Let's Go Blues

You really had to post SIX TIMES? Here's your answer: IF if's were a fifth, we'd all get drunk.

Bishop is gone. How well he is doing should cast a light not on Bishop, but Jake Allen. I know there is this itching urge to sign a 33 (Soon to be 34)-year old netminder, but if Ben is doing so great, and he really is, then the only question from there is, based on that, why haven't we called up and ran Jake yet? Jake's stats and his All-Star status in the minors is saying one thing: Start me.

So why not?

Oaklandblue wrote:You really had to post SIX TIMES? Here's your answer: IF if's were a fifth, we'd all get drunk.

Bishop is gone. How well he is doing should cast a light not on Bishop, but Jake Allen. I know there is this itching urge to sign a 33 (Soon to be 34)-year old netminder, but if Ben is doing so great, and he really is, then the only question from there is, based on that, why haven't we called up and ran Jake yet? Jake's stats and his All-Star status in the minors is saying one thing: Start me.

So why not?

Because we have two goalies better than Allen on the club right now? And because we are trying to win a cup this year?

Bishop is gone, so there's no point in lamenting how well he's doing. I'm happy for him. It's easy to view it in hindsight that we let a potentially great goalie slip away. But recall, while he was here, he couldn't crack the starting lineup. When Elliott was signed, it was head to head with Bishop for the #2 job in training camp. Loser gets sent to the AHL. Bishop lost.

When he was called up and played (which wasn't a lot), he played okay, but I never thought he was a #1. When we got a 2nd rd pick for him from Ottawa, I was more than happy with that return. I thought they overpaid for him. Allen is in the same boat. Like Curt said, we've got 2 guys better than him on the roster at this time. But Allen is going to be hitting his breakout years soon and it will be interesting to see the kind of ceiling he has.

xbleed83bluex wrote:

glen a richter wrote:Miller may not be that much of an upgrade over Halak, but let's not get carried away saying Halak is the second coming. How can we praise Jaro, who is partly a product of a very good defensive team but crucify Roman Turek who was also the product of a very good defensive team?

Allen is the goalie of the future. The future is next year. They said just as much by giving him the type of contract they gave him. Trading for Miller, which could be done on the cheap considering there's not a huge market for a rental goalie, and then riding him through the playoffs and letting him explore free agency at the end of the season, is not a terrible idea.

Halak and a conditional pick for Miller and a conditional pick. The conditional pick to the Sabres becomes a later round pick when Miller signs elsewhere an becomes not a pick at all if, for some reason, he signs back with Buffalo. The conditional pick to the Blues happens only if they don't win The Cup.

What if Ben Bishop was actually our goalie of the future, and we let him go because we had Halak and Elliot?

Anyone else feel like we had future potential with Bishop? What if Bishop ends up being a top-tier goalie?

Then we will be a very good team without that particular top-tier goalie. It's easy to look at it now and say, "Bishop is having the best year, so we made the wrong choice," but that wouldn't be anything but hindsight. At the time, it was the only practical choice. He was our 3rd string goalie the year we won the Jennings. We weren't having goaltending issues at that time in any sense of the word. Why on earth would we have decided to replace Halak or Elliott with the third stringer when they were playing so well? Bishop was a FA to be and we weren't going to re-sign him for the same reasons that we wouldn't have traded him. So, we made the trade that made sense at the time to avoid not getting anything in return at all.

While I simply don't understand the fascination with Halak, I'm not sure Miller is the key to the Blues success.

But I found this and it has an interesting take on the issue so I thought I'd pass it on:

http://www.stlouisgametime.com/2014/1/3 ... ip-floping

That's a good read. If it costs Tarasenko or Schwartz, i wouldn't even waste time saying no. I would just hang up.

I don't completely follow his argument though. It seems he is trying to show 1 example that we won a game while playing really well, 1 example that we lost after a shitty first period, and comparing that to a game the Sabres won because of Miller. And, from those 3 pieces of evidence saying, "Miller is the answer." I kinda see where he's going with it, but I think he leaves a lot of dots unconnected. That, or I just don't understand all of what he is arguing. That's the first time I've heard of Fenwick.

cardsfan04 wrote:That's a good read. If it costs Tarasenko or Schwartz, i wouldn't even waste time saying no. I would just hang up.

I don't completely follow his argument though. It seems he is trying to show 1 example that we won a game while playing really well, 1 example that we lost after a shitty first period, and comparing that to a game the Sabres won because of Miller. And, from those 3 pieces of evidence saying, "Miller is the answer." I kinda see where he's going with it, but I think he leaves a lot of dots unconnected. That, or I just don't understand all of what he is arguing. That's the first time I've heard of Fenwick.

I think what he is saying is that Blues tend to shit their pants in the 1st a lot and need a goalie that can consistently bail them out. He doesn't believe Elliot or Halak are capable of such consistency. On the contrary, Miller is, in his opinion, the man. Very soft argument.

evil roy wrote:While I simply don't understand the fascination with Halak, I'm not sure Miller is the key to the Blues success.

But I found this and it has an interesting take on the issue so I thought I'd pass it on:

http://www.stlouisgametime.com/2014/1/3 ... ip-floping

This link doesn't tell me to trade for Ryan Miller, it tells me our ->team<- is incapable of playing against a California team.

Sorry, it's the truth. Being outshot 13-6? 21-9? How are they getting these opportunities at-goal? Where's the D? Where's the offense making plays and scoring goals?

This isn't the Blues team we've seen, but here's (for the most part) why:

Reading that made me realize that we screwed up; we should have asked for the Blues to be moved to the Eastern Conference. There we'd make the Finals pretty consistantly and only have to worry about the West then and there. As it stands, our D can hold up against damn near everyone else, but anyone that's San Jose, Los Angeles and Anaheim is guranteed death this year to us.

Halak is an Eastern Conference netminder. Mind, he almost helped the Habs to the Finals, in a VERY WEAK Conference. That experience is what is getting him paid 4m a year, which is cool if you're another Eastern team that needs that brand of dominance, but against the West, Halak shows his holes glaringly. He's had the best season he's had since wearing the Note and we can clearly see he's hit his skill ceiling. Saying that, if we had the depth of D we thought we did, Halak would be more or less okay.

What is causing the team to turtle until the end of the game and suddenly, like clockwork, come alive? That's very suspicious.

According to Spector's Hockey Rumors (http://spectorshockey.net/blog/sunday-n ... y-26-2014/):

Trade options, however, could be limited. Miller’s been linked to the Blues but GM Doug Armstrong “has emphatically backed Jaroslav Halak”. Garrioch suggests the Wild as an option, as Josh Harding is battling MS symptoms…

Nothing new on Halak, just a confirmation that Army is 100% behind him... But I had no idea about Harding. This sucks big time for him, and the Wild.

Honestly, I'm of late very nervous about both Halak and Elliott. I fully expect to see a 2-0 deficit (or worse) the minute I check the scores. Miller is probably an expensive solution. I just have to wonder how far we can expect to advance in the playoffs when our tenders are getting off to shaky starts against other playoff caliber teams. The recent trend of shaky starts is also corresponding to a drop off in our offense. Is everyone pressing because they lost confidence in their goalies and that's just exacerbating the problem?

Armstrong may really have complete faith in Halak. But that endorsement reads similar to a GM giving his manager/coach a vote of confidence the week before firing him.

cardsfan04 wrote:Armstrong may really have complete faith in Halak. But that endorsement reads similar to a GM giving his manager/coach a vote of confidence the week before firing him.

Yeah, that crossed my mind. We'll see what happens.

It all comes down to what the Sabres want for Miller. Has there been any indication as to who they'd want from us in return?

[tweet][/tweet]

dmiles2186 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]

Honestly, what is he going to say? Of course he's going to support who's currently on the roster.

ViPeRx007 wrote:

dmiles2186 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]

Honestly, what is he going to say? Of course he's going to support who's currently on the roster.

That would be great. "yeah, they're our goalies but honestly we have no confidence in them at all". If he said that, he'd be the first one traded. No one would ever come out and say something like that about one of their teammates unless they were actively trying to be sent packing. Therefore, I don't put much weight into what TJ said. It was a stock response.

glen a richter wrote:

ViPeRx007 wrote:

dmiles2186 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]

Honestly, what is he going to say? Of course he's going to support who's currently on the roster.

That would be great. "yeah, they're our goalies but honestly we have no confidence in them at all". If he said that, he'd be the first one traded. No one would ever come out and say something like that about one of their teammates unless they were actively trying to be sent packing. Therefore, I don't put much weight into what TJ said. It was a stock response.

I put it there more for the fact that he hadn't heard any rumors. And maybe he was just blowing hot air. I realize that response doesn't move the needle much. There certainly isn't any news on an actual trade, so I thought I'd at least share the response of someone actually no the roster.

Okay, I'm going to say this right now and this is just a prediction: We're getting Miller.

Now, I am outright against the idea as we could do better than Ryan Miller or just run Halak in the playoffs and see if he really is The One True Goalie for real, but the stars are aligned for the moment and at the moment he is the go-to guy. I've sat down and read through forums and other teams fans (Ducks, Kings, etc.) are outright scared if we acquire Miller. Everyone seems to think he's the missing piece of our puzzle, rental or otherwise. I sat down to think about it and the truth is that swapping Miller for Halak is the best of both worlds for both players. Halak was built for the East and he would be happier and would perform amazingly well there. Trading him to the Sabres is an absolute no-brainer because they're not going anywhere and we won't have to deal with them this year. Miller's GAA with the Sabres, who are on route to have the lowest scoring team in NHL HISTORY, says enough about him. I don't like it, to be quite honest, but I want to win the Cup, so I'll set my personal opinions aside. Frankly, I'd rather have Tim Thomas and I figure we'd pay as much for either rental, BUT...saying that...Miller is known to be a boost for the clubhouse, leads and takes his position seriously, and he's much younger than Thomas.

Saying all of that, if Army does make a move with Halak, it's not due to confidence but asset management. We know Halak will ask for more money and we've already rode the train for long enough. Truth is, he can't stay healthy. We land in the same situation with Miller, and if we can win the Cup with him onboard, he will stay and we can discuss extensions then. Right now, we're favored and with him, everyone is saying we are THE team to beat. For Ryan Miller, there is no better stop than in a city that has never won a Cup, and if he wins it here, he will be worshipped like a damn God.

And we all know this.

Saying all of that again, I'd ship Chris Stewart, Halak and a pick with a conditional second if we win the Cup for him. Worst case scenario we break even with the money end and that will help sign Miller, if he proves to have the goods.

If we acquire Miller, this is how we should handle it. Give Buffalo a roster player with Halak and picks. Knowing Army, if we get him, it's going to be a great deal for us. Otherwise, Army won't deal. Worse case scenario we run Halak/Elliott with Allen in the wings. And considering things, that ain't bad at all.

I'd trade Berglund, Halak and Schmaltz who has evidently tailed off tremendously in the defense depth chart. If they insist on picks too, sure why not? Give them a pick too. The more I think about this and how live bodies would have to be going back to Buffalo the more I remember how much I truly can't stand Berglund. I would have been just as happy if they traded him to Edmonton instead of Perron. And just like trading Perron made this team better (addition by subtraction) trading Berglund would do the same thing. Then Jaskin can come up permanently, which would be a big step up from Berglund in his own right.

glen a richter wrote:I'd trade Berglund, Halak and Schmaltz who has evidently tailed off tremendously in the defense depth chart. If they insist on picks too, sure why not? Give them a pick too. The more I think about this and how live bodies would have to be going back to Buffalo the more I remember how much I truly can't stand Berglund. I would have been just as happy if they traded him to Edmonton instead of Perron. And just like trading Perron made this team better (addition by subtraction) trading Berglund would do the same thing. Then Jaskin can come up permanently, which would be a big step up from Berglund in his own right.

Addition by Subtraction seems to be how Army rolls. With that said, Win-Win-Win