Brian Elliott to Calgary for 35th pick & Cond 2018 3rd Rd

[Oaklandblue]

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?

With a .926 GAA?

(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.

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.

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.

[dmiles2186]

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?

With a .926 GAA?

(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.

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.

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.

Counter: How many times did Brian Elliott have HIS job taken? Also, to just say Allen can't hold his job is also forgetting the fact that Allen was GREAT at the start of the year only to get injured and have Ells take over and play out of his friggin' mind. You've gotta give context to the situation. Let's also mention the fact that Allen is only 26. Ells came to the Blues on a 2 way deal at the age of 26 and was almost out of the league. Could some of Allen's up's and down's be contributed to growing pains? Growing pains that Elliott experienced at an older age before maturing into what he is today?

Jake Allen wasn't the only problem in that series against the Wild, by the way. Blues fans tend to do this: they'll blame the goalie for everything. If you'll recall, Vladimir Tarasenko was our only source of offense during that series. Not Backes. Not Oshie. Not Statsny. Not the guys that were paid for that sort of thing outside of number 91.

You want to know Allen's GAA during that series? 2.20. Want to know Elliott's GAA during our postseason run this year? 2.44. I'll give you that Elliott's save percentage is better, but in 3 of the losses against the Wild, the Blues scored 1 goal or less. The other loss they scored only 2. I'm not saying Allen was out of his mind during that series, but you are basically expecting Allen to pitch a shutout in 3 games and give up only 1 goal in the other to pull off a win. How many goalies are capable of that?

Obviously the goal is to win a Cup. Why do you think that anyone that is hired here or signs here immediately says, 'I want to be the first to hoist a Cup for the Blues?' Why do you think Backes spoke to that on his way out? The problem with making short sighted moves and not thinking about the future is that you limit your chances at it. This regime is just another in a long line of regimes that have failed to win the Cup. So you are asking the Blues to pay money to players that are 30+ who have never won the Cup to just win the Cup like it's something that can just be checked off a list. It's not like any of these guys have experience doing this on an annual basis. If you fork over lots of money and lots of years to players that will inevitably decline over the term of the contract, you not only shorten your Cup window, you also can derail the franchise for years. And if that were to happen, how many of you would be angry that the Blues would be stuck paying 32, 33, 34 year old's too much money while they under-perform on an annual basis and barely scrape by with a Wild Card spot?

And a note about Backes and his 6 mil a year....the Blues/Army said they had no problem with the dollar figure, it was that Backes wanted 5 years. I can't fault them for that. But paying Backes 6 mil, paying Schwartz whatever he commands, and trying to keep Shattenkirk long term (when he will command probably 7 mil a season) isn't taking into consideration the cap.

I'm kind of all over the place. Fact is, we're all frustrated. We're Blues fans; it's our constant state of being. The Blues have gotten worse this offseason but they also haven't tied themselves up in some really stupid deals that could hamper them. I get that aspect of it. I've posted this elsewhere but Petro, Schwartz, Senko, Parayko, Allen, etc. are all 26 or younger. There is a good core there. Don't screw up Vladi's prime by signing declining players to bad deals. And trading Ells now while he had some value was worth it instead of losing him for nothing next year.

[Toasted Oates]

You can't write off a goaltender after one tough playoff series. The Kings didn't do it with Quick. Hell, I remember Corey Crawford getting obliterated by the Coyotes in 2012, thinking he was garbage, then he lifts the Stanley Cup the next year.

Allen's story is still being written. That Minnesota series was an indictment on the entire team from the coach down. Just the same, Brian Elliott shouldn't be blamed for the consecutive LA King beat downs. Elliott elevated his game, Allen can do the same.

I'm more nervous we're sitting here hoping for Perron to score 20 goals and Jaskin to pot 15.

[ecbm]

I can understand a disagreement over it but it's disingenuous to say that one doesn't get why this trade upsets people. While Oakland has covered the ground pretty well I do want to say this precisely in response to the whole "don't want to lose one for nothing next seasoni" line: we lost one of them anyway, and what we got in exchange was a second-rounder. Take a look at history and let me know how many of the Blues' second-rounders have made any impact at the NHL level over, say, the last 30 years. Even one season of Elliott at a hit of $2.5M is more valuable than that, especially in a draft like this one where quality declined precipitously after the first ten picks or so. What's the value of adding #35 in a draft where you felt the need to reach at #26? Not much. That's not even considering that naming him the starter would give you a real chance at extending Elliott-I mean, we just gave a goalie $4.35M per for four seasons before he hit UFA and I don't believe you'd have to give Elliott much more than that. Then you could trade Allen (which I've advocated since Elliott went on his run late last season) before losing him in the expansion draft and sign another scrap heap guy like Hutton. This isn't rocket science; this really is General Managing 1-level stuff. The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

I think there's a lot of swallowing of the Blues' own line on this happening. I about got whiplash from the decision to refuse to make Elliott the starter in favor of a guy who was parked behind him from mid-March through the WCF. I've yet to hear one convincing argument about how this makes the Blues a better team, now.

[Oaklandblue]

Obviously the goal is to win a Cup. Why do you think that anyone that is hired here or signs here immediately says, 'I want to be the first to hoist a Cup for the Blues?' Why do you think Backes spoke to that on his way out? The problem with making short sighted moves and not thinking about the future is that you limit your chances at it. This regime is just another in a long line of regimes that have failed to win the Cup. So you are asking the Blues to pay money to players that are 30+ who have never won the Cup to just win the Cup like it's something that can just be checked off a list. It's not like any of these guys have experience doing this on an annual basis. If you fork over lots of money and lots of years to players that will inevitably decline over the term of the contract, you not only shorten your Cup window, you also can derail the franchise for years. And if that were to happen, how many of you would be angry that the Blues would be stuck paying 32, 33, 34 year old's too much money while they under-perform on an annual basis and barely scrape by with a Wild Card spot?

This team made the WCF. It is not like this team is rebuilding and must worry about futures, you make your window and you strike when that window is open. If this team cared about winning it all, it wouldn't waste it's time with futures - we have more than enough of those. What we need are pieces of the puzzle that you pay for; Pittsburg paid and gave up for Kessel and Bonino and it paid off huge for them. Stillman is spending to the cap as it is, why not spend the money for what we need and make a go at it? We know where our deficiencies are and it's as if the ownership and Army want to trade off players for futures and let others walk while they figure out a plan of what to do as they go along since they don't seem to have a plan given from their decision to sign Perron.

[dmiles2186]

The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

The Blues have had one of the best goalie tandems in the league for the last several seasons (dating back to Halak/Ells year 1). The LV team would at least have to take a look at one of them. But even if they pass...both guys were UFA's next year before Allen was extended. There wasn't any way they were re-signing both. And that goes to the third point....Elliott ASKED to be traded if he wasn't going to be the #1 guy. I understand the disagreement of why Ells isn't #1. It's a tad puzzling to me too. But Ells is a guy who has been jerked around so much here, I don't fault him at all for wanting his shot.

[Oaklandblue]

The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

The Blues have had one of the best goalie tandems in the league for the last several seasons (dating back to Halak/Ells year 1). The LV team would at least have to take a look at one of them. But even if they pass...both guys were UFA's next year before Allen was extended. There wasn't any way they were re-signing both. And that goes to the third point....Elliott ASKED to be traded if he wasn't going to be the #1 guy. I understand the disagreement of why Ells isn't #1. It's a tad puzzling to me too. But Ells is a guy who has been jerked around so much here, I don't fault him at all for wanting his shot.

So not giving the starting gig to Elliott seemed like the right thing to do? That alone should make one question the decisions this organization makes and the handling of some situations, like them trying to trade Shatt, sign Perron and the coaching.

Jake Allen could have still been extended and we could have gone at this for one more year. Elliott wasn't asking for an extension or more years, he was asking to be made #1.

[dmiles2186]

The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

The Blues have had one of the best goalie tandems in the league for the last several seasons (dating back to Halak/Ells year 1). The LV team would at least have to take a look at one of them. But even if they pass...both guys were UFA's next year before Allen was extended. There wasn't any way they were re-signing both. And that goes to the third point....Elliott ASKED to be traded if he wasn't going to be the #1 guy. I understand the disagreement of why Ells isn't #1. It's a tad puzzling to me too. But Ells is a guy who has been jerked around so much here, I don't fault him at all for wanting his shot.

So not giving the starting gig to Elliott seemed like the right thing to do? That alone should make one question the decisions this organization makes and the handling of some situations, like them trying to trade Shatt, sign Perron and the coaching.

Jake Allen could have still been extended and we could have gone at this for one more year. Elliott wasn't asking for an extension or more years, he was asking to be made #1.

Read the next two sentences after that one. I immediately state that I don't understand why Ells wasn't handed the #1 gig.

[dmiles2186]

Obviously the goal is to win a Cup. Why do you think that anyone that is hired here or signs here immediately says, 'I want to be the first to hoist a Cup for the Blues?' Why do you think Backes spoke to that on his way out? The problem with making short sighted moves and not thinking about the future is that you limit your chances at it. This regime is just another in a long line of regimes that have failed to win the Cup. So you are asking the Blues to pay money to players that are 30+ who have never won the Cup to just win the Cup like it's something that can just be checked off a list. It's not like any of these guys have experience doing this on an annual basis. If you fork over lots of money and lots of years to players that will inevitably decline over the term of the contract, you not only shorten your Cup window, you also can derail the franchise for years. And if that were to happen, how many of you would be angry that the Blues would be stuck paying 32, 33, 34 year old's too much money while they under-perform on an annual basis and barely scrape by with a Wild Card spot?

This team made the WCF. It is not like this team is rebuilding and must worry about futures, you make your window and you strike when that window is open. If this team cared about winning it all, it wouldn't waste it's time with futures - we have more than enough of those. What we need are pieces of the puzzle that you pay for; Pittsburg paid and gave up for Kessel and Bonino and it paid off huge for them. Stillman is spending to the cap as it is, why not spend the money for what we need and make a go at it? We know where our deficiencies are and it's as if the ownership and Army want to trade off players for futures and let others walk while they figure out a plan of what to do as they go along since they don't seem to have a plan given from their decision to sign Perron.

Totally agree about the Blues taking their shot, I just don't know if Backes, Brouwer, or Elliott is what will get them there in the long run. The thing about the Penguins is that they flailed in the wind for the last 6-7 years, wasting prime Sid years while trying to get the right combo. This year it worked. But that's not discounting their failure between 2009-2015 to put together a dynasty. They got passed up by the Kings and the Hawks.

The Blues window has been opened since Hitch came on board. Some may disagree, but in terms of regular season wins/points, they are in the top 4 in that time. To me, that says 'window open.' They've won division titles, they've been near the top of one of the toughest divisions in the league during that time. This WCF run was a blast, but it makes it easy to forget the 3 straight first round exits as the higher seed with home ice that preceded it. The Blues were absolutely throwing their open window away until this past year.

I'm not entirely happy with the offseason because the Blues have taken a step back on paper. No question. Especially in light of the WCF run, it's hard to imagine they get back there. But this time last year, none of us expected Fabbri and Parayko to contribute like they did. A trade could always happen. There's still time for this to play out.

[Oaklandblue]

My point from before was that Pittsburg made the moves and paid the money to move forward. The Blues have farmed and developed as much players as it's going to for the immediate foreseeable future and have reached a plateau. The issue if we are spending to the cap, which we are, shouldn't be how much but are we getting the players who will take this team to the next level and what is happening if bargain basement acquisitions in an offseason where alot of talent got signed for considerable money. I know, I know, no team wants to be hamstrung by big contracts, but you won't get the players you really need who will help take the team to the next level without them. There is a point where you spend little money and get little to maybe good results; we have a team full of those with some bright spots (Fabs and Parayko). But we can't allow players with the output of Backes to just walk away; how do we replace someone like that? Keep one, lose one is not the way to go unless what you keep is better than what you lose and not being able to do that is total mismangement.

[dmiles2186]

The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

The Blues have had one of the best goalie tandems in the league for the last several seasons (dating back to Halak/Ells year 1). The LV team would at least have to take a look at one of them. But even if they pass...both guys were UFA's next year before Allen was extended. There wasn't any way they were re-signing both. And that goes to the third point....Elliott ASKED to be traded if he wasn't going to be the #1 guy. I understand the disagreement of why Ells isn't #1. It's a tad puzzling to me too. But Ells is a guy who has been jerked around so much here, I don't fault him at all for wanting his shot.

So not giving the starting gig to Elliott seemed like the right thing to do? That alone should make one question the decisions this organization makes and the handling of some situations, like them trying to trade Shatt, sign Perron and the coaching.

Jake Allen could have still been extended and we could have gone at this for one more year. Elliott wasn't asking for an extension or more years, he was asking to be made #1.

Read the next two sentences after that one. I immediately state that I don't understand why Ells wasn't handed the #1 gig.

The Blues almost pulled off Taylor Hall for Shattenkirk but it fell through because Shattenkirk reportedly wouldn't sign an extension there. You wouldn't have taken Hall on this team? Isn't that the Blues 'giving up' to get a player with a high ceiling while the window is open?

[Oaklandblue]

The "we don't want to lose one for nothing" thing is only a worry if you're already dead set against any other solution in the first place. Honestly, is it an absolute certainty that the LV team would surely use one of their picks to take a Blues goalie? There wouldn't be other attractive options in goal? There wouldn't be other, potentially more desirable options on the Blues' roster? We're all just going to assume this?

The Blues have had one of the best goalie tandems in the league for the last several seasons (dating back to Halak/Ells year 1). The LV team would at least have to take a look at one of them. But even if they pass...both guys were UFA's next year before Allen was extended. There wasn't any way they were re-signing both. And that goes to the third point....Elliott ASKED to be traded if he wasn't going to be the #1 guy. I understand the disagreement of why Ells isn't #1. It's a tad puzzling to me too. But Ells is a guy who has been jerked around so much here, I don't fault him at all for wanting his shot.

So not giving the starting gig to Elliott seemed like the right thing to do? That alone should make one question the decisions this organization makes and the handling of some situations, like them trying to trade Shatt, sign Perron and the coaching.

Jake Allen could have still been extended and we could have gone at this for one more year. Elliott wasn't asking for an extension or more years, he was asking to be made #1.

Read the next two sentences after that one. I immediately state that I don't understand why Ells wasn't handed the #1 gig.

The Blues almost pulled off Taylor Hall for Shattenkirk but it fell through because Shattenkirk reportedly wouldn't sign an extension there. You wouldn't have taken Hall on this team? Isn't that the Blues 'giving up' to get a player with a high ceiling while the window is open?

I'm sorry, is Kevin Shattenkirk the only Blues player able to be traded? With a D corps as strong as ours both on roster and in the minors, you're telling me that we couldn't offer something better that NJ did with Adam Larsson? Blues management was really in a bind there because God you know, we don't have any Dmen we could trade for someone as good as Larsson to acquire a player with the calibre of Hall. None. Nada. Don't see them. Yup, they really tried their best to get Hall to St. Louis. As hard as they tried to keep Elliott.

[dmiles2186]

I'm sorry, is Kevin Shattenkirk the only Blues player able to be traded?

The Oilers wanted an established D-man to be their #1 guy. Shattenkirk will be demanding a raise after next season. We want a high scoring forward. A classic D for F trade. And before you say 'Bouwmeester,' I'm going to guess the Oilers would have shot that one down seeing as he's old and overpaid. So that leaves Parayko and Pietrangelo as viable pieces to be traded. Comfortable with either one of those leaving?

[dmiles2186]

I'm sorry, is Kevin Shattenkirk the only Blues player able to be traded? With a D corps as strong as ours both on roster and in the minors, you're telling me that we couldn't offer something better that NJ did with Adam Larsson? Blues management was really in a bind there because God you know, we don't have any Dmen we could trade for someone as good as Larsson to acquire a player with the calibre of Hall. None. Nada. Don't see them. Yup, they really tried their best to get Hall to St. Louis. As hard as they tried to keep Elliott.

That Larsson deal was awful by the way. Especially because they were trying to open up space to get Lucic? In hindsight, yeah the Blues had more to offer than that. But prior to that deal, Shattenkirk for Hall made sense. Larsson didn't. That trade was widely panned.

[ecbm]

The Blues almost pulled off Taylor Hall for Shattenkirk but it fell through because Shattenkirk reportedly wouldn't sign an extension there. You wouldn't have taken Hall on this team?

You're leaving out the sequel: plan B was apparently to sign Perron.

Nah, come on-there was no plan B. Just like when Sobotka walked. That's worth criticizing.

Read the next two sentences after that one. I immediately state that I don't understand why Ells wasn't handed the #1 gig.

Given that, you can't use Elliott asking for a trade after the Blues informed him that he would not be the starter to rationalize the Blues trading him. They essentially made that decision for themselves when they decided that the starter who got them to the WCF was not going to be the starter next season. They decided that a 2nd-round pick was worth more than a year of him as starter at a hit of $2.5M and the chance to extend him. I can't think of a hockey reason to do that; if you're really, really enamored of that extra 2nd you could certainly get that by trading Allen. That was Armstrong & Hitchcock's decision. Nothing forced their hand, as you suggest with:

Elliott ASKED to be traded

[Toasted Oates]

So it's safe say you guys think Calgary Flame Brian Elliott will outplay St. Louis Blue Jake Allen.

I hope you fellas stick around the forum this season.

[ecbm]

So it's safe say you guys think Calgary Flame Brian Elliott will outplay St. Louis Blue Jake Allen.

I hope you fellas stick around the forum this season.

This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

My point is broader: this club is going nowhere with Armstrong at the helm. Every season his plan is found wanting and every season his response is to double down and hope for better bounces. I don't believe they're coming.

[Toasted Oates]

So it's safe say you guys think Calgary Flame Brian Elliott will outplay St. Louis Blue Jake Allen.

I hope you fellas stick around the forum this season.

This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

My point is broader: this club is going nowhere with Armstrong at the helm. Every season his plan is found wanting and every season his response is to double down and hope for better bounces. I don't believe they're coming.

Actually, it goes along with was has been opined throughout this thread: Elliott should have been chosen over Allen. Extend Elliott, trade Allen. Ergo, you believe Elliott is better than Allen. If he's better, he ought to outperform the guy you think he's better than. Do you believe that?

I'm not crazy about the GM either, but the goaltending situation is not the weakness of this team and hasn't been for quite some time. Blues fans would rather foam at the mouth over who the goalie is than the deeper issues w/ the roster.

I like Brian Elliott and I would gladly raise a glass to his success. But whether he is in net here or not is irrelevant when you're counting on David Perron to fill David Backes' skates or Sobotka to fill Brouwer's or vice versa.

[gaijin]

So it's safe say you guys think Calgary Flame Brian Elliott will outplay St. Louis Blue Jake Allen.

I hope you fellas stick around the forum this season.

This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

My point is broader: this club is going nowhere with Armstrong at the helm. Every season his plan is found wanting and every season his response is to double down and hope for better bounces. I don't believe they're coming.

Actually, it goes along with was has been opined throughout this thread: Elliott should have been chosen over Allen. Extend Elliott, trade Allen. Ergo, you believe Elliott is better than Allen. If he's better, he ought to outperform the guy you think he's better than. Do you believe that?

I'm not crazy about the GM either, but the goaltending situation is not the weakness of this team and hasn't been for quite some time. Blues fans would rather foam at the mouth over who the goalie is than the deeper issues w/ the roster.

I like Brian Elliott and I would gladly raise a glass to his success. But whether he is in net here or not is irrelevant when you're counting on David Perron to fill David Backes' skates or Sobotka to fill Brouwer's or vice versa.

The real question is: does Elliott on the Blues outperform Allen on the Blues for the 2016-2017 season? Personally, I say yes. And honestly, I would rather have that than a 2nd-Round pick.

So what if Elliott is not the long-term solution? I think our chances of winning a Cup next year would have been better with him than without him. Period. And what would it have cost us?

And this is nothing against Allen- he'll be fine. But Moose was better, and he was still under contract for peanuts.

[Toasted Oates]

So it's safe say you guys think Calgary Flame Brian Elliott will outplay St. Louis Blue Jake Allen.

I hope you fellas stick around the forum this season.

This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

My point is broader: this club is going nowhere with Armstrong at the helm. Every season his plan is found wanting and every season his response is to double down and hope for better bounces. I don't believe they're coming.

Actually, it goes along with was has been opined throughout this thread: Elliott should have been chosen over Allen. Extend Elliott, trade Allen. Ergo, you believe Elliott is better than Allen. If he's better, he ought to outperform the guy you think he's better than. Do you believe that?

I'm not crazy about the GM either, but the goaltending situation is not the weakness of this team and hasn't been for quite some time. Blues fans would rather foam at the mouth over who the goalie is than the deeper issues w/ the roster.

I like Brian Elliott and I would gladly raise a glass to his success. But whether he is in net here or not is irrelevant when you're counting on David Perron to fill David Backes' skates or Sobotka to fill Brouwer's or vice versa.

The real question is: does Elliott on the Blues outperform Allen on the Blues for the 2016-2017 season? Personally, I say yes. And honestly, I would rather have that than a 2nd-Round pick.

So what if Elliott is not the long-term solution? I think our chances of winning a Cup next year would have been better with him than without him. Period. And what would it have cost us?

And this is nothing against Allen- he'll be fine. But Moose was better, and he was still under contract for peanuts.

Judging on last season, you're 100% right and the league is a "what have you done for me lately" operation. The way Elliott played last year...that's universal goaltending. He made the saves he was supposed to make and that's the sort of play that will travel to Alberta if he's still got it in him. We shall see.

That's not to say Allen can't improve on what he already is. Elliott had a career year post 30 years old. Allen's almost 26 and he's a better player than what Elliott was @ 26. It's not out of the realm of possibility Allen can elevate from a good goalie to a great one. It's also not impossible Ells could regress from what was a historical run from the Blues organization's perspective.

Again, we shall see.