Armstrong says we are "Rebuilding"

[glen a richter]

Not to be dickholish about it, and I know the comparison is lame considering time of service, but Allen's numbers this year are relatively comparable to the widely regarded (supposed, as far as I'm concerned) best goalie in the world: Henrik Lundqvist. Slightly better GAA, slightly worse save %. This season isn't on Allen, it's on the defense.

[Toasted Oates]

Lest we tumble once more into the goalie rabbit hole, we could all agree Allen has a lot to prove in order to merit his 4 year extension. A good showing in the Playoffs would go a long ways towards that.

Again, though, while you can't win a Cup with bad goaltending, you also can't win it without timely goals and some luck. It takes a village to lift that thing.

The beauty of sports: we'll find out soon enough.

[theohall]

* Signing Allen and Yeo to a long-term contract "sight unseen" - Jake Allen has played 60ish games in the NHL in his ENTIRE career and that allots him to make 4m a year? We complained about Berglund getting a hair under 4x5 and he's proven over the course of HUNDREDS of games to be consistent with a serious upside to him when healthy.

While I can hear people say how good Allen is in the regular season, he is a disaster in the playoffs; we have proven we can make the playoffs, now we need players who can succeed there and if he can't, it's a bad contract regardless how one thinks; if you aren't out to win the Cup when you can make the playoffs, you're doing the team and it's fans a disservice and making the players feel as if their hard work isn't appreciated or valued and when players feel that way, they stop playing hard, they don't shift up that extra gear and it becomes a failure all around with fingers pointing at everyone.

Allen wasn't playing poorly this year, because of Allen. When this team pulled it's head out of it's butt and started actually playing defense again, Allen has been fine. That's the wrong horse to bitch about. And when is a goalie supposed to learn - never being signed, being given up on and shipped out, or what?

Elliott is not a solution as a designated #1. He proved that with his disastrous start to this season. Has Elliott rebounded? Yes. Why? Because he is, again, playing for his friggin' job which he doesn't do if handed the role as the #1 as he was demanding when traded.

Whose your goalie other than head case Elliott or Allen??? Some other guy not on the roster the Blues have to pay??

[theohall]

The Wild did a lot of pissing all over themselves last night. I'll take the latter.

While everyone called this game a playoff preview, I wouldn't base the playoffs on how the Wild played in one game against the Blues. It's not like the Blues scored more than 2 goals against them in this one - the problem the Blues are having under Yeo. Scoring.... If the Blues play the Wild, my guess is it winds up in a bunch of one goal games, like the LA Kings series, with the Blues coming out on the short end, because their offense just isn't as good or as consistent and Boudreau is light-years better than Yeo at getting offense from his players.

In the 5 matchups this season, the Blues scored 3, 4, 1, 1, and 2 winning 3 of those games. The Wild scored 2, 3, 3, 5, and 1. I'd take the team scoring almost 3 goals/game (2. over a series than the team barely scoring over 2/Gm (2.1), especially given the coach whose teams average under 2.5 G/Gm. Defense and goaltending are no longer the key factor in winning Stanley Cups. Offense has become the key.

[Oaklandblue]

* Signing Allen and Yeo to a long-term contract "sight unseen" - Jake Allen has played 60ish games in the NHL in his ENTIRE career and that allots him to make 4m a year? We complained about Berglund getting a hair under 4x5 and he's proven over the course of HUNDREDS of games to be consistent with a serious upside to him when healthy.

While I can hear people say how good Allen is in the regular season, he is a disaster in the playoffs; we have proven we can make the playoffs, now we need players who can succeed there and if he can't, it's a bad contract regardless how one thinks; if you aren't out to win the Cup when you can make the playoffs, you're doing the team and it's fans a disservice and making the players feel as if their hard work isn't appreciated or valued and when players feel that way, they stop playing hard, they don't shift up that extra gear and it becomes a failure all around with fingers pointing at everyone.

Allen wasn't playing poorly this year, because of Allen. When this team pulled it's head out of it's butt and started actually playing defense again, Allen has been fine. That's the wrong horse to bitch about. And when is a goalie supposed to learn - never being signed, being given up on and shipped out, or what?

Elliott is not a solution as a designated #1. He proved that with his disastrous start to this season. Has Elliott rebounded? Yes. Why? Because he is, again, playing for his friggin' job which he doesn't do if handed the role as the #1 as he was demanding when traded.

Whose your goalie other than head case Elliott or Allen??? Some other guy not on the roster the Blues have to pay??

You obviously haven't watched a Flames game this year. If you're going to sit here and give Allen a pass because the team sucked, ask a Flames fan how their team looked in their first dozen games. Terrible is being kind. Elliott didn't help matters but don't put that on him.

From day one, I have said the solution is to keep Elliott and Allen together until Husso can be brought up. Together, they are fire. If we want to get into brass tacks on this, I will remind you that "Headcase" Elliott's stats AS A BLUE stands pretty damn tall. Add in the All-Star and Jennings Trophy and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that not "Naming" Elliott the Starter of this team, after a visit to the WCF and instead paying FOUR MILLION A YEAR to a kid whose proven NOTHING, especially in the playoffs. There was no reason to do this and unless Jake Allen goes playoff warrior on us (Which hell, I hope he does), his contract is going to look worse than Halak's.

Like Calgary, the Blues could have named Elliott the Starter and after some poor play bench him and run Allen instead. But that just makes far too much sense for you, huh? Don't feel bad, it made too much sense for this organization to do, too. And hell, it's not like earned it or anything, right? Just give it to Jake. He's done so much for the franchise. As for money, it's a no-issue since BOTH Netminders were under contract this year but if you want to be technical about it, the Blues saved roughly one million dollars this year by trading Elliott and signing Hutton to a two-year deal.

This team's future in goal is Husso, not Jake Allen and the sooner we get that, the better. What should have been done is Allen should have been bridged. Nothing he did merited his contract. If one or the other was lights out, we could have shipped one off at the TDL along with someone else and maybe even Shattenkirk as a rental and gotten Bishop.

Hell, we had Copley and he looked pretty damn good. The answer you're looking for, if not Husso, might be one that we just traded away, options that would have saved us money in the long run, but we HAD to have a netminder signed long-term and spare no expense, right?

That's what I'm pissy about.

You know, that same manner of pissy that you all have with players like Berglund and Lehtera. "If only their contract was lesser or hell, if they only did more to earn it." That kind of hindsight is a major part of the team's problem with asset management.

Don't let regular season numbers fool you. In the playoffs, Brian Elliott is money and has won the Blues playoff series over Jaroslav Halak, Ryan Miller AND Jake Allen. Until Jake Allen wins an NHL playoff series, He is THE Head Case.

[WaukeeBlues]

Lest we tumble once more into the goalie rabbit hole, we could all agree Allen has a lot to prove in order to merit his 4 year extension. A good showing in the Playoffs would go a long ways towards that.

Again, though, while you can't win a Cup with bad goaltending, you also can't win it without timely goals and some luck. It takes a village to lift that thing.

The beauty of sports: we'll find out soon enough.

*clap**clap**clap*

Pretty much my thoughts. For better or worse as a goalie in this league you are largely defined by what you do in the playoffs. True, you can't be awful during the regular season, but most teams will gladly accept "average" or "slightly above average" goaltending if it means "great" or "immaculate" goaltending in the playoffs from the same guy.

We already know our skaters core group can win playoff series (finally). Assuming we make it this year I think Allen's performance will start to define what he is. Or what he isn't.

[glen a richter]

If you look at Allen's numbers this season, he's in the neighborhood of Bishop, Lundqvist and Schneider. I would consider all three to be above average goalies. Now, Lundqvist is the most likely of them to win a Cup this year because of the team in front of him and Schneider plays for an atrocious team in New Jersey. Allen? Somewhere in the middle. It's nonsense to blame any of this season on Allen. You know, he had a bad run there for a while and it happens. Lundqvist had an atrocious run too where he couldn't stop a beach ball about a month'ish ago. When you get right down to it, what do you expect Allen to do when the team can barely score and the defense is a shell of its former self?

[theohall]

From day one, I have said the solution is to keep Elliott and Allen together until Husso can be brought up.

Keeping Elliott and Allen together was a non-starter. Elliott demanded being the #1. Had he "alone" played well as the starter? sometimes. Had he had bad stretches as the starter? sometimes. When did Elliott play well? When challenged to play well. He was demanding he be the clear-cut #1, not in a split time thing you claim to have wanted. THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF ELLIOTT, not the GM this time. And while Elliott is playing fine now for Calgary, the first half of this season, a large number of people seriously questioned why Elliott was traded for and handed the #1 role with talks of a long-term extension. Convenient to bring up how is he playing right now, but not when he was giving up some horrendous goals, just like Allen did for a stretch this season.

But everything is management's fault and has nothing to do with player demands, apparently.

[theohall]

I guess the Capitals should just throw away Braden Holtby. He's never gone beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs. Same goes for Carey Price. Judging goaltenders solely on playoffs is ludicrous. Did you know Jake Allen has a better playoff GAA than both of them??

[Oaklandblue]

From day one, I have said the solution is to keep Elliott and Allen together until Husso can be brought up.

Keeping Elliott and Allen together was a non-starter. Elliott demanded being the #1. Had he "alone" played well as the starter? sometimes. Had he had bad stretches as the starter? sometimes. When did Elliott play well? When challenged to play well. He was demanding he be the clear-cut #1, not in a split time thing you claim to have wanted. THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF ELLIOTT, not the GM this time. And while Elliott is playing fine now for Calgary, the first half of this season, a large number of people seriously questioned why Elliott was traded for and handed the #1 role with talks of a long-term extension. Convenient to bring up how is he playing right now, but not when he was giving up some horrendous goals, just like Allen did for a stretch this season.

But everything is management's fault and has nothing to do with player demands, apparently.

1. He was still under contract this year.

2. "Starter" is a title, nothing else. Calgary acquired him and made him the Starter, he did very poorly his first dozen games or so and they handed the reins to Chad Johnson. It wouldn't have costed us anything to do the same thing and honestly, with what Elliott has done, would have been the right thing to do, whether you like him or not.

Hell, we could have also said no and kept him and he would of played out his contract which might have been the better thing to do since he'd arguably would have played well because it's a contract year and you know, you wants to keep his 'friggin job' and we could have shipped him off at the TDL for more than what we got for him.

3. You don't hand a player a large money contract for a small sample size and AFTERWARDS hope that they deliver the level of quality the money and term would require. That's how we got Lehtera's contract and arguably Yeo's term of contract.

4. A general response here: You simply can't compare Allen to Bishop, Lundquist or even Holtby. You people here continue to make the mistake that Regular Season Success is something to be admired on a team that has made the playoffs regularly since it's inception 50 years ago and has never won the Cup. The netminders named in previous posts have made it to the WCF and/or Finals. Jake Allen has yet to have ANY playoff success. Jake Allen also hasn't won a Vezina; Lundquist has one and is .921 in the playoffs. Holtby is .937 in the playoffs. Their body of work -earns- them the money.

Jake Allen has played 99 regular season games over the course of three years; 11 games in the playoffs and is 3-5, .902. How is that enough of a sample to merit his contract?

[theohall]

2. "Starter" is a title, nothing else. Calgary acquired him and made him the Starter, he did very poorly his first dozen games or so and they handed the reins to Chad Johnson. It wouldn't have costed us anything to do the same thing and honestly, with what Elliott has done, would have been the right thing to do, whether you like him or not.

Hell, we could have also said no and kept him and he would of played out his contract which might have been the better thing to do since he'd arguably would have played well because it's a contract year and you know, you wants to keep his 'friggin job' and we could have shipped him off at the TDL for more than what we got for him.

And the Blues likely wouldn't have prospect Jordan Kryou who is lighting it up right now and is one of the younger players in the OHL.

And you continue to make the mistake of evaluating goaltenders solely based on their first couple of efforts in the playoffs. Following that standard, there are a ton of goaltenders no team should have ever signed. At some point, a team has to move forward.

Elliott 2.65 GAA .905 SV% 0 shutouts
Allen 2.57 GAA .908 SV% 3 shutouts

Yet, some twisted logic says the Blues would have been better this season with Elliott? If the argument irt Calgary goes back to D playing poorly, WTF did you think the Blues D was doing in November and December when Allen was being lambasted?? Defense gets fixed and suddenly he's winning games and playing better - just like for Elliott in Calgary. But it HAS to be Elliott. Riiggghttt....

And in the meantime, there is this expansion draft coming up and had the Blues kept Elliott and not re-signed him, they would have had to expose Allen or bring up/acquire a 3rd goalie to expose instead of Allen, because Elliott would have been a UFA if he stayed under the old contract. But if you want to keep a player who doesn't want to play in the role he's designated, how do you think that player will actually perform??

[theohall]

http://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/839915978158977028 Clearly not keeping Elliott was the problem.

[glen a richter]

All that says is that the defense has been fixed, not necessarily that the goaltending was ever even the real problem in the first place.

The one thing that still hasn't been fixed is the offense, and Allen can't do a damn thing about that.

[cardsfan04]

http://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/839915978158977028 Clearly not keeping Elliott was the problem.

Clearly Yeo is a problem.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[glen a richter]

With a save percentage of .951 they should have won every single game since Yeo took over. Why haven't they?

Offense

[Toasted Oates]

While everyone called this game a playoff preview, I wouldn't base the playoffs on how the Wild played in one game against the Blues.

You can list all those scores, but the Blues aren't the same team from those games. The teams you saw Tuesday are the ones you would see in a playoff series, barring injury. Of course, one game doesn't forecast a playoff series but it can provide a glimpse. I glimpsed a turnover prone, easily frustrated team that's only poised when they're front running (which they've done plenty of this season). You glimpsed it too.

The Blackhawks are plenty poised, especially without that maniac Shaw, and their core guys have the hardware to prove it. Minnesota has some tough players that you have to respect, namely Parise and Zucker--two guys who seem to always give the Blues a hard time. They aren't Keith, though. They're not Toews, Kane, Panarin, and Hossa. Dubnyk is a stat stuffer, but I'd still take Crawford in a game 7 for all the marbles.

Bruce Boudreau is NOT Joel Quenneville. Xcel Energy Center is not the United Center, with the anthem and the menacing organ, the unmistakable goal horn and that goddamn song.

That Game 7 win last year was very sweet. It seems like ages ago, though.

Yeah, I'll take Minnesota.

[thekortehaus]

All that says is that the defense has been fixed, not necessarily that the goaltending was ever even the real problem in the first place.

The one thing that still hasn't been fixed is the offense, and Allen can't do a damn thing about that.

This is the problem. Every time this team "fixes" the defense, it's at the expense of the offense. I don't know why or what the solution is. I think we have plenty of talent.

Is it coaching? Maybe. I mean, Yeo and Hitch are similar but they aren't the same guy. Army has made some bad decisions, but we have talent

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Oaklandblue]

http://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/839915978158977028 Clearly not keeping Elliott was the problem.

Clearly Yeo is a problem.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

From https://www.nhl.com/news/brian-elliott- ... -281244182

*snip*

Elliott last season was 23-8-6, led the NHL with a .930 save percentage, and his 2.07 goals-against average was tied for second with John Gibson of the Anaheim Ducks and behind the League-best 2.06 of Ben Bishop of the Tampa Bay Lightning.

*snip*

[Toasted Oates]

It's a little surprising Elliott's name still gets brought up considering the pick he was traded for was used to select a kid who has points in 28 consecutive OHL games.

Kyrou has 30 goals and 60 assists in 62 games. Is that good? He may not play w/ the Blues next year (although he's on a Fabbri-like trajectory) but it'll likely be 2018-19 @ the latest.

I know what you'll say, something along the lines of, "Typical of you people, thinking of tomorrow. You should want to win NOW!" Meh. Allen has better numbers and has started 14 more games than him. I won't ever be convinced Elliott is the answer to a "win now" debate.

Time to move on.

[Oaklandblue]

It's a little surprising Elliott's name still gets brought up considering the pick he was traded for was used to select a kid who has points in 28 consecutive OHL games.

Kyrou has 30 goals and 60 assists in 62 games. Is that good? He may not play w/ the Blues next year (although he's on a Fabbri-like trajectory) but it'll likely be 2018-19 @ the latest.

I know what you'll say, something along the lines of, "Typical of you people, thinking of tomorrow. You should want to win NOW!" Meh. Allen has better numbers and has started 14 more games than him. I won't ever be convinced Elliott is the answer to a "win now" debate.

Time to move on.

But does Allen have better numbers in the playoffs? Mmm... no. But you're right, let's move on from all that.

As to the rest of your post, actually, I would say that one should always think of tomorrow and prepare for it the best one can. The problem is, this franchise continues to think only of tomorrow.

It's been 50 years with segments of time used multiple times to build up a team. When does "tomorrow" become today?

EDIT: Before someone posts "Soon", soon has now been 50 years. Management has given us prospects that look great in the minors, but will it translate in the NHL? If it does, then it's a fantastic deal for trading Elliott, maybe even worth breaking the team up now to win later, if it pans out. Do you do such a thing to take a chance in the future or retool and go in the hunt with the team you have now, with or without whatever player? Management seemed to think Sobotka would fill in for Backes and if that's how management feels, I don't know how far I'd trust their decision-making. But that's just me. Building and building and building isn't a bad thing, but at some point you'd figure to make a run to win it all and if it failed, like last year, build ontop onto what you have to win the Cup and I don't see that sense of urgency to do such a thing.