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

dmiles2186 · Post by **dmiles2186** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:35 pm

Felt like Ells deserved his own thread. Honestly, this one stings a bit.
https://twitter.com/StLouisBlues/status/746515666073714688

drwoland · Post by **drwoland** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:45 pm

Are we the worst team at managing goalies or what? Ells woulda been a starter at probably 25 other teams starting 3 seasons ago, always had the shortest leash despite amazing numbers. Is this a long term strategy we use to keep goalie value down? Just so confusing. I hope he wins Calgary the (Franking) cup.

Meanwhile, I don't think Jake Allen will be a good enough #1. Hope he proves me wrong.

cardsfan04 · Post by **cardsfan04** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:06 pm

I'm on board with Allen being a legit number 1. I think he proved that last year before he got hurt. At the moment, thus feels like making a trade for the sake of making a trade though (and maybe it was if Elliott requested it). I don't think we got ripped off, but I think we'd be better off with Elliott than those 2 picks.

glen a richter · Post by **glen a richter** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:08 pm

I wonder what the condition is for the other pick... probably something about him re-signing with Calgary after next season.

cardsfan04 · Post by **cardsfan04** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:10 pm

I believe it's if they sign or trade him.

WaukeeBlues · Post by **WaukeeBlues** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:39 pm

Kinda surprised by some of the reactions on social media. I think I'm one of the few people that actually like this trade.

I think you all are bullsh*tting yourselves if you think this wasn't going to be Jake Allen's team moving forward. That's always been the plan. Elliott (almost literally) stole the show at various points to get his well earned playing time. This trade is about the future of this team and as grateful as I am for the playoff performance he put together for the Blues last season, Elliott isn't it.

Along that same line, his price is going to go up dramatically after next year, his value was arguably never going to be higher, the Flames had other options (Andre-Fleury and Ben Bishop to name 2). You strike while the iron is hot. Most pundits put the grouping of players from roughly selections 20-45 in a "grouping" of talent and the Blues just got another pick in that group and another pick to play with in 2018. Essentially a fringe first rounder for a goalie who isn't the future of this team.

And now there's no dispute and Jake Allen is the guy. Get a solid backup and in to 2016-2017 we go. I don't know what the belly aching is about.

Oaklandblue · Post by **Oaklandblue** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:52 am

WaukeeBlues wrote:Kinda surprised by some of the reactions on social media. I think I'm one of the few people that actually like this trade.

I think you all are bullsh*tting yourselves if you think this wasn't going to be Jake Allen's team moving forward. That's always been the plan. Elliott (almost literally) stole the show at various points to get his well earned playing time. This trade is about the future of this team and as grateful as I am for the playoff performance he put together for the Blues last season, Elliott isn't it.

Along that same line, his price is going to go up dramatically after next year, his value was arguably never going to be higher, the Flames had other options (Andre-Fleury and Ben Bishop to name 2). You strike while the iron is hot. Most pundits put the grouping of players from roughly selections 20-45 in a "grouping" of talent and the Blues just got another pick in that group and another pick to play with in 2018. Essentially a fringe first rounder for a goalie who isn't the future of this team.

And now there's no dispute and Jake Allen is the guy. Get a solid backup and in to 2016-2017 we go. I don't know what the belly aching is about.

You are perfectly fine with dismantling an asset of what got us deep in the playoffs, willing to look for a cheap backup in a VERY weak goalie market and willing to run with Jake Allen, who has proven himself at times, but will never be more than a career backup, even in the playoffs, where he has fallen apart in every aspect of his career?

This trade makes absolutely no sense (We traded an elite goalie making 2.5 a year for the next three years for picks...

) given we did it because we didn't want to put the word "STARTER" at the end of his name, and really proves Army and Hitch need to go.

What SHOULD have happened is, Elliott should have gotten the reigns and starts and if he falls apart, you go to Jake and make a mid-season trade for a goalie, which we would be better off doing if we needed to. Elliott is a proven postseason warrior and that's something we need badly. Jake isn't.

The plan SHOULD be to hold together as many of our key pieces as we can. Giving Elliott the starting gig means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. They should have given it to him and see how it goes. If Allen is THAT good, it wouldn't matter and Allen would come in like he did when we played the Wild. Oh wait...*laughs*

You speak so much of the future but are absolutely, without a doubt, blind as a bat. We have a pipeline FILLED with goalies. Jake Allen isn't the future, Husso is. Bings and Copley are down there as well. We don't need to trade a goalie, we never needed to, but this idiotic nonsense about Jake Allen being better is just that: nonsense.

Brian Elliott had the right idea with this dog and pony show Army has got going, and is the first of many to leave this nonsense.

But do have fun finding that Cheap Backup Goaltender in this market. Maybe we will go after MAF and give them Shatt and Backes for him. Hey, we traded we Ryan Miller, so anything's possible, right?

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:12 am

Elliott requested a trade if he wasn't going to be the clear cut #1 next season.
So this just shows that Hitch and Armstrong didn't want Elliott to be the #1...which I don't get at all. Makes zero sense. I'm not against Allen being the goalie of the future, but Elliott is the goalie of the now...he has just played better, period.

But... I didn't have a problem with trading Elliott to make the team better...we have cap issues and players to sign and trading him would help with that, but the return was absolute shit. Elliott's cap hit is very friendly AND he has the best GAA & Save %...the BEST in the NHL over the past 5 years. So a friendly cap hit PLUS those numbers, plus him coming off a great playoff run...and you only get a 2nd rd. pick + a conditional 3rd rd. pick in 2018 depending if he is signed or traded? That's awful. THAT is why social media is pissed off.

Elliott might be the most undervalued guy in the NHL...he has been for years now...and I don't get it at all. He has done nothing but play great but gotten little recognition outside of St. Louis for it.

Calgary flat out stole him...and they should feel like huge winners here.

TSUCookieMonster · Post by **TSUCookieMonster** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:18 am

This trade is so bad I felt the need to log back in after years of absence just to express how dumb I think this is. Dumb trade.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Toasted Oates · Post by **Toasted Oates** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:55 am

As others have stated, I would have rather just kept him for that price.

Let's face it, though: he's 31, will be an UFA after this year, and has only started in 50 games or more once. The return from Calgary shouldn't be totally shocking.

I don't blame him for requesting a trade. Doug and Ken never gave him a leg to stand on here. Best of luck to him and BIG thanks for last season. They wouldn't have made the playoffs without him.

An Allen/Nilsson tandem isn't the end of the world, but I fear Doug will mismanage his juicy cap space.

Bluuuuues hockey.

flyingnote38 · Post by **flyingnote38** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:33 pm

A lot of Armstrong's short-comings on display yesterday. He is bad at cap management, bad at asset management, and overly values size and grit over speed.

1) dealing Elliott. Seems like most of us agree that this was a bad idea. The Blues of the last several years have been playoff caliber in a large part due to a strong goaltending tandem: first Ells and Halak, then Ells and Allen. Even if the Blues are ready to install Allen as the undisputed number one (and one might ask why?), its foolhardy not to have a backup that you believe can carry the load if Allen gets hurt or slumps. Nilsson didn't impress me much. Binnington or Copley as the back-up would be a leap of faith.

If done simply for the cap space, then that just underlines Armies poor cap management. Ells was not a huge cap hit relative to his value to the team. The Blues in fact had not overly allocated cap to goaltending in general with Allen and Ells together making less than most teams #1. If the $1.5 M cap savings (compared to Nilsson making $1 M as backup) is that valuable, then you got to question how badly the Bouw and Lehtera deals hurt the Blues. Think of it this way, we 'could afford' to pay Ott almost $3 M to be worse than useless but elliott who arguably would be a finalist for the Blues' MVP and the clear favorite for the Blues' playoff MVP we couldn't afford at $2.5 M.

If you are going to argue that he's going to be a UFA in a year, well so are Steen and Berglund, should we dump them too?

2) Trading up two spots to take what appears to be a reach. Again poor asset management spending a third round pick to move up two spots. Now if it were a situation where someone premier had fallen and you're grabbing Fabbri (say for example) thats one thing, but seriously this guy wouldn't have still been there 2 picks later? I have no idea if he'll be any good or maybe even great, maybe in 10 years the 're-draft' will have him going in the top 5, but it seems unnecessary to have moved up to grab him.

glen a richter · Post by **glen a richter** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:40 pm

If you want to draft a risky pick with a suspect profile, you take Debrincat who fell to Chicago in round two. That could bite us in the ass twice over.

fargoblues · Post by **fargoblues** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:42 pm

I'm done with my 24 hour self imposed gag order. I'm still mad as hell but I understand things from Elliott's viewpoint. I'm glad he gets to be the #1 which he deserves. Just wish it was with the Blues.

gaijin · Post by **gaijin** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:17 pm

That's the thing that stings the most about this: we won't see Elliott raise the Cup in a Blues sweater. I liked him, and I think his best chance at doing so was here.

The thing that stings next to most is the return we got for the goalie who played lights-out and took us to the Conference Final. I think most of us were hoping to get into the top 10 picks (or even higher) by dealing Shattenkirk (foremost) and maybe Elliott. But given that the guy with the higher cap hit is still here and the guy who is (without a doubt) the biggest bang for the buck in the League is gone for nothing better than a 2nd Round pick... that hurts a little. I don't think our team is much better at all, and the Moose is gone.

I do understand why the did it, and honestly, I did expect it as well... but I expected both players to go in return for a very high draft pick.

dmiles2186 · Post by **dmiles2186** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:50 pm

Oaklandblue wrote:(We traded an elite goalie making 2.5 a year for the next three years for picks... )

Ells isn't signed for 3 years, he's a UFA next summer. He'll be due a raise.

Mojo_Jojo · Post by **Mojo_Jojo** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:21 pm

This low trade return shows the value they thought Elliott was worth and corresponds with how they treated him / valued him when he was a Blue. Worst trade in quite a while, maybe the worst for this management group. To think that was all they could fetch for Elliott is insane. The Eller trade even saw two second round picks in return. Even if management was trying to honor his request, get more than that out of the situation.

Even more unimaginable, they don't give him the starting position next year after going to the conference finals. At 31, he is in his prime as a goaltender. If you are seriously trying to win a cup, why would you give up an asset like that while making a push. Jake is a good goaltender but he isn't ready to lead this team to a cup. It may even cost us a playoff spot next year.

I hope Elliott goes to Calgary and wins them a cup.

WaukeeBlues · Post by **WaukeeBlues** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:47 pm

What each and every single one of you are fundamentally misunderstanding is that Elliott's agent already said flat out if he wasn't clear cut #1 next year they wanted a trade.

Whether he should be the #1 or not is a subject of debate for all of you but not for Hitchcock and Armstrong, who, through their actions of treating Elliott like crap, have already made it abundantly clear they want Allen as the future goalie. Future as in, like, the next year or so. Who the hell knows what the next few seasons bring.

So in my feeling alright about the trade I had already accepted the FACTS that:
(1) There's a love affair with Allen, who I think can handle the job, from Armstrong and Hitch
(2) Elliott demanded a trade
(3) He has one year left and due a raise and his value is highest now before next season even starts.

My disdain for Armstrong and Hitchcock are well documented on this website. My feeling fine about this deal is due to those 3 realities of life. For those on the "we should have got more..." Oh I'm sorry, you have the inside scoop on what teams were offering? Lars Eller isn't a goalie.

Frederick Andersen got more, yes. He was also the first chip to fall. I, nor any of you, know what the return was looking like for goalies after the Andersen deal. And Andersen has more playoff experience than Elliott does.

Armstrong apparently wanted in on this years draft for the Elliott trade, not next year or for a player he didn't want. He got the best he could, I'm sure. As I already said earlier, most of the pundits and critics put the prospects from 25-40 in a grouping of talent so we essentially got a fringe first rounder for him. Maybe Armstrong waited too long, but that throws us back into speculation world.

I was also quite frankly sick of the goalie merry-go-round between these two guys and part of me is relieved it's over. It's Allen's crease. Obviously I hope he rises to the challenge and takes the job by the horns.

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:35 pm

WaukeeBlues wrote:What each and every single one of you are fundamentally misunderstanding is that Elliott's agent already said flat out if he wasn't clear cut #1 next year they wanted a trade.

Whether he should be the #1 or not is a subject of debate for all of you but not for Hitchcock and Armstrong, who, through their actions of treating Elliott like crap, have already made it abundantly clear they want Allen as the future goalie. Future as in, like, the next year or so. Who the hell knows what the next few seasons bring.

So in my feeling alright about the trade I had already accepted the FACTS that:
(1) There's a love affair with Allen, who I think can handle the job, from Armstrong and Hitch
(2) Elliott demanded a trade
(3) He has one year left and due a raise and his value is highest now before next season even starts.

My disdain for Armstrong and Hitchcock are well documented on this website. My feeling fine about this deal is due to those 3 realities of life. For those on the "we should have got more..." Oh I'm sorry, you have the inside scoop on what teams were offering? Lars Eller isn't a goalie.

Frederick Andersen got more, yes. He was also the first chip to fall. I, nor any of you, know what the return was looking like for goalies after the Andersen deal. And Andersen has more playoff experience than Elliott does.

Armstrong apparently wanted in on this years draft for the Elliott trade, not next year or for a player he didn't want. He got the best he could, I'm sure. As I already said earlier, most of the pundits and critics put the prospects from 25-40 in a grouping of talent so we essentially got a fringe first rounder for him. Maybe Armstrong waited too long, but that throws us back into speculation world.

I was also quite frankly sick of the goalie merry-go-round between these two guys and part of me is relieved it's over. It's Allen's crease. Obviously I hope he rises to the challenge and takes the job by the horns.

Elliott is worth more to this team than what we got in return. A "fringe first rounder" is just trying to put a positive spin on the return, which was less than stellar. It's a 2nd rd. pick. Not an "almost first round pick"...it's a 2nd rd pick. Even some scribes in Calgary are saying they got a solid #1 goaltender for next to nothing.

I'd have rather kept Elliott this season and lost him in the expansion draft for nothing than to move him right now for a 2nd rd. pick plus a conditional 3rd rd pick. Both of those players are far more likely to never play a game in the NHL than they are to be a solid contributor for us. Unless we got extremely lucky with one of those picks (and it would be luck), we lost on this deal. It's not even close.

Saying we sold high is hilarious...seeing as we didn't get much for him. If Army feels he sold high, and actually got "high value" in return, he is an idiot.

glen a richter · Post by **glen a richter** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:09 am

The idea that trading Elliott and giving the reigns to Allen will cost us a playoff spot is preposterous. Allen is more than capable enough of being a #1 and frankly the notion that trading Elliott signals the end of the world for this team is laughable.

The outrage should be directed entirely at the lousy return we got for him, not the fact that he was traded. He came in as a nobody, left as a somebody, and in large part was the product of a system that let him thrive. Who can say for sure he won't be exposed in Calgary as a guy who can't handle a big workload and succeed on a team less defensive minded than the Blues? Trading Ells was more a product of necessity and Calgary knew that, which is how they got away with fleecing Armstrong. If Ells stays, for reasons I cited earlier, we risk losing him and Allen next season. That he's a UFA at the end of next season is irrelevant as far as the expansion draft goes. He's not officially a UFA until after the expansion draft so still subject to the Blues either protecting or not protecting him. This trade was, in part, due to the strong burning desire to not lose both goalies next year. Can't fault them for that. Also, this move allows them to promote Binnington to back-up Allen, if they choose, or to re-sign Nilsson and let Binnington walk. In either case, it makes it possible for Husso to get #1 duties at Chicago. If all goes according to plan, in a couple of seasons we'll be saying "Moose who?" as Husso is firmly entrenching himself as the #1 in St. Louis.

But, coming full circle, it's just whackadoodles to suggest we'll miss the playoffs because Allen is in and Elliott is out. You folks are acting like Jake is a steaming heap of trash. There's nothing wrong with Jake Allen. The playoff failure against Minnesota a couple of seasons ago is a bad argument--the Blues lost because the skaters played like morons. It's not Allen's fault everyone else forgot how to play hockey. This season, Elliott had a couple of double posts that could have tilted the Chicago series the other way. Heck, we won game one on a lucky deflection off a pass, not even a shot--a flipping pass! We could have just as easily been looking at another first round exit which, retrospectively, may have been a better end result because it would end the illusion that this team was ready to take the next step. We lucked out against Chicago, we barely held our own against a team with no goaltending or defense to speak of in Dallas, and we got exposed against San Jose. Maybe we should be whining less about who's going to be the #1 goalie next season and worrying more about how to get the team skating faster, smarter and scoring more goals when we hit the postseason. I don't care that they traded Elliott, and neither should anyone else. The Blues will be fine with or without him. The anger is entirely the return they got. That's it, and that's all it should be.

Kerfuffle · Post by **Kerfuffle** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:06 am

drwoland wrote:Are we the worst team at managing goalies or what?

Vancouver is worse - look at the goalie soap opera they had with Luongo and Schneider. And they lost them both. Elliott was put on a pedestal for the playoffs this year and did great but also showed some vulnerability at times as all goalies do. I think he even was pulled in our series at game 6 if I recalled - and then he was pulled a few more times against Dallas and San Jose. Some of those Hitch pulls I didn't fault Elliott for and when you do that too much for a guy who's played outstanding in the playoffs as a whole it will tick him off and make him feel he has to throw shutouts to retain his #1. Can't say I blame him for questioning his role.

The other thing to look at is both he and Allen are too expensive to keep both and someone has to be the #2 and a cheaper option. Neither guy really fit the role of a 'backup' goalie as both were 1B. A backup would be like Darling - not great, barely average, but cheap and dependable on most nights. Elliott and Allen are both much better than that. Elliott would be 32 after his deal runs out next season so Armstrong had to ask himself if throwing a big extension for a guy starting at age 32 made sense. Way too risky. So I understand the move.

Let's Go Blues