Let's Go Blues

Just read something on Twitter where someone mentioned this trade possibility...anyone heard anything other than just random stuff?

I would highly, highly doubt that. I would doubt that so much I would put it at an E negative 5.

That's preposterous. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Laffs fans.

glen a richter wrote:I would highly, highly doubt that. I would doubt that so much I would put it at an E negative 5.

I really doubt it too. I think 3 things have to be true for it to be a possibility:

1. The Blues believe our solid goaltending is the result of solid defense more than goaltending talent. If that's the case, goaltenders are more interchangeable.

2. We get something big in return. He won't get Kessel by himself, but a Halak-anchored package might. I don't know much else about their roster to know what else would be worthwhile.

3. We're confident that Elliot won't flame out and/or Allen/Bishop are ready to step up.

Even then, why mess with a good thing? Makes me nervous.

cardsfan04 wrote:I really doubt it too. I think 3 things have to be true for it to be a possibility:

1. The Blues believe our solid goaltending is the result of solid defense more than goaltending talent. If that's the case, goaltenders are more interchangeable.

2. We get something big in return. He won't get Kessel by himself, but a Halak-anchored package might. I don't know much else about their roster to know what else would be worthwhile.

3. We're confident that Elliot won't flame out and/or Allen/Bishop are ready to step up.

Even then, why mess with a good thing? Makes me nervous.

Not to mention....Elliot is a pending free agent. Not only is he more likely to be moved, I'd be pissed if the team isn't investigating what value we could expect in return.

If.....if......one of them were to be moved, it's easily going to be Elliot.

Yup. Elliot is way more likely to be moved.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that happens actually.

DaDitka wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:I really doubt it too. I think 3 things have to be true for it to be a possibility:

1. The Blues believe our solid goaltending is the result of solid defense more than goaltending talent. If that's the case, goaltenders are more interchangeable.

2. We get something big in return. He won't get Kessel by himself, but a Halak-anchored package might. I don't know much else about their roster to know what else would be worthwhile.

3. We're confident that Elliot won't flame out and/or Allen/Bishop are ready to step up.

Even then, why mess with a good thing? Makes me nervous.

Not to mention....Elliot is a pending free agent. Not only is he more likely to be moved, I'd be pissed if the team isn't investigating what value we could expect in return.

If.....if......one of them were to be moved, it's easily going to be Elliot.

Yeah. And even if it would be Halak, would you really trade him right as Elliot goes through a rough stretch. I'm not overly worried about Elliot, but it's not like he has this long track record of success to make me 100% certain he will bounce back to play like he did in the first half.

"Rough stretch" seems like a gross exaggeration of how he's playing now.

He went from looking like a hockey god to looking like a very good goaltender.

A few 3 goal games isn't a rough stretch.

The team has had a rough stretch of 2nd periods, well two anyway, in recent memory. How the hell do you give up 3 shots in the first and 20+ in the second? The fact we've withstood that kind of punishment for 20 minutes and stayed competitive speaks volumes of the goaltending, even if they do give up 3 goals a game.

kodos wrote:"Rough stretch" seems like a gross exaggeration of how he's playing now.

He went from looking like a hockey god to looking like a very good goaltender.

A few 3 goal games isn't a rough stretch.

Yeah, that's a bit of an exaggeration for sure.

It would take a special type of buffoon to trade one of our goalies right now. Going into the playoffs with two wicked netminders? Um, YES, please.

The only way you make a trade involving either of them right now is if you get an elite scorer.... and even then I'd be wary.

goon attack wrote:It would take a special type of buffoon to trade one of our goalies right now.

Please review moves this team has made in the past. We just might have that special someone. That being said I don't think either of them is going anywhere and if a move was made it would be Elliott just because of the contract status.

Here is a great article I read this morning arguing why Ben Bishop deserves a chance in the NHL.

http://theahl.com/bishop-still-on-track-to-nhl-p175463


I am not a fan of trading just because we have cap space. It has to be for the right piece at the right price. Halak and Elliott sharing the net with Bishop in street clothes sounds like a good plan at the moment.

I don't understand the rumors with Toronto. Phil Kessel won't be traded. Luke Schenn is a right handed defenseman, and we have three of those: Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, and Polak.

John Michael Liles could be trade bait, but he comes packaged with a concussion.

Edit: Halak isn't traded after tonight.

Dumb. Trading a hot Halak makes zero sense.

The team wants him to be the #1 guy, which is why he is getting more starts now that his play has greatly improved since his rough start. Why would the #1 team in the West trade their #1 goalie who is on a roll? Not gonna happen.

And I don't see Elliott getting moved either, unless the return is something the organization feels puts us in a much better position to go deep into the playoffs. But I don't think we'd get that much in return. We have arguably the best backup in the league, aside from maybe Rask, and he is dirt cheap. Makes no sense for a currently cash strapped team to move him right now. Why move very good, very cheap players if your payroll needs to be low? ...but that aspect may change once the team is actually sold in the coming weeks/months.

After seeing Halak being able to pull out of his tailspin and dominate and after having a heavy dose of enjoyable delicious crow, I'm just going to say this:


Sign Elliott, keep Halak and dominate for the next 5-10 years. We got Net in Check. We trade anyone to Toronto, better be Bishop or Allen. Anything else is retarded.

Last time we had this effective of a tandem, we went to the finals. Don't f this up. Please.

It makes the most sense to sign Elliot to a short term contract and then trade him in the offseason. I don't know all the cap restrictions and all that, but either way, dude is cashing in.

goon attack wrote:It makes the most sense to sign Elliot to a short term contract and then trade him in the offseason. I don't know all the cap restrictions and all that, but either way, dude is cashing in.

I think that's a great idea.....I would just assume that Elliot and his agent know that the odds are very high that he's playing over his head and he's going to look to maximize the length of this deal. I don't think you'll get him to sign a 2 year, 4 million dollar deal.

thedoc wrote:

goon attack wrote:It would take a special type of buffoon to trade one of our goalies right now.

Please review moves this team has made in the past.

Just to help understand how bad of moves the Blues have made in the past, just look up Garth Butcher and what that trade did to a team which was dominating prior to his acquisition.

However, I don't see Armstrong making that kind of bone-headed move. He appears to be a very smart GM that makes excellent deals, usually.

theohall wrote:

thedoc wrote:

goon attack wrote:It would take a special type of buffoon to trade one of our goalies right now.

Please review moves this team has made in the past.

Just to help understand how bad of moves the Blues have made in the past, just look up Garth Butcher and what that trade did to a team which was dominating prior to his acquisition.

However, I don't see Armstrong making that kind of bone-headed move. He appears to be a very smart GM that makes excellent deals, usually.

Not really the same though.
Sutter felt that team badly needed toughness, so he sent FOUR FORWARDS (1/3 of the offense) off the roster (Momesso, Dirk, Ronning and Courtnal) in exchange for Butcher and Quinn. That's screwing with the chemistry too much.

Trading Halak would be stupid...but trading Elliott isn't as bad of a suggestion...even though he's been stellar.

Trading four guys out of your lineup is a lot different than trading your supposed backup goalie.

However...Halak and Elliott have thrived under competition for the starting job. So I wouldn't screw with that...not unless we have a legit 40 goal scorer coming back in return...which won't happen. We'd have to give up Elliott, a prospect and a 1st rounder to get that killer finisher we want.

I think Elliott may be worth more to us than he would be in a trade.