18 may well be the closest points differential between #30 and #1 that we've ever seen in the salary cap era.

[glen a richter]

My point was we're crying about Elliott like he won us the Cup which he, like every other player who ever passed through St. Louis, never did.

I just don't get the vitriol towards Allen. Who says he'll fall on his face as a #1 and who says Elliott wouldn't have fallen on his face as a #1? It's impossible to guarantee the increased workload wouldn't have been bad for Elliott. He was never a #1 anywhere and now he will be in Calgary, and I bet his stats at the end of the season reads more like a satisfactory #1 than an elite.

My problem with the trade was never trading Elliott, it was the lousy return. I don't think anyone would be bitching so vehemently if the return was, say, Johnny Gaurdreau... addressing a clear need for a scoring winger.

[Toasted Oates]

Can someone please explain to me how a 2nd-round pick makes it a good idea to go into next season with inferior goaltending that will cost more? Anyone?

Allen's raise doesn't kick in until 2017-18, so he won't cost more this year. Then again, when you say "will" you could mean the season after next. I don't want to assume.

The pick...it is what it is. The Ducks got a couple picks for Andersen, but he's younger and has more upside than Elliott. I don't know what the expected return was in a buyer's market for goalies. We'll probably run in circles on that one.

"Inferior goaltending." Again, we'll see. Jake Allen, in my opinion, still has a ceiling. Elliott, in my opinion, has hit his. Can he stay there for awhile? Well, one of the beauties of sport is that we're about to find out. Maybe we'll get lucky and these two guys will go head to head in a playoff series.

One thing we can break bread on is that some fresh blood in the front office would be welcome. Doug is all bark. Like you said, though, don't hold your breath.

[cardsfan04]

To me, it's a shitty situation that resulted from some reasonable decisions. I'd rather have Elliott than a second round pick, but I'm not upset with Army for how we got there.

I support his decision to not name Elliott the starter in June. I like Allen in net better longterm, and really, I think he's on par with Elliott even today. Elliott had an incredible second half of the season. But, I like Allen's upside more. While I wouldn't have been upset with Elliott starting for us next year, I think a decision to do so in June would be based on Elliott playing over his head for a few months.

I'd rather have the insurance of the Allen/Elliott tandem, but when a player asks to be traded it can be risky not to honor the request. It's not the trade I wanted, but I understand getting somebody out of town that didn't want to be here. I think we're worse next year for it (who knows what Kyrou will do in the future), but this will be a transitional year anyway. If we drop from decent to mediocre because of it, so be it. Any result but a Cup is the same at this point anyway and I don't think this impacts that a ton. I'm not real optimistic for the upcoming season though (with or without Elliott).

[ecbm]

when a player asks to be traded

Once again, he only asked for the trade after it was decided he couldn't be the starter after he started the team into the WCF.

Elliott playing over his head for a few months

-----------------------GP-W-L-OL-MINS-GA-SO-GAA-SV%-PLAYOFFS
11–12 St. Louis NHL 38 23 10 4 2235 58 9 1.56 .940 8 3 4 455 18 0 2.37 .904
12–13 St. Louis NHL 24 14 8 1 1292 49 3 2.28 .907 6 2 4 378 12 0 1.90 .919
13–14 St. Louis NHL 31 18 6 2 1624 53 4 1.96 .922 — — — — — — — —
14–15 St. Louis NHL 46 26 14 3 2546 96 5 2.26 .917 1 0 0 26 1 0 2.31 .857
15–16 St. Louis NHL 42 23 8 6 2,263 78 4 2.07 .930 18 9 9 1058 43 1 2.44 .921

TOT STL NHL 180-104-46 9958 334 25 2.01 .925 - 33-14-17 1917 74 1 2.24 .918

[cardsfan04]

when a player asks to be traded

Once again, he only asked for the trade after it was decided he couldn't be the starter after he started the team into the WCF.

Elliott playing over his head for a few months

-----------------------GP-W-L-OL-MINS-GA-SO-GAA-SV%-PLAYOFFS
11–12 St. Louis NHL 38 23 10 4 2235 58 9 1.56 .940 8 3 4 455 18 0 2.37 .904
12–13 St. Louis NHL 24 14 8 1 1292 49 3 2.28 .907 6 2 4 378 12 0 1.90 .919
13–14 St. Louis NHL 31 18 6 2 1624 53 4 1.96 .922 — — — — — — — —
14–15 St. Louis NHL 46 26 14 3 2546 96 5 2.26 .917 1 0 0 26 1 0 2.31 .857
15–16 St. Louis NHL 42 23 8 6 2,263 78 4 2.07 .930 18 9 9 1058 43 1 2.44 .921

TOT STL NHL 180-104-46 9958 334 25 2.01 .925 - 33-14-17 1917 74 1 2.24 .918

I know he only asked for the trade after he wasn't named the starter. I addressed him not being named the starter though and why I support that decision. I'm not upset with Elliott for asking for a trade. He has 1 year left until free agency. Of course he wants to be a number 1. And he deserves to be. But, so does Jake Allen who I think will be the better longterm (and probably shortterm) solution.

Maybe I'm exaggerating it (I had looked it up before you posted that and saw his 2015-16 numbers were closer to this STL numbers as a whole than I thought they were), but I don't expect him to play at a .930/2.07 clip the rest of his career. He was a lot better than .930/2.07 from January on though. His numbers are weighed down a little from his first 8 games (which is significant in a 40 game sample).

[theohall]

when a player asks to be traded

Once again, he only asked for the trade after it was decided he couldn't be the starter after he started the team into the WCF.

Elliott playing over his head for a few months

-----------------------GP-W-L-OL-MINS-GA-SO-GAA-SV%-PLAYOFFS
11–12 St. Louis NHL 38 23 10 4 2235 58 9 1.56 .940 8 3 4 455 18 0 2.37 .904
12–13 St. Louis NHL 24 14 8 1 1292 49 3 2.28 .907 6 2 4 378 12 0 1.90 .919
13–14 St. Louis NHL 31 18 6 2 1624 53 4 1.96 .922 — — — — — — — —
14–15 St. Louis NHL 46 26 14 3 2546 96 5 2.26 .917 1 0 0 26 1 0 2.31 .857
15–16 St. Louis NHL 42 23 8 6 2,263 78 4 2.07 .930 18 9 9 1058 43 1 2.44 .921

TOT STL NHL 180-104-46 9958 334 25 2.01 .925 - 33-14-17 1917 74 1 2.24 .918

For comparison's sake here is All-Star Stanley Cup Winner Jonathan Quick's regular season numbers over the same time frame.

Season GP GS W L T/O GA SA SV SV% GAA SO MIN
2011-12 69 68 35 21 13 133 1863 1730 0.929 1.95 10 4099
2012-13 37 36 18 13 4 87 889 802 0.902 2.45 1 2134
2013-14 49 49 27 17 4 100 1183 1083 0.915 2.07 6 2904
2014-15 72 71 36 22 13 156 1896 1740 0.918 2.24 6 4184
2015-16 68 68 40 23 5 149 1820 1671 0.918 2.22 5 4034
Total 295 292 156 96 39 625 7651 7026 0.918 2.16 28 17355

Wait, what is this? Elliott has a better win%, a lower GAA, a higher SV% and only 3 fewer shutouts in the same time span?? 3 fewer shutouts in over 100 fewer games played?? Maybe Elliott should have been played more often like Quick did. They are only 9 months apart in age. Oh... but it was only the few months Elliott played well this season that mattered. Army should have gotten more. That Ryan Miller trade was moronic.

[dmiles2186]

Army should have gotten more, but was anyone offering anymore? That's the other question here. It's a buyer's market. Elliott is a 31 year old goalie with great numbers but only 1 year left on his deal. Not guaranteed he re-signs there (and if he does, the Blues get a 3rd round pick...haven't seen that mentioned much throughout this discussion), so as of now, he's a really great 1 year rental player. Elliott also hasn't started more than 50 regular season games since 2010-2011, so there's some uncertainty giving him a full #1 workload. His best seasons have come when pushed by a 1a/1b setup.

Was I disappointed in the return when it was announced? Absolutely. In the grand scheme of things, Calgary got away with one here because Elliott does make them better, no question. But we also don't know the behind-the-scenes; it's entirely possible this was the best deal on the table.

[glen a richter]

What Army should have done is trade Elliott in September. A goalie breaks their leg in camp, bang instant trade partner and overpayer.

[cprice12]

when a player asks to be traded

Once again, he only asked for the trade after it was decided he couldn't be the starter after he started the team into the WCF.

Elliott playing over his head for a few months

-----------------------GP-W-L-OL-MINS-GA-SO-GAA-SV%-PLAYOFFS
11–12 St. Louis NHL 38 23 10 4 2235 58 9 1.56 .940 8 3 4 455 18 0 2.37 .904
12–13 St. Louis NHL 24 14 8 1 1292 49 3 2.28 .907 6 2 4 378 12 0 1.90 .919
13–14 St. Louis NHL 31 18 6 2 1624 53 4 1.96 .922 — — — — — — — —
14–15 St. Louis NHL 46 26 14 3 2546 96 5 2.26 .917 1 0 0 26 1 0 2.31 .857
15–16 St. Louis NHL 42 23 8 6 2,263 78 4 2.07 .930 18 9 9 1058 43 1 2.44 .921

TOT STL NHL 180-104-46 9958 334 25 2.01 .925 - 33-14-17 1917 74 1 2.24 .918

For comparison's sake here is All-Star Stanley Cup Winner Jonathan Quick's regular season numbers over the same time frame.

Season GP GS W L T/O GA SA SV SV% GAA SO MIN
2011-12 69 68 35 21 13 133 1863 1730 0.929 1.95 10 4099
2012-13 37 36 18 13 4 87 889 802 0.902 2.45 1 2134
2013-14 49 49 27 17 4 100 1183 1083 0.915 2.07 6 2904
2014-15 72 71 36 22 13 156 1896 1740 0.918 2.24 6 4184
2015-16 68 68 40 23 5 149 1820 1671 0.918 2.22 5 4034
Total 295 292 156 96 39 625 7651 7026 0.918 2.16 28 17355

Wait, what is this? Elliott has a better win%, a lower GAA, a higher SV% and only 3 fewer shutouts in the same time span?? 3 fewer shutouts in over 100 fewer games played?? Maybe Elliott should have been played more often like Quick did. They are only 9 months apart in age. Oh... but it was only the few months Elliott played well this season that mattered. Army should have gotten more. That Ryan Miller trade was moronic.

Don't just compare Elliott against Quick. Compare his numbers against anyone since he has been a Blue...and Elliott's GAA and Save% are the best in the NHL over that span. I've been saying this in here and on our podcast for the past season and a half.

No Elliott didn't win us a cup. But that's no reason to ship him out of town. Has Lundqvist won a cup?
Nope.
If the Rangers traded him for less than he was worth, do you think many Rangers fans would be saying, "Well, he never won us a cup...so why is everyone throwing a fit?"
I'll tell you why...because it's just that much harder to win a cup with less than stellar goaltending. And unless Allen plays extremely well this year, which he may very well do, we are worse off goaltending-wise.
We were sitting pretty with cheap goaltending that was arguably the best in the NHL...and for whatever reason, Elliott was told he wasn't going to be the #1 next season...which is asinine after what he has done in St. Louis, especially after his playoff performance this year.

Our offensive core took a major hit as well...and to me, right now, that is a worse problem. But not because I'm downplaying the Elliott trade and saying it's not a big deal...I think it is. But it just shows how f'd up our group of forwards may be to start the season. They took a substantial hit. And God forbid if we don't get fair return for Shattenkirk. Holy hell will Blues nation riot...as they should.

I told you that signing Schwartz was going to be an issue. We've never signed him easily nor on time. He held out once and was late to camp once because of contract disputes. I mentioned on our podcast to not be surprised if he makes it hard to sign him. He has a history of that. I shudder to see what happens when he becomes a UFA. Good luck signing him then. He's going to test the open market and he is going to leave. Guaranteed.

Army has a lot of work to do with the offense, which is our most glaring issue right now... and he had better hope that Allen's numbers are better than Elliott's over the past 5 years. I have great confidence in Allen, but the fact remains that we traded away currently our best goaltender for a 2nd round pick...and that kind of sucks.

[Toasted Oates]

Man, you guys may be flying over my head, but I would think we'd need to see him start at least 60 games in a regular season before we start measuring him w/ Quick/Lundqvist. He keeps those sweet numbers up like '12 (36 starts) and last year (38 starts) over the course of 60+ starts? Bend the knee to Brian Elliott.

[Oaklandblue]

Man, you guys may be flying over my head, but I would think we'd need to see him start at least 60 games in a regular season before we start measuring him w/ Quick/Lundqvist. He keeps those sweet numbers up like '12 (36 starts) and last year (38 starts) over the course of 60+ starts? Bend the knee to Brian Elliott.

The same can be easily said about Jake Allen. This is a VERY risky move with no forethough. Elliott, playing backup minutes almost exclusively owns pretty much all the franchise goalie records and has played at a level that would merit a full chance as a starter. In his first postseason role with the Blues, he helped them defeat the Sharks, the first round one victory we had in half a decade? In comparison, Jake Allen fell apart against the Wild. That alone sells Ells if we are going to argue this.

I get it, some of yall love Allen but Allen has proven nothing to make him more atm than a backup. At every problem Brian has had, including being sent down, he has rose to the occasion and I daresay no one has seen Ells total upside due to not getting a full chance as Starter. Bottom line is Ells earned it, Allen was given it and that speaks of management. All of you think of the future and ignore today; what happens tomorrow is impacted by the decisions of today and the management is planning for longevity, not for a Cup and if that is not apparent, then you're not paying attention.

Brian Elliott is the greatest netminder to wear Blue. He was in goal for all our postseason series victories in the last decade. He doesnt have to win a Cup to be the best and those of you who says he does, are idiots. Ells in Blue is easily in a class with Cujo, Liut and numberswise, Glenn Hall. Some of the numbers he set are and still are NHL records.

You all want to get excited about our goalie of the future, his name is Husso. Wake me up when he arrives.

[Toasted Oates]

First off, I never compared Allen's stats to anyone, whether it be Jonathon Quick or Hannu Toivonen.

Second, your angst about that Minnesota series is misguided. As dmiles pointed out earlier, Blues goals in the 4 losses: 2,0,1, and 1. How many goalies are going to win w/ that support in one 7 game series? Not many. He would have needed a regulation shutout in 3 of those 4 games. Pretty lofty. Heck, I was in the building for Game 1 and they scored a fluky shorty late in the 3rd while being shutout the 1st two periods. The game was over before they got that 2nd goal.

Elliott had one win all postseason when he got only 1 goal worth of support: Game 1 against Chicago. What a loser, right? C'mon, man.

You have your mind made up and that's certainly your right. I enjoy the discourse and don't be afraid to don a Jake sweater one day since you burned all your Blues stuff. He really is a swell guy.

[Oaklandblue]

First off, I never compared Allen's stats to anyone, whether it be Jonathon Quick or Hannu Toivonen.

Second, your angst about that Minnesota series is misguided. As dmiles pointed out earlier, Blues goals in the 4 losses: 2,0,1, and 1. How many goalies are going to win w/ that support in one 7 game series? Not many. He would have needed a regulation shutout in 3 of those 4 games. Pretty lofty. Heck, I was in the building for Game 1 and they scored a fluky shorty late in the 3rd while being shutout the 1st two periods. The game was over before they got that 2nd goal.

Elliott had one win all postseason when he got only 1 goal worth of support: Game 1 against Chicago. What a loser, right? C'mon, man.

You have your mind made up and that's certainly your right. I enjoy the discourse and don't be afraid to don a Jake sweater one day since you burned all your Blues stuff. He really is a swell guy.

Show me where Jake Allen is a better netminder than Elliott beyond age and Jake being "A really swell guy"? I have yet to hear a credible argument that can be shown on paper beyond age and that whole "Goalie of the future" bit.

Elliott has earned his shot, Allen was given it and that is a fact at this moment. If Allen helps win the Cup, a Vezina or above .920 average, I will go buy a Jake Allen sweater and constantly tell the story of how I felt, based on his past peformance, that he was simply a backup and he proved me wrong. But if he gets injured or doesnt produce I dont want to hear how the teams offense failed because even loaded this teams offense has ALWAYS failed and D is what gets us in the playoffs and keeps us in those postseason games.

[glen a richter]

The argument that Allen can't be a starter, when has Elliott proven he can be better than a 1a? A playoff run which could have easily gone the usual way if not for Backes having a centering pass deflect off a badly positioned Hawks skate or a couple of double posts? I see a goalie who was extremely lucky and got exposed by San Jose. Allen did too, but don't deny Elliott played like shit against the Sharks enough to warrant the goalie change in the first place. We're getting bent out of shape over a guy who was a 9th round pick and played over 50 games once in his career. Never has he proven he can handle a #1 workload.

[cardsfan04]

First off, I never compared Allen's stats to anyone, whether it be Jonathon Quick or Hannu Toivonen.

Second, your angst about that Minnesota series is misguided. As dmiles pointed out earlier, Blues goals in the 4 losses: 2,0,1, and 1. How many goalies are going to win w/ that support in one 7 game series? Not many. He would have needed a regulation shutout in 3 of those 4 games. Pretty lofty. Heck, I was in the building for Game 1 and they scored a fluky shorty late in the 3rd while being shutout the 1st two periods. The game was over before they got that 2nd goal.

Elliott had one win all postseason when he got only 1 goal worth of support: Game 1 against Chicago. What a loser, right? C'mon, man.

You have your mind made up and that's certainly your right. I enjoy the discourse and don't be afraid to don a Jake sweater one day since you burned all your Blues stuff. He really is a swell guy.

Show me where Jake Allen is a better netminder than Elliott beyond age and Jake being "A really swell guy"? I have yet to hear a credible argument that can be shown on paper beyond age and that whole "Goalie of the future" bit.

Elliott has earned his shot, Allen was given it and that is a fact at this moment. If Allen helps win the Cup, a Vezina or above .920 average, I will go buy a Jake Allen sweater and constantly tell the story of how I felt, based on his past peformance, that he was simply a backup and he proved me wrong. But if he gets injured or doesnt produce I dont want to hear how the teams offense failed because even loaded this teams offense has ALWAYS failed and D is what gets us in the playoffs and keeps us in those postseason games.

Allen had a .920 save percentage last year. He still has more left to prove, but I don't know what he's done to make him seem like a backup.