With a .926 GAA?glen a richter wrote:Before joining the Blues, Ells was crap. Whether he was the beneficiary of a great defense or a late bloomer is irrelevant. Probably both, but why can't Allen be the same? Upset because Elliott got us to our first WCF in ages? Where's the love for Roman Turek then?
How can you not understand the vitriol with this trade from previous posts that go in depth with that question? If age and "Jake Allen is the future" is the best you can do, that kind of speaks of the point right in front of you. Jake Allen has yet to prove a damn thing beyond that Brian Elliott can steal his job, along with the likes of Halak and Ryan Miller at a level that kind of proves the point of who is better.WaukeeBlues wrote:(1) What were the conditions on the 2018 pick? Do we know yet? I apologize if its in the post I just missed it.
(2) You guys can kick and scream all you want but we weren't taking Elliott and Allen into the offseason next year without one of them walking away for nothing; either via UFA or being claimed in the expansion draft. SO, we trade one now or we trade one later. Elliott's agent said flat out (deservedly so) that his client deserved to be a #1 goaltender in this league and if it wasn't his net he wanted to get dealt. Harsh reality #2: The Blues felt because of his talent and age that Allen was an increasing asset and Elliott probably a diminishing asset. One thing that is apparently lost on all of you is that the performance Brian Elliott put together in the second half of last season was an outlier for his entire career. Unlikely to be duplicated. Armstrong made a judgment call and one I don't fault him for: trade Elliott, get what you can for him right now (getting into the 2016 draft as a result, getting another asset in the pipeline NOW as opposed to a 2017 pick, etc), tab Allen as your man, who you were leaning towards anyway and go from there.
I still don't understand the vitriol with this trade. As much as I have hated some of Armstrong's moves in the past this one makes the most sense of almost any of the others he's done. But, that's just me.
You mention age alot, how many netminders win the Cup at Elliott's age? How many are elite at Elliott's age? Get this stupid pre-Blues Elliott out of your head for a minute and look at his numbers. A product of the defense? Then why is it only Elliott, not Halak, not Miller and not even Allen has a won a series for the Note?
Why is it Elliott is the only recent Netminder an All-Star? Why is it Elliott owns the records he does playing only backup minutes? If the quality of the team is what people say it is, why is it ONLY Brian Elliott has benefitted from this? Why is it that only Brian Elliott has won series, plural, against opponents who this team can barely put together offense against? Same team, different netminders shouldn't matter.
With that argument, you should be able to plug in any netminder and expect similar results. Against the Wild, a team that we own seven days a week, we got bounced with Jake Allen in goal. Against the Hawks, Elliott carries. Same team. Only RATIONAL reason behind that would be that Elliott in fact, IS the better netminder. If this team's D is that good, you'd see results from the others during playoff time. Fact is, we are only seeing it from Elliott.
Jake Allen got his job stolen from Brian Elliott how many times now? That alone should tell you who the better netminder is. People are upset that we have taken a solid step backwards from the quest to win the Cup and spending more against the Cap for far less result.
The future was now, and this was not the time to worry about four, five, six years ahead. Spend to the cap like we are doing, make the corrections and win the Cup. That should have been the plan. Jake Allen isn't leading you anywhere and as a playoff goaltender he should be on the first bus out of town, but so many people here think he will take us to the promise land and the truth is, he won't and no one cares because "HE IS THE FUTURE OF THE TEAM". I don't give a rat's ass about the future of this team, I care about this team winning the Cup and it has taken so many steps back in such a short period of time that I really do question Stillman as an owner on this, especially with him describing himself as a huge fan. He is playing himself more and more as someone who isn't using his fan instinct to question what Army is doing and has handed him off a blank check to do as he will without questioning a damn thing. Yes, we should pay Backes six million to play on this squad, yes we should keep Shattenkirk and yes, you give Schwartz six million long term. Simple as that. You get rid of the players that bleed money on this team, players like Ott, which they did, Bergy, which they should and some others, you dig up from the AHL and you acquire depth and you go after the Cup.
The focus on any NHL team should be the Cup, not the future of the team. "The future of the team" in a situation where the team is gelled enough to make the WCF, is a business move, not a Cup move. The future of a team to a franchise like Chicago, Anaheim, etc. is to acquire that one or two missing players, spend the money and make the shot. Pittsburg did that and won the Cup. In our case, it means to acquire futures and keep the team competitive but in a way that has some profitiability built in and as such you lose pieces that keep you in the playoffs but not able to proceed any further than that.
That is where we are at. It's not just Elliott that people are really, in my opinion, upset about, it's that Elliott is the straw and this camel's back is broken. The day we deal off Shattenkirk for nothing or a mediocre replacement, and we do know that is coming, is the day this team truly begins the decline.
We are not willing to make the moves or commitment to win the Cup, only to make the playoffs and it's obvious reading alot of the responses here, that this is perfectly fine with a lot of people here and that's just sad and futile.