Still pretenders

[glen a richter]

Yea he could do that, but I don't expect him too. As far as I know he doesn't have a NTC and I betting he wants to stay with a cup contender instead of risking being dealt to a shit team. I don't see Army trading him either without a solid back up plan for Allen if he shits the bed his second full year.

Here's a plan... Elliott + Oshie to the Rags for the RFA rights to Cam Talbot + Carl Hagelin.

Rangers, Cam and Carl crack up laughing and hang up the phone.

Cam will be traded, that's a foregone conclusion. Hagelin is statistically actually worse than Oshie. The only reason I'd want him is for his speed, which is something this team is clearly lacking. End of the day, the Rags might actually come ahead in that trade if Hagelin doesn't improve statistically.

[Oaklandblue]

Yea he could do that, but I don't expect him too. As far as I know he doesn't have a NTC and I betting he wants to stay with a cup contender instead of risking being dealt to a shit team. I don't see Army trading him either without a solid back up plan for Allen if he shits the bed his second full year.

Here's a plan... Elliott + Oshie to the Rags for the RFA rights to Cam Talbot + Carl Hagelin.

Rangers, Cam and Carl crack up laughing and hang up the phone.

Cam will be traded, that's a foregone conclusion. Hagelin is statistically actually worse than Oshie. The only reason I'd want him is for his speed, which is something this team is clearly lacking. End of the day, the Rags might actually come ahead in that trade if Hagelin doesn't improve statistically.

If the Rags win the Cup, both may be very inclined to stay rather than pick a cursed team to make the jump to. Hagelin in the playoffs has made Oshie look like a bush leaguer, although the Rags have this thing with standards so if anyone could squeeze the amount of whatever talent Osh has got, it'd be them. I think trading Elliott to the Rags would be a new level of stupidity for the Blues. Ells is a proven playoff netminder and you'd trade him for someone with two years under their belt on a team as stacked with as much resolve as the Rags? The biggest failure I see in all of this is the Blues management bypassing Elliott for a rookie and Ryan Miller. Only playoff series we've won since Elliott has been with us is the one that Elliott netminded in after Halak got hurt. Coincidence or Upper Management stupidity? I'll take B for the win, Alex.

[ecbm]

Jesus f'in Christ what is it with Elliott? He hasn't been "shafted" by anyone, in fact the Blues gave him a paycheck and a shot at starting when his career was in the toilet. He's a small-sample warrior who always gets found out when he makes enough starts, even if those starts are behind one of the very best defenses in the league. He was totally inconsistent and often awful down the stretch last year and played himself out of a job. Most every Blues fan, however, has decided he's a victim somehow so they're in love with him. I don't dislike the guy but he's nothing special. If he ever gets to free agency, the level of interest in him will bear out that point.

It would be funny to see the Blues pull an Oshie-for-Hagelin deal with the coaching each club has in place now. You'd watch Hagelin become a plodding, dump-and-chase grinder (or maybe he'd sit in favor of Ott or Berglund because he's too flash) and Oshie would suddenly have speed.

Berg goes for picks, Paajarvi goes and maybe Rattie too if bundled on a good deal. Oh sobotka's rights for a late 6th rounder too.

If Sobotka at $2.7M gets you a late 6th rounder then Berglund ($3.6M w/NTC) and Paajarvi likely get you nothing at all.

[theohall]

Ells is a proven playoff netminder.

Do you seriously believe this?

Ells playoff stats line:
GP 19
GS 17
W 6
L 10
Save % .897
GAA 2.54

If you want to call that proven, it's proven he doesn't play well in the playoffs.

[APOD]

Jesus f'in Christ what is it with Elliott? He hasn't been "shafted" by anyone, in fact the Blues gave him a paycheck and a shot at starting when his career was in the toilet. He's a small-sample warrior who always gets found out when he makes enough starts, even if those starts are behind one of the very best defenses in the league. He was totally inconsistent and often awful down the stretch last year and played himself out of a job. Most every Blues fan, however, has decided he's a victim somehow so they're in love with him. I don't dislike the guy but he's nothing special. If he ever gets to free agency, the level of interest in him will bear out that point.

It would be funny to see the Blues pull an Oshie-for-Hagelin deal with the coaching each club has in place now. You'd watch Hagelin become a plodding, dump-and-chase grinder (or maybe he'd sit in favor of Ott or Berglund because he's too flash) and Oshie would suddenly have speed.

Berg goes for picks, Paajarvi goes and maybe Rattie too if bundled on a good deal. Oh sobotka's rights for a late 6th rounder too.

If Sobotka at $2.7M gets you a late 6th rounder then Berglund ($3.6M w/NTC) and Paajarvi likely get you nothing at all.

Its going to be hard to trade a guy thats not playing here and has acted like he no longer has desire to do so. If by chance its just us and he will; play for another team Armstrong would have to know what teams and be able to prove to the trading team that boat would come back and play for them. That said might as well try and get a little something if we can by trading his rights.

[ecbm]

Its going to be hard to trade a guy thats not playing here and has acted like he no longer has desire to do so

He's not playing for the Blues over $300K, which probably wouldn't have chafed so much had the FO not been handing out better contracts to inferior players like it was going out of style. From what I've heard, it's quite possible he does want to play in the NHL, possibly even for the Blues. Obviously until he's willing to commit to come over you'd get nothing for him. But at that point, you can get something much better than a 6th-rounder. Though I wouldn't put it past DA to get no more than that.

The biggest failure I see in all of this is the Blues management bypassing Elliott for a rookie and Ryan Miller.

I see the failure as spunking all the money and draft picks to get/keep "veterans" who have given nothing better than what we would have gotten had they just stuck with their own kids (and had they stuck with Bishop...). That's typical DA stuff: blow your futures acquiring fringe-y pieces that won't really improve your team and are quite likely to sit in the press box and/or be back on the FA market in a few months.

[glen a richter]

I haven't looked at the pending UFA list in a while (not that they matter, can't afford them anyway) but I have seen the RFA list and trading for the negotiating rights to some of them may not be a terrible idea.

We are talking about a team gone awry here though, and I expect the roster we saw last we met these guys on the ice will be very similar next season. I expect Barbashev and Fabbri will "get a look" and then be deemed "not ready", they'll find some flaw in Parayko's game and Lindbohm will get #7 detail--maybe.

[gaijin]

I haven't looked at the pending UFA list in a while (not that they matter, can't afford them anyway) but I have seen the RFA list and trading for the negotiating rights to some of them may not be a terrible idea.

We are talking about a team gone awry here though, and I expect the roster we saw last we met these guys on the ice will be very similar next season. I expect Barbashev and Fabbri will "get a look" and then be deemed "not ready", they'll find some flaw in Parayko's game and Lindbohm will get #7 detail--maybe.

Now that Hitch is back, I'm more convinced than ever you're right and we'll pretty much have the same team next year. Management will look at our players and say, "Whelp, there's no one out there we can afford who is better than the guys we already have. We'll have the best team we can feasibly have if we stand pat."

Of course, all this does to us fans is drive our bipolar dissatisfaction through the roof every time we lose two in a row this season.

[Oaklandblue]

Ells is a proven playoff netminder.

Do you seriously believe this?

Ells playoff stats line:
GP 19
GS 17
W 6
L 10
Save % .897
GAA 2.54

If you want to call that proven, it's proven he doesn't play well in the playoffs.

Considering the gutless teams in front of him, I wouldn't weigh that heavy on the numbers. You put anyone behind that team, their numbers are going to look like utter shit:

Miller was 2-4 with a 2.70 and .897 GAA.
Allen was 2-4 with a 2.20 and .904 GAA which is only a difference of SEVEN to Ells.

What makes Elliott better than the other two? He won the only series this team has won in what, half a decade? You build off the confidence of wins to get more wins and you structure your team accordingly. Well, this org doesn't build off of shit and they get different players, not better, and expect to win?

This falls in line with the following:

Who is the team's #1 goaltender? No one knows and how does that instill confidence and mental toughness?
What is this team's identity? What's that?
When Hitch's contract is up after another year of failure, how did the front office respond: We'll let Hitch decide what he wants to do...who isn't under contract.

Think about it.

[theohall]

Ells is a proven playoff netminder.

Do you seriously believe this?

Ells playoff stats line:
GP 19
GS 17
W 6
L 10
Save % .897
GAA 2.54

If you want to call that proven, it's proven he doesn't play well in the playoffs.

Considering the gutless teams in front of him, I wouldn't weigh that heavy on the numbers. You put anyone behind that team, their numbers are going to look like utter shit:

Miller was 2-4 with a 2.70 and .897 GAA.
Allen was 2-4 with a 2.20 and .904 GAA which is only a difference of SEVEN to Ells.

What makes Elliott better than the other two? He won the only series this team has won in what, half a decade? You build off the confidence of wins to get more wins and you structure your team accordingly. Well, this org doesn't build off of shit and they get different players, not better, and expect to win?

This falls in line with the following:

Who is the team's #1 goaltender? No one knows and how does that instill confidence and mental toughness?
What is this team's identity? What's that?
When Hitch's contract is up after another year of failure, how did the front office respond: We'll let Hitch decide what he wants to do...who isn't under contract.

Think about it.

None of that makes Elliott a "proven" playoff goaltender. Many NHL goalies have won one series and not done squat outside of that one series.

[ecbm]

Of course, all this does to us fans is drive our bipolar dissatisfaction through the roof every time we lose two in a row this season.

Yep. I think the ownership doesn't see this due to the smoke being blown by the DA/KH bromance. I know very few Blues fans with hope for next season and none who have had their outlook improved by yesterday's decision to stay the course. The atmosphere at home is going to turn poisonous very quickly when this team performs poorly/loses a few in a row.

Regarding Elliott, all I can say is that it would certainly be better for the team to have a clear #1 one way or the other. There's a reason successful teams don't go with a tandem. The most successful version I can think of in recent times was Fernandez & Roloson in Minnesota-and their teams made the playoffs twice out of four seasons, winning two series.

[theohall]

For the record, I am not saying Elliott cannot do the job in the playoffs. I'm saying calling him a "proven" playoff goaltender is a stretch. One series win does not equate to the tag proven. Heck, if Elliott were winning those one goal games against the Kings - heck yeah he would be proven. But he wasn't winning. Quick was which made him even more proven in that he got the tough wins.

Part of going with Allen in this year's playoffs - he played better down the stretch. Elliott had been struggling. Allen got the starts at the end of the season and was playing excellent.

Elliott, meanwhile, had lost his last two playoff series to the Kings. He did not play poorly, but Quick out-played him. So one has to question the confidence of the team with Ells in net for the playoffs. The way this season ended with Elliott struggling and Allen playing extremely well, it made no sense for Elliott to start.

At times, Elliott plays like a #1 netminder. At times, he plays like a career backup.

Elliot's last 6 games of the regular season: 2-3-1, .875 SV%, allowed 18 goals, ~3.30 GAA (he got pulled from one game early in the 2nd). Would you start someone in the playoffs playing like that to end the season?

It's nice to play devil's advocate after the fact when the Blues were eliminated, but no way had Elliott "earned" the #1 position after being called the #1 and then playing like crap in his last 6.

Meanwhile, Allen posted this in his last 8:
5-2-1
.950 SV%
10 goals allowed
1.32 GAA

Who would anyone honestly believe should be starting playoff games given those two sets of numbers? And Allen continued this stellar play through the first 4 games of the playoffs. It's not like the Blues offense showed up - again - as happened to Elliott vs LA.

The problem is not in net and this idiocy of "#1" or not. Allen earned the job down the stretch while Elliott choked. The problem is the guys in front of them not scoring. When the Blues scored 3 or more goals, they won. The 4 losses = 4 goals total (2,0,1,1). That's not on a goaltender with a 920+ SV% in those 1st 4 games.

[Oaklandblue]

It's not like the Blues offense showed up - again - as happened to Elliott vs LA.

I'd revisit Ells numbers in the playoffs while wearing Blue. Beyond one game where he didn't get a win/loss and got .857, his numbers while wearing Blue in the playoffs states and paints a far better picture of him and points the issue with the team at the team.

[theohall]

It's not like the Blues offense showed up - again - as happened to Elliott vs LA.

I'd revisit Ells numbers in the playoffs while wearing Blue. Beyond one game where he didn't get a win/loss and got .857, his numbers while wearing Blue in the playoffs states and paints a far better picture of him and points the issue with the team at the team.

One could say the same about Allen - even though it's a smaller sample size.

[Oaklandblue]

It's not like the Blues offense showed up - again - as happened to Elliott vs LA.

I'd revisit Ells numbers in the playoffs while wearing Blue. Beyond one game where he didn't get a win/loss and got .857, his numbers while wearing Blue in the playoffs states and paints a far better picture of him and points the issue with the team at the team.

One could say the same about Allen - even though it's a smaller sample size.

True. Nothing against Jake Allen, who came in rolling thunder and for a rookie stood tall. My thing is this:

Management said that Brian Elliott was their #1. Brian with stats from the Blues earned that and his issues may stem from the back-and-forth uncertainty of the front office. Heck, that might be the team's issue as a whole, really. A goalie you don't do that to. No head coach starts a rookie when you have a proven -playoff- netminder on the roster (his numbers as a Blue and his one won series on this team states that he IS that guy, no matter how another player performs in the playoffs, in hindsight. If this team performed as they do in the regular season in the playoffs, we'd be working on Cup #3 and Hitch would have a huge and LONG term contract). Hitch going with a rookie was pretty uncharacteristic; note that of Halak and Elliott, Ells was shooting for the stars but they went with Halak due to his playoff performance. This time around? Go with the rookie? To me, if I was a cynic, I'd think Hitch doesn't like or trust Ells, which is funny to me because he'd feel that way about him but not about Backes, Oshie, etc. who somehow forgot how to have balls and play hockey the minute the playoffs started.

But we're going with this core?

And I'm going to go on record to state this: Jake's a good netminder but to me he ain't the future: Bings is.

[theohall]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

[glen a richter]

I agree Binnington is the real deal. If I were in charge of his development there is no way in the universe I would let him play an NHL game next season, or maybe even the season after. Rushing him does no good. I disagreed with the signing of Brodeur but I understand why they did it, and I think they're taking the right approach with Binnington.

I think they took the wrong approach with Bishop and Allen, through no fault of eithers. They were in a situation where they genuinely didn't have a choice. Allen might make a fine backup someday, but I don't think his future is as the #1 in St. Louis. I also don't think Elliott is #1 material, I think he's 1A material.

This leaves us with this: Elliott and Allen can split time for the next couple of seasons until Binnington is ready to jump in and take over #1, no questions asked. This arrangement is lousy if you want to win a Cup, but it's good if you want to stay competitive-ish and season Binnington enough to be successful straight away.

More likely, and especially now with Hitch on for another season, I can't even begin to phathom Elliott not demanding a trade. Just taking a quick look at the list of potential FA goalies and picking out which ones would most likely fit for a short term deal (2 years as a 1A or 1B to Allen) I'm looking at Ray Emery, Cam Talbot (not happening) and Devan Dubnyk (not happening). It's a pretty thin list. Whether Ells deserves to be #1 or not is a non-issue. If he thinks he deserves it and his coach doesn't give it to him and he has issues with that then he's poison in the locker room.

[Oaklandblue]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

[cardsfan04]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

I could buy the idea that what Elliott has done as a Blue is more relevant than what he did with the Senators, but not that his Senators record is irrelevant. It's still part of his record in the playoffs.

Elliott has 6 playoff wins. Saying he's a proven playoff goaltender is a stretch no matter how you skew the scenario. He's won one playoff series in his career. Not saying he can't win more, and I'm not knocking him. I like Elliott. But, he hasn't proven a whole lot in the playoffs.

[Oaklandblue]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

I could buy the idea that what Elliott has done as a Blue is more relevant than what he did with the Senators, but not that his Senators record is irrelevant. It's still part of his record in the playoffs.

Elliott has 6 playoff wins. Saying he's a proven playoff goaltender is a stretch no matter how you skew the scenario. He's won one playoff series in his career. Not saying he can't win more, and I'm not knocking him. I like Elliott. But, he hasn't proven a whole lot in the playoffs.

The statement I have made repeatedly that everyone seems to be missing, is of the players we have, WHO is the proven playoff netminder? I never said the best or the most reliable or any of that. Of who we have, who, as a Blue, has posted the stats to stake a claim. And that person is Brian Elliott.

Does anyone care if he won a Stanley Cup with another team? No. Does anyone care if he won a Vezina with another team? Also no. What do we care about? What he does on THIS team, right?

Whether Brian Elliott is the standard of all playoff proven netminders is something I won't argue because he doesn't own a Cup. The statement I made was, of those we have, Brian is the most playoff proven. Why that's being argued is beyond me because the stats exist and they say he's fine, it's the team that sucks. Same with Allen.

Glenn Hall couldn't win a Cup with the team he had in front of him. Let that sink in for a minute.