Page 1 of 2

Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:42 pm
by dmiles2186
[tweet][/tweet]

Then I saw this tweet from Buccigross, whether he was serious or not....

[tweet][/tweet]

But if you think about it, Edmonton and Calgary could both use a 'tender and the Blues have publicly stated the #1 job is Halak's as long as he stays healthy and performs up to that role.

Something to keep an eye on.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:09 pm
by APOD
I think I would be dumb to trade this early, Halak looks great but I would watch him till at least close to the trade deadline. That being said I am 100% sure after seeing Halak this year that he is gone at deadline or this summer. We will not see Elliot next season.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:21 pm
by glen a richter
I don't mind. We all saw what Allen can do. He's as good or better than Elliott and will be the #1 in due time anyway. The return won't be much--a mid round draft pick or a prospect, but I don't think we're in need of an Earth shattering trade anyway. It might help move Binnington forward too, in terms of getting some ice time in Chicago and seeing how he works out at the AHL level.

Ells is gone after this season one way or the other, may as well give him to a team in desperate need of goaltending help and hope they overpay rather than lose him to free agency and get nothing back.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:26 pm
by APOD
Rangers could use a good back-up...or Starter :okman:

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:45 pm
by dmiles2186
I can't post the picture because it's too big, but I'll post a link. Gave me a hearty chuckle...

http://bloguin.com/puckdrunklove/2013-a ... ilers.html

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:04 pm
by glen a richter
All things considered, the Rangers are in worse shape than the Oilers. Just as many goals against, but hardly any goals for.

Elliott, Paajarvi and Jackman for Ryan McDonagh and Carl Hagelin (currently on IR)--Do it Leery, errrrr Army!

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:17 pm
by Oaklandblue
Elliott has been far more important, up to this point, than Halak to the Note.

Elliott has contributed far more to this point than Halak has, and has earned the right if anything more, than to finish what he helped start.

Jake Allen IS NOT READY.

Is Halak our Starter? Sure. But Brian Elliott is far more than just a backup and Jaro Halak is injury prone. Elliott is getting paid pennies on the dollar for an All-Star appearance and stats that are franchise records. He has been a major part of our stability and success and his ability as a netminding coach and his fundamentally sound goaltending would be things we definently want in the clubhouse and down the stretch on the other side of the bench.

Or to put it in formulaic terms:

Halak + Elliott = Jennings Trophy and a few points away from the Presidents Trophy.

Halak + Elliott + top drawer Defense = Excellent playoff standings. They play like a playoff team. Grind. Fight. Etc.

Halak + Elliott + top drawer Defense + top drawer Offense = THE CUP.

We have made it. We don't need anyone else. LET THIS BET RIDE, DAMMIT.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:06 pm
by glen a richter
If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:19 pm
by gaijin
What is the contract situation for both players? I'd be wary of trading Elliott when he essentially saved our season last year after Halak was injured. We've got a sweet thing going right now, with two goalies capable of playing the role of #1. Why would we dump one after 4 games?

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:58 pm
by Oaklandblue
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
gaijin wrote: I'd be wary of trading Elliott when he essentially saved our season last year after Halak was injured. We've got a sweet thing going right now, with two goalies capable of playing the role of #1. Why would we dump one after 4 games?

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:21 am
by dmiles2186
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
Uh-greed. It's easy to remember that Elliott was great down the stretch, but Allen came up and played lights out. You look at last season, and there was B.A. and A.A--Before Allen/After Allen. If it wasn't for that stretch where Allen was starting and winning games, it's hard to say where that season would end up. It allowed time for Elliott to regroup and then he came back and did a great job himself. But Allen was the catalyst for the drive to the playoffs, in my opinion.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:19 am
by cprice12
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
After a very small sample size last season, to say Allen is ready right now to take over the backup position on team favored to win the cup, whom also has a #1 goalie that is injury prone, is kind of crazy.

Halak gets hurt...often. If we trade Elliott and Halak goes down for a chunk of the season and/or misses playoffs because of injury and we have Jake Allen as our guy, we are no longer the favorite.

If you have Halak as your #1, you almost have to have a #1b type of backup...and Elliott is that guy. Allen is not...at least not yet.

Without Elliott last season, we don't make the playoffs either.

Of course, all of this depends on what you get in return...but I'm guessing Elliott is worth far more to us than he would fetch in a trade.

I would be upset if we traded our security blanket in net.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:21 am
by cprice12
dmiles2186 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
Uh-greed. It's easy to remember that Elliott was great down the stretch, but Allen came up and played lights out. You look at last season, and there was B.A. and A.A--Before Allen/After Allen. If it wasn't for that stretch where Allen was starting and winning games, it's hard to say where that season would end up. It allowed time for Elliott to regroup and then he came back and did a great job himself. But Allen was the catalyst for the drive to the playoffs, in my opinion.
Allen's numbers weren't "lights out". They were decent, and the team played well when he was in net...but he wasn't tearing it up.
His save % was under .900 for a good chunk of his time in net last year.
The team's overall play improved quite a bit when Allen was in net. Allen played well, but he is given too much credit for the team's success.

15 games
9 wins... 4 losses
.905 save %
2.46 GAA

31 goalies last season had a better GAA
51 goalies had a better save %

He wasn't lights out. But the team went 9-4, so he gets credit for it. He also had the save of the year, which artificially inflates people's opinion of his play.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:22 am
by gaijin
dmiles2186 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
Uh-greed. It's easy to remember that Elliott was great down the stretch, but Allen came up and played lights out. You look at last season, and there was B.A. and A.A--Before Allen/After Allen. If it wasn't for that stretch where Allen was starting and winning games, it's hard to say where that season would end up. It allowed time for Elliott to regroup and then he came back and did a great job himself. But Allen was the catalyst for the drive to the playoffs, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone would argue with that, but to trade either Elliott OR Halak right now would be to choose to put all our eggs in a single basket, and both Elliott and Halak have shown that their baskets have a few holes. Too risky to trade one now, so early in the season.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:22 am
by STLADOGG
Elliott for Stamkos?

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:29 am
by cprice12
gaijin wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
Uh-greed. It's easy to remember that Elliott was great down the stretch, but Allen came up and played lights out. You look at last season, and there was B.A. and A.A--Before Allen/After Allen. If it wasn't for that stretch where Allen was starting and winning games, it's hard to say where that season would end up. It allowed time for Elliott to regroup and then he came back and did a great job himself. But Allen was the catalyst for the drive to the playoffs, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone would argue with that, but to trade either Elliott OR Halak right now would be to choose to put all our eggs in a single basket, and both Elliott and Halak have shown that their baskets have a few holes. Too risky to trade one now, so early in the season.
Uh, me me me me...I'll argue with that.

Allen wasn't light's out.

If you want to talk about lights out...Elliott's numbers were lights out when he returned to the net last season.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:32 am
by glen a richter
Let's remember that post Halak's injury but pre-Allen, Elliott was putting up miserable numbers and the team was playing very hesitant hockey in front of him. Young Jake comes in, plays solid enough goal that the team starts playing with more confidence, he earns multiple starts and then when Halak came back, they felt confident enough to send Elliott down to Peoria to iron out his issues. If Allen doesn't come in and settle the ship, Elliott continues to play like crap, Halak is rushed back and maybe gets re-injured, Elliott gets more time between the pipes when he's not mentally where he need to be and this team loses significantly more games than it actually did and misses the playoffs. Maybe I give Allen a bit too much credit, but I think his arrival was the turning point of last season. He showed he was ready last season and he didn't magically become less ready this season.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:55 am
by dmiles2186
cprice12 wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:If it wasn't for Jake Allen this team probably misses the playoffs last season. To say he's not ready is the height of silliness.
Uh-greed. It's easy to remember that Elliott was great down the stretch, but Allen came up and played lights out. You look at last season, and there was B.A. and A.A--Before Allen/After Allen. If it wasn't for that stretch where Allen was starting and winning games, it's hard to say where that season would end up. It allowed time for Elliott to regroup and then he came back and did a great job himself. But Allen was the catalyst for the drive to the playoffs, in my opinion.
Allen's numbers weren't "lights out". They were decent, and the team played well when he was in net...but he wasn't tearing it up.
His save % was under .900 for a good chunk of his time in net last year.
The team's overall play improved quite a bit when Allen was in net. Allen played well, but he is given too much credit for the team's success.

15 games
9 wins... 4 losses
.905 save %
2.46 GAA

31 goalies last season had a better GAA
51 goalies had a better save %

He wasn't lights out. But the team went 9-4, so he gets credit for it. He also had the save of the year, which artificially inflates people's opinion of his play.
Yeah, the numbers aren't great. I'll give you that. When I said lights out, I didn't say that Allen's numbers were pristine. What I meant was that prior to Allen being in net, our D and 'tending was a mess. You could tell the D knew if they made a mistake, Halak or Elliott wasn't stopping the puck. With Allen, that change.

Allen comes up and he won a few in a row, if I recall, and the D and the team started to get a swagger back. There's no way to quantify that. But there was a confidence there that had been missing. Allen stabilized things. Prior to him, we were fighting for just a playoff spot. And it's true, Elliott's numbers were fantastic and he's probably the main reason we earned a 4 seed and home ice in the first round.

But the numbers don't tell the whole story with Allen, in my opinion. If you were to ask me who had the better overall year between Allen and Elliott, then Elliott would probably be my answer. But to discount Allen just because of numbers isn't giving him enough credit. As it was said earlier, Elliott was AWFUL, absolutely AWFUL prior to Allen getting the nod. Whether the numbers tell it or not, the season turned once Allen was given the keys for just a little while. Then Ells did the rest.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:17 am
by kodos
It's way too early to move him.

That said, I'm not opposed to moving him, but you have to get a decent return back, and goaltenders rarely fetch much in return.

And let's be honest, what does this team even need? The only player you could make a case for the Blues needed is a true elite scorer. They don't need forwards, they don't need defensemen, and they don't need goaltenders.

So what do you get back for Elliott? Draft picks? Meh. And even if you could package him with some other guys to get an elite scoring forward, why would you want to blow up the team when they are doing so well?

Yes, I know it's early, but for right now, I think you just have to keep rolling. It's better to just keep him.

Re: Elliott trade a possibility?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:26 am
by STLADOGG
Personally, I trust Elliott more than I trust Allen.