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

[ecbm]

The argument that Allen can't be a starter, when has Elliott proven he can be better than a 1a?

This can all be put to bed with this: Elliott has done everything Allen has done in a Blues jersey-and in many areas, he's done it better statistically-AND he's been good in the playoffs which Allen has not done for the Blues or for any other team he's played for on any level.

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.

That's true and it's why the Blues lost the series. But let's not kid ourselves. I note you don't mention numbers. Here's Allen's line from that series:

6GP, 6GS, 2-4, .902. 2.02, 0 SO

This is a gamble. The only reason you'd give this job to Allen over Elliott is a personal dispute with Elliott or a fixation on the future.

Finally, especially given how little NYR got for Talbot, I don't believe Army was going to be able to get more than a 2nd for Elliott. Given that, he should have held onto him. Elliott at $2.5M for one season is worth more than a 2nd round pick.

[cardsfan04]

The argument that Allen can't be a starter, when has Elliott proven he can be better than a 1a?

This can all be put to bed with this: Elliott has done everything Allen has done in a Blues jersey-and in many areas, he's done it better statistically-AND he's been good in the playoffs which Allen has not done for the Blues or for any other team he's played for on any level.

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.

That's true and it's why the Blues lost the series. But let's not kid ourselves. I note you don't mention numbers. Here's Allen's line from that series:

6GP, 6GS, 2-4, .902. 2.02, 0 SO

This is a gamble. The only reason you'd give this job to Allen over Elliott is a personal dispute with Elliott or a fixation on the future.

Finally, especially given how little NYR got for Talbot, I don't believe Army was going to be able to get more than a 2nd for Elliott. Given that, he should have held onto him. Elliott at $2.5M for one season is worth more than a 2nd round pick.

You and I certainly don't see completely eye to eye on this, but I agree with a lot of this post. This is certainly a gamble. I am high on Allen, but he has some proving left to do. If he doesn't live up to expectations or he gets hurt, we have Hutton which is clearly a step back. And, all we have to show for that risk is a second round pick. I don't like that at all. I'd much rather have Elliott. And that has nothing to do with Kyrou. He may turn out great. It's very risky though.

I think where you and I stray is that I like Allen better longterm, so I agree with not naming Elliott as the number 1, which led to him asking for a trade. And, at that point, I'm torn on whether we should have honored the request or not, but I get why we did. You don't want people here that don't want to be here.

[ecbm]

I think where you and I stray is that I like Allen better longterm, so I agree with not naming Elliott as the number 1, which led to him asking for a trade. And, at that point, I'm torn on whether we should have honored the request or not, but I get why we did. You don't want people here that don't want to be here.

I get your position. I certainly agree about the trade request. And I can understand people liking that Allen has upside that hasn't been explored and he was a high-pedigree prospect. I hope he works out and he certainly could. But what gets me is that while I can understand you or any fan holding that position, it seems to contradict decisions taken by Hitchcock last season, specifically the decision to stick with Elliott as the starter from mid-March through the end of the playoffs. I'd really like Hitch & Army to explain what changed between May 25th, when Elliott was good enough to be the team's starter in an elimination game in the WCF and May 26th, when it appears the decision had already been made that he was somehow not good enough to be the team's starter and that, in fact, the goalie who had been benched in his favor was going to be the starter. I'd really like to know that. I'm certainly not waiting for the lapdogs in the StL media to ask such a probing question though. They might lose access to Hitchcock and his witty repartee.

I'd also call the club out on some disingenuousness. Elliott's inclusion in the "goalie night"? The Cujo mask? The marketing around these things? Seems pretty shitty from a club that I have trouble imagining didn't know from the start of the season that they weren't going to give Elliott the #1 unless Allen completely spit the bit.

[glen a richter]

Just how in the hell is Hutton a step back? Elliott was successful because of a system that let him face few shots and few quality shots in a tandem goaltending situation. Hutton will be fine.

[cardsfan04]

Just how in the hell is Hutton a step back? Elliott was successful because of a system that let him face few shots and few quality shots in a tandem goaltending situation. Hutton will be fine.

I definitely expect Hutton to be fine here and like the acquisition. I don't expect him to be as good as Elliott was though. I don't know a ton about him and would love to be wrong. But, my expectation right now is that Allen + Elliott is better than Allen + Hutton.

[cardsfan04]

I think where you and I stray is that I like Allen better longterm, so I agree with not naming Elliott as the number 1, which led to him asking for a trade. And, at that point, I'm torn on whether we should have honored the request or not, but I get why we did. You don't want people here that don't want to be here.

I get your position. I certainly agree about the trade request. And I can understand people liking that Allen has upside that hasn't been explored and he was a high-pedigree prospect. I hope he works out and he certainly could. But what gets me is that while I can understand you or any fan holding that position, it seems to contradict decisions taken by Hitchcock last season, specifically the decision to stick with Elliott as the starter from mid-March through the end of the playoffs. I'd really like Hitch & Army to explain what changed between May 25th, when Elliott was good enough to be the team's starter in an elimination game in the WCF and May 26th, when it appears the decision had already been made that he was somehow not good enough to be the team's starter and that, in fact, the goalie who had been benched in his favor was going to be the starter. I'd really like to know that. I'm certainly not waiting for the lapdogs in the StL media to ask such a probing question though. They might lose access to Hitchcock and his witty repartee.

I'd also call the club out on some disingenuousness. Elliott's inclusion in the "goalie night"? The Cujo mask? The marketing around these things? Seems pretty shitty from a club that I have trouble imagining didn't know from the start of the season that they weren't going to give Elliott the #1 unless Allen completely spit the bit.

My thought on Elliott taking over for Allen was that you don't stray from the hot hand when there isn't a clear number 1. I don't know how they could have justified switching to Allen last season with as well as Elliott was playing. This is partly based on my opinion that Allen is better longterm, but even when I supported Elliott getting the job last year, I wanted Allen to take back over at some point. If it were Brodeur/whoever his backup was in NJ, hot hand obviously doesn't play a part. But, in a 1A/1B situation I think it does, but as a temporary decision.

[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.

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.

[Toasted Oates]

The argument that Allen can't be a starter, when has Elliott proven he can be better than a 1a?

This can all be put to bed with this: Elliott has done everything Allen has done in a Blues jersey-and in many areas, he's done it better statistically-AND he's been good in the playoffs which Allen has not done for the Blues or for any other team he's played for on any level.

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.

That's true and it's why the Blues lost the series. But let's not kid ourselves. I note you don't mention numbers. Here's Allen's line from that series:

6GP, 6GS, 2-4, .902. 2.02, 0 SO

This is a gamble. The only reason you'd give this job to Allen over Elliott is a personal dispute with Elliott or a fixation on the future.

Finally, especially given how little NYR got for Talbot, I don't believe Army was going to be able to get more than a 2nd for Elliott. Given that, he should have held onto him. Elliott at $2.5M for one season is worth more than a 2nd round pick.

There's risk, I'll grant you, as there is with most anything. But let's look @ Elliott's 1st playoff run w/ the Blues (I'll leave out those 4 pesky playoff games w/ Ottawa).

8 GP, 7 GS, 3-4, .904, 2.37, 0 SO

Pretty similar numbers, and Allen was actually @ a .904 save %. Let's not cheat him that .002.

Now Elliott came back the next year and played much better against LA than his first go around. A good player improved; a crazy concept.

Allen wasn't spectacular against Minnesota, but anything less than that the Blues would have lost anyway (I grow weary of pointing out the goal support or lack thereof). He came back last year and was very, very good until an injury derailed him.

He has improved every year and I expect that to continue. If it doesn't, well....I was wrong. Won't be the first time or the last, but I'll sleep OK I think.

Go Blues.

[glen a richter]

I wonder if it's more hate for Allen or love for Elliott fueling the emotions in this thread. The way most are talking, it's like Snake has a career 4.00 GAA, .750 save percentage and never won a game in his life. Folks, it's a Hitch system. Any serviceable NHL goalie would be successful in it, assuming a modicum of goal support. Defenses tighten up in the playoffs, so a team with limited offensive weapons will be limited even more. That's hardly Allen's fault and it won't be his fault this season, nor will it be Hutton's fault this season when we get knocked out of the playoffs again because of a failure to address the offensive needs.

Get one, or even better two more scorers, get an increase in output from Fabbri and a hopefully healthy Schwartz, Rattie produces in Steen's place until he gets back and Tarasenko stays steady at worst, and we're cooking with gas. Stand pat and we're franked.

[ecbm]

Now Elliott came back the next year and played much better against LA than his first go around. A good player improved; a crazy concept.

In the hand vs. in the bush, no? This actually happened for Elliott. We're all hoping it happens for Allen. That's an important difference.

Just how in the hell is Hutton a step back?

If you've seen anything that makes you think Carter Hutton is the goalie Brian Elliott is, awesome. I hope you haven't been deceived. I haven't heard of or seen anything like that.

hate for Allen

Nope.

[Oaklandblue]

I wonder if it's more hate for Allen or love for Elliott fueling the emotions in this thread.

You let a good chunk of our offense walk away and then break up a cheap goalie corps for more money against the cap and trash in return and sign a backup who is .667 in their first playoffs.

Keeping and starting Elliott, if we're losing offense, was the best solution. Less money against cap so we'd have the money to help package a deal to get a midline/top six player to replace Backes. Now we're tight against the Cap spending twice as much for goaltending and getting back much less in terms of quality and offense. Defense can't help with that unless our system changes and every move this organization makes only gives longevity to their tactics on the ice, which simply didn't work.

Jake Allen's job just became that much harder and one could argue that he's been set up to fail.

The real reason there is animosity towards Jake is that he did not have to go through as much as Brian Elliott did, and Elliott proved himself every step of the way and beat out a handful of netminders to be able to start. That kind of tenacity is a core part of winning a Cup.

Brain earned what he asked for, Jake was given it and Jake is not a playoff netminder, on any level of his game and that is what we really need. Making the playoffs is simply no longer not enough. If you're not going to take steps to win the Cup, all you are doing is creating mediocrity which affects the morale of the team, but as a business move, what the front office is doing is genius.

[gaijin]

I wonder if it's more hate for Allen or love for Elliott fueling the emotions in this thread.

The real reason there is animosity towards Jake is that he did not have to go through as much as Brian Elliott did, and Elliott proved himself every step of the way and beat out a handful of netminders to be able to start. That kind of tenacity is a core part of winning a Cup.

I wouldn't call it hate, I would call it more of a combination of a lack of warm fuzzy in Allen and love for Elliott.

I like Jake. I always thought he would eventually be our starter and I am still fine with that. I think he will be great as our starter. But with the way Elliott played last season, he proved himself capable of performing at an elite level. Can he perform at that elite level for an entire season? Who knows. But who knows if Allen can either? At least Elliott showed it, and showed it recently.

I still don't see where the harm would have been in keeping both goalies under their current contracts and naming Elliott the #1. It would have helped with the current cap situation, and I think Elliott gives us a better shot at a Cup than Allen. At the end of next season, Elliott could have walked, Allen would be named the starter and what would we have lost? The 2nd-rounder we got for Elliott? Boo-hoo.

A number of people on the board here (and probably Curt foremost among them) have been big fans of Elliott for several years, and watched as he regularly got shunted to the side (despite very good numbers) for the next goalie flavor of the day. Elliott was always on an unusually short leash under Hitchcock (to the point of mistreatment), and it seems like now that he was looking at having his day in the sun, he gets unceremoniously shipped off to a non-contender in return for peanuts. This trade still feels like salt in the wound of another playoff elimination. And again, this is not hating on Jake. This is dissatisfaction (anger?) with management's decision to ship off the guy that was shaping up to be our biggest bright spot in goal since Cujo.

[glen a richter]

I'd hardly call Calgary non-contenders. They have a sound team put together up there that peaked too early and will learn from last years mess. Don't be surprised to see them get a playoff seed.

[ecbm]

animosity towards Jake

I have no animosity toward him at all. I do raise an eyebrow at the assertion that he's proven he'll be a successful fulltime starting NHL goalie-which he must be now as Carter Hutton is no way a starter or even a tandem guy. As you rightly say, Allen certainly hasn't had to prove as much as Elliott to get that job. I see no reason not to like him though. I do think his better results last season were down to better positioning and a few other tweaks to his game so hopefully he'll continue to improve. I sincerely hope he me feel silly about my currently-held doubts.

I still don't see where the harm would have been in keeping both goalies under their current contracts and naming Elliott the #1.

Precisely. The only harm would be not getting a 2nd round pick in a not terribly deep draft where even your first rounder is underwhelming...and you gave up your 3rd to get him.

I'd hardly call Calgary non-contenders. They have a sound team put together up there that peaked too early and will learn from last years mess. Don't be surprised to see them get a playoff seed.

That's an extremely safe bet with Elliott in the fold, given Calgary was 10th in goals per game and 11th in shots against per game (both ahead of Blues, just as an example) but were sunk by a literally league-worst sv% due to the comedy duo of Hiller & Ramo. So, again, Armstrong filled the #1 priority need of a team in the same conference, with the bonus of a season at a cap hit of only $2.3M, FOR A SECOND-ROUND PICK.

Once upon a time, Armstrong, the media and a certain section of Blues fans perceived that the Blues needed a goalie for a playoff run. Now another section of Blues fans and anyone with an analytical mind protested that no, goaltending wasn't the Blues' problem. In this scenario, when the Blues needed the goalie less than Calgary did this off season, they paid a first-round pick, a third round pick, a prospect and two roster players for an expiring contract.

[cprice12]

Hitch's "system" did zero favors for our goaltending last season.
The defense was underachieving on most nights (in their own zone) and our offense was non existent the first half of the season.
Our goaltending won us games early on. Without Elliott and Allen, we don't finish near the conference lead.
To say that Hitch's system is what fueled our good goaltending numbers last year isn't accurate at all in my opinion.

[theohall]

Hitch's "system" did zero favors for our goaltending last season.
The defense was underachieving on most nights (in their own zone) and our offense was non existent the first half of the season.
Our goaltending won us games early on. Without Elliott and Allen, we don't finish near the conference lead.
To say that Hitch's system is what fueled our good goaltending numbers last year isn't accurate at all in my opinion.

Especially because they weren't playing Hitchcock's "system" of the prior seasons which stifled offense by not allowing forwards to take chances or defenseman not named Pietrangelo or Shattenkirk to join the rush.

Last season, all defenseman had greenlights to join the rush, the 3rd man high in the offensive zone wasn't required to position himself defensively, but instead set up in scoring positions or to support give and gos off the cycle, and defenseman were allowed to take chances along the blueline, instead of automatically backing off when turnovers happened. None of the above was part of Hitchcock's "system" prior to 2015-16. The above were the changes made to try and take advantage of the offensive talent the team has at forward while relying on the defenseman to handle things without forward support. The result was the goalies having to play outstanding all year - BOTH goalies - which both did. Elliott had a bad start to the season and Allen took over as the starter and played very well for quite awhile with Elliott getting spot starts, until Allen was injured in January and no one was complaining about Allen during that stretch. Allen was among league leaders in SV% during that stretch. Hell, Allen finished 10th in the league in SV% based on 40 Games Played minimum. Does anyone believe Elliott by himself was the reason the Blues allowed the 5th fewest goals against in 2015-16? Should they have gotten more for Elliott? Yes, I think Armstrong could have done better and should have dealt him out of conference if he was going to get as little as he did.

Anyway, in seasons before 2015-16, goalies were helped immensely by Hitchcock's system. The Blues were in the top 5 in fewest shots allowed every season under Hitchcock until 2015-2016 when the shots allowed went from 3rd in the league (2014-15) to 15th (2015-16). So, Hitchcock's "system" didn't do squat for the goalies in 2015-16. That's just a ludicrous claim and is basing goalie performance based on how the Blues played prior to 2015-16 while ignoring the changes that were evident in 2015-16.

[glen a richter]

Here's a fun fact. Elliott's numbers in Calgary suck and, lo and behold, he's lost the #1 spot proving again he's not #1 material, just a product of a system.

[gaijin]

Here's a fun fact. Elliott's numbers in Calgary suck and, lo and behold, he's lost the #1 spot proving again he's not #1 material, just a product of a system.

That's unfortunate. Sometimes players (not only goalies) do well with certain teams and poorly with other teams, and vice-versa. And yeah, I'll admit a lot of that is probably the system each team plays.

Still, I hoped he would do well there (despite Calgary being a conference rival). He deserved better than he was treated by the management in StL- he set franchise records here.

[theohall]

Chad Johnson .922 SV% 2.23 GAA
Elliott .882 SV% 3.43 GAA

Same players, same team. There were stretches when Elliott didn't play well for the Blues and someone else would step in for awhile, then Elliott would play lights out for long stretches when he got a chance again. I still like Hirsch's take on it, in that Elliott cannot be given a job as a #1. He has to be fighting for a job to be effective.
Maybe the Blues management knew this, so the whole "fair shake" thing - maybe it was necessary to not just give him the reigns to keep Elliott playing at the level he was playing.

[Oaklandblue]

Y'all keep talking wayyyy too soon. Every one of you have seen this before.

Now sit back and watch him come out of nowhere and own the pipes. Like I've said for years, regular season don't mean jack. If Chad starts for them, that's fine but the moment the playoffs, Elliott is the warrior you want between the pipes. And you'd better pray we ain't playing Calgary at that point because the Flames will burn us. The Blues don't have the luck or a coach that can spell Offense, let alone run one.