GDT #60: 2/18/16 | 7:00PM CST | v Kings | FSMW/KMOX

[ecbm]

You give it to Elliott. Period. He is the guy. And you don't back off that, even if Elliott has a couple poor games. Maybe you give Allen the start after a poor Elliott start, but then you put Elliott right back out there.

It is nice to have two bona fide goalies (at a nice discount too), but man, it's getting old doing this thing every year where one goalie is amazing, gets hurt, then the other takes over and that leaves the coach w/ a monumental decision come playoff time.

Look, THIS is why you need a clear starter and a clear backup. The backup should be inferior to the starter. You use the resources that would be wasted on a high-end backup, who at best is going to cause this dilemma every season, and you use them elsewhere. Why shouldn't Elliott be sat if he has a run of poor games? Two wouldn't be enough for me but what about 5 in 10 or 7 in 12? He's had runs like that in the past. I mean, if it's possible for Allen to lose the job through injury, why shouldn't it possible for Elliott to lose it through lack of performance? Seems like a silly question to have to ask doesn't it?

You know who doesn't have these problems? Alain Vigneault, Jon Cooper, Michel Terrien et al. They have starters and backups. Period. Elliott has been great over his time with the Blues. If the choice has been made to make him the starter, fine and the FO needs to go with it-extend Elliott and trade Allen for what you can get in the offseason. Bluntly, they need to stop being pussies about it. Yep, you might end up regretting such a call-like with Bishop. But seriously, make a damn decision. The resources with which the Blues get to work in terms of budget are not unlimited.

Is Brian Elliott the greatest goalie in Blues history?

As much as Curt's right about comparing players from different eras, I can't see past Mike Liut: he carried some pretty untalented teams. Whereas the current incarnation of the Blues has the best defense the club has ever had. It's not a coincidence that we've watched Halak, Elliott (consecutive holders of franchise SO record) and Allen all compile great numbers in this system. The Blues allow among the fewest shots every season. I certainly grant that Elliott's in the discussion though.

Finally: goaltending has never been the reason for the Blues' playoff elimination over the last three seasons.

[cprice12]

Look, THIS is why you need a clear starter and a clear backup. The backup should be inferior to the starter. You use the resources that would be wasted on a high-end backup, who at best is going to cause this dilemma every season, and you use them elsewhere. Why shouldn't Elliott be sat if he has a run of poor games? Two wouldn't be enough for me but what about 5 in 10 or 7 in 12? He's had runs like that in the past. I mean, if it's possible for Allen to lose the job through injury, why shouldn't it possible for Elliott to lose it through lack of performance? Seems like a silly question to have to ask doesn't it?

We are going to disagree with this until the cows come home.
Again, this is a really bad time to make the point you are trying to make, because...
- Without Elliott, we aren't even in the playoffs right now because of our inability to score goals.
- Without a good backup goalie, Montreal is going to miss the playoffs when they were off to the best start in franchise history with Price in net.
It's hardly "wasted" money when the money spent on a "backup" saves your season like it has with us and like it could have done with Montreal.

Don't you think Montreal wishes they had spent a little more to get a quality backup goalie? You bet your ass they do.

So what if it's a hard decision on who to start in the playoffs or if it's a tough call on who to go with should the other struggle for a few games? That's not a reason to ditch a quality backup. That's why the coach gets paid. Taking away a quality backup doesn't mean the situation is better because the choice for the #1 is easy. It means the choice is easy because the goaltending situation isn't as good.

Talk to me about who we would add to the roster by moving Allen or Elliott's contract and adding someone at the league minimum. We'd free up, what, maybe $1.5 million?

You know who doesn't have these problems? Alain Vigneault, Jon Cooper, Michel Terrien et al. They have starters and backups. Period.

Yes, please... let's talk about this.
Those coaches that you mentioned...the head coaches for New York, Tampa Bay and Montreal have clear cut #1's...let's look at the combined goalie cap hit for each team (starter and backup).

- New York Rangers? $9.25 million.
- Tampa Bay? $7 million
- Montreal? $7.5 million

And us?
- St. Louis? $4.85 million.

Lundqvist alone makes $4 million more than both Elliott and Allen combined.

You want to save money by using the pattern of the Rangers, Lightning or Canadiens? They spend a LOT more money on goaltending than the Blues do.
And actually, as far as the cap hit goes, those teams would do well to follow the pattern of the Blues. We are getting better goaltending from top to bottom and spending far less money. I fail to see the problem. And I'm surprised you used Montreal's goaltending as an example to support your stance, as their backup situation is a mess.

In fact, only 5 teams spend less on their top 2 goalies than the Blues.
Anaheim, Buffalo, Edmonton, San Jose, Winnipeg

I fail to see the problem with the money we are spending on goaltending.

[ecbm]

We are going to disagree with this until the cows come home.

Yes, we will. I understand your approach: you want to be very conservative by having a backup arguably as good as the starter because, yes-as I cede, your starter may get injured. To me, it's a false economy. Plan A for the vast majority of successful teams involves their key players, including the starting goalie, staying healthy. So a team may well have to punt in the situation where Montreal finds itself right now. But you know what? That can happen anyway. Let's say-gods forbid-Tank breaks his leg and is done for the season. How is that any less of a problem than losing Price and having to turn to Condon? It isn't. Also, and Blues fans should be very aware of this, even if all your planning goes right there's a good chance you won't win it all anyway. Considering that, I'm willing to take some risks like passing on expensive backup to be better or deeper elsewhere.

Talk to me about who we would add to the roster by moving Allen or Elliott's contract and adding someone at the league minimum. We'd free up, what, maybe $1.5 million?

Elliott will cost a lot more in his next contract. As for Allen, I think it's worthwhile to move him for futures if the older Elliott is to be the starter. The Blues have a lot of quality G prospects now. But sure, you could keep him as a backup.

let's look at the combined goalie cap hit for each team (starter and backup).

- New York Rangers? $9.25 million.
- Tampa Bay? $7 million
- Montreal? $7.5 million

And us?

- St. Louis? $4.85 million.

That savings would be even greater with Allen as starter, obviously. Also obviously, great talent is something you have to pay for.

Lundqvist alone makes $4 million more than both Elliott and Allen combined.

And that means no desperation trades where you give up a first rounder and a real prospect for a 2-month rental of Miller. Worth it? We'll have to see how the next couple seasons go. Then again, what would a Blues fan give to see their team in the Finals? Or even just winning multiple playoff series year-on-year?