travel_dude Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 ^^^ Maybe they did see something, but with STL, they had Allen ready for full time. And yet they still went with Elliott in the playoffs for all but one game. I think there is some blame they placed on him for losing to the Sharks, which may be part of the reason why they traded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 2 hours ago, travel_dude said: ^^^ Maybe they did see something, but with STL, they had Allen ready for full time. And yet they still went with Elliott in the playoffs for all but one game. I think there is some blame they placed on him for losing to the Sharks, which may be part of the reason why they traded him. and if i recall, even with his stellar run he had a couple stinkers in there that prompted them to try and flip to Allen .. who didnt fare any better ,so they returned to Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: and if i recall, even with his stellar run he had a couple stinkers in there that prompted them to try and flip to Allen .. who didnt fare any better ,so they returned to Elliot I think you are making a very fair point here and it was one that was asked before the start of the season. You can try and come up with reasons/excuses for it but the reality is that despite great numbers in the 5 years he was there the Blues never seemed comfortable giving him the net to himself and even traded for Ryan Miller in the midst of Elliott having an All-Star season. Yes I understand it was a bad trade and Miller flopped, but when a story repeats itself again and again there is usually a root cause there and on multiple occasions the Blues went a different direction rather than give Elliott the net. I think that speaks volumes. That being said, the gave up only a 2nd round pick and took a chance, and that's what Elliot was he was taking a chance. Irregardless of whether or not he was a number 1 he was a goalie who showed you that at times he could play at an elite level so he was worth the chance, and the cost fit that chance. Didn't work the way anyone hoped but that happens sometimes. Doesn't mean Elliott isn't a good goalie, he just clearly is not a number one and that is a pattern now that IMO just cannot be argued against. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, cross16 said: I think you are making a very fair point here and it was one that was asked before the start of the season. You can try and come up with reasons/excuses for it but the reality is that despite great numbers in the 5 years he was there the Blues never seemed comfortable giving him the net to himself and even traded for Ryan Miller in the midst of Elliott having an All-Star season. Yes I understand it was a bad trade and Miller flopped, but when a story repeats itself again and again there is usually a root cause there and on multiple occasions the Blues went a different direction rather than give Elliott the net. I think that speaks volumes. That being said, the gave up only a 2nd round pick and took a chance, and that's what Elliot was he was taking a chance. Irregardless of whether or not he was a number 1 he was a goalie who showed you that at times he could play at an elite level so he was worth the chance, and the cost fit that chance. Didn't work the way anyone hoped but that happens sometimes. Doesn't mean Elliott isn't a good goalie, he just clearly is not a number one and that is a pattern now that IMO just cannot be argued against. Not sure I buy the trend theory, people can change and they do all the time. They do have to recognize their mistakes and learn from them or things stay the same. Will Elliott get any better, maybe, maybe not. Will the team get any better and score more goals, maybe, maybe not. He is an experienced goalie and may be good enough for another 2 years while this team matures. Unless BT can find another goalie he would have more faith in such as a younger Darling then he may sign Elliott back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 One thing we debated here in the early season was Elliott's pads. He went with bright red. Then one day he went to all white. While it doesn't explain his struggles in the last 5 games and the playoff, an argument could be made that his SA% improved when he made the switch. Red Pads 10/12-11/28/16 Games Started Record Goals Allowed Saves Save % 13 3-9-1 43 330 .882 White Pads 12/19/16-3/1/17 Games Started Record Goals Allowed Saves Save % 17 12-4-1 55 474 .889 The save percentage didn't change much, but the win ratio did. If you look a little closer, you see some familiar games that were blowouts. The majority ere good to really good. Coincidence or effect. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 27, 2017 Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 46 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Not sure I buy the trend theory, people can change and they do all the time. They do have to recognize their mistakes and learn from them or things stay the same. Will Elliott get any better, maybe, maybe not. Will the team get any better and score more goals, maybe, maybe not. He is an experienced goalie and may be good enough for another 2 years while this team matures. Unless BT can find another goalie he would have more faith in such as a younger Darling then he may sign Elliott back on. At age 32 the odds are against Elliott getting any better. More often than not goalies don't turn into number 1's this late into their careers. Elliott is a tandem goalie and I just don't think that approach works. The teams left in the playoffs all have clear cut number 1's. Nashvile: Rinne, 61GP .918SV% St. Louis: Allen 61GP .915SV% Anaheim: Gibson 52GP .924SV% Edmonton: Talbot 73GP .919SV% New York: Lundqvist 57GP .910SV% (Lowest SV% of his career) Ottawa: Anderson 40GP .926SV% (Missed time with his wive's illness) Washington: Holtby 63GP .925SV% Pittsburgh: Murray 49GP .923SV% (Pittsburgh is the only team not going with their number 1, but that is due to injuries, and they have a Stanley Cup winner as a backup.) Elliott doesn't belong on a list with these goalies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, JTech780 said: At age 32 the odds are against Elliott getting any better. More often than not goalies don't turn into number 1's this late into their careers. Elliott is a tandem goalie and I just don't think that approach works. The teams left in the playoffs all have clear cut number 1's. Nashvile: Rinne, 61GP .918SV% St. Louis: Allen 61GP .915SV% Anaheim: Gibson 52GP .924SV% Edmonton: Talbot 73GP .919SV% New York: Lundqvist 57GP .910SV% (Lowest SV% of his career) Ottawa: Anderson 40GP .926SV% (Missed time with his wive's illness) Washington: Holtby 63GP .925SV% Pittsburgh: Murray 49GP .923SV% (Pittsburgh is the only team not going with their number 1, but that is due to injuries, and they have a Stanley Cup winner as a backup.) Elliott doesn't belong on a list with these goalies. Do you think we are there yet as a team ? or should we bring back Elliott for two years and transition through our own prospects ? I don't disagree with what you are saying here however our GM has to decide if he has that type of goalie in his system or should he go get one and trade his away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 19 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Do you think we are there yet as a team ? or should we bring back Elliott for two years and transition through our own prospects ? I don't disagree with what you are saying here however our GM has to decide if he has that type of goalie in his system or should he go get one and trade his away. I think that we are very close to taking the next step. I think every year you waste with stop gaps waiting for Gillies or Parsons to be ready, is a wasted year of the core. I don't doubt that Gillies has NHL upside, but I have serious doubts that Gillies will be a true number 1. He very well could prove me wrong, but at this point in time I am not counting on it happening. I think Treliving has to go out and get the best goalie he can to help this team now and worry about future goalies in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, JTech780 said: I think that we are very close to taking the next step. I think every year you waste with stop gaps waiting for Gillies or Parsons to be ready, is a wasted year of the core. I don't doubt that Gillies has NHL upside, but I have serious doubts that Gillies will be a true number 1. He very well could prove me wrong, but at this point in time I am not counting on it happening. I think Treliving has to go out and get the best goalie he can to help this team now and worry about future goalies in the future. What about Rittich? Why do we keep overlooking him, he is right there with Gillies, yet we talk about Gillies and Parsons. BT signing Rittich for 2 yrs I think was really great. 1 year to adjust and another to show us. He looks to me to be a very good goalie so far. Next yrs camp will tell the tale, can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 59 minutes ago, JTech780 said: At age 32 the odds are against Elliott getting any better. More often than not goalies don't turn into number 1's this late into their careers. Elliott is a tandem goalie and I just don't think that approach works. The teams left in the playoffs all have clear cut number 1's. Nashvile: Rinne, 61GP .918SV% St. Louis: Allen 61GP .915SV% Anaheim: Gibson 52GP .924SV% Edmonton: Talbot 73GP .919SV% New York: Lundqvist 57GP .910SV% (Lowest SV% of his career) Ottawa: Anderson 40GP .926SV% (Missed time with his wive's illness) Washington: Holtby 63GP .925SV% Pittsburgh: Murray 49GP .923SV% (Pittsburgh is the only team not going with their number 1, but that is due to injuries, and they have a Stanley Cup winner as a backup.) Elliott doesn't belong on a list with these goalies. Perhaps he does if he played for one of those teams? We can't pretend we're near as good as some of those teams on paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, conundrumed said: Perhaps he does if he played for one of those teams? We can't pretend we're near as good as some of those teams on paper. Washington and Pittsburgh are the only teams that I would say are a class ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 I'd add ANA, NYR, St loo and NSH myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, conundrumed said: I'd add ANA, NYR, St loo and NSH myself. Rangers maybe. The rest we are just a number 1 goalie away from being right there with them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, JTech780 said: Rangers maybe. The rest we are just a number 1 goalie away from being right there with them. There are a # of teams that have the talent & firepower with the skaters to be a contender if they had a top end goalie. Dallas is 1 example. Flyers & Jets are 2 more. We saw a top end goalie like Kipper steal games we should have lost not that long ago so should recognize the value of the position. The dang thing is you never know who will be the next to move from backup to star & which promising 1 plateaus. It's a crap shoot where you pay the $s & take your chances. Over paying for a current top ender works the same as what's clicking with his current team may not translate to a different system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 hours ago, conundrumed said: What about Rittich? Why do we keep overlooking him, he is right there with Gillies, yet we talk about Gillies and Parsons. BT signing Rittich for 2 yrs I think was really great. 1 year to adjust and another to show us. He looks to me to be a very good goalie so far. Next yrs camp will tell the tale, can't wait! Rittich was only signed for 1 year, he is an RFA with arb rights this year. I find it hard to get a read on how the team sees Rittich, he was far and away the best goalie for Stockton this year, but they keep going to Gillies, who hasn't struggled but he hasn't been great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, JTech780 said: Rittich was only signed for 1 year, he is an RFA with arb rights this year. I find it hard to get a read on how the team sees Rittich, he was far and away the best goalie for Stockton this year, but they keep going to Gillies, who hasn't struggled but he hasn't been great. My apologies, I thought it was a 2 year deal. I shouldn't rely on my memory, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, conundrumed said: My apologies, I thought it was a 2 year deal. I shouldn't rely on my memory, lol. You might have been mixing him up with the other Czech they signed, Daniel Pribyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, JTech780 said: You might have been mixing him up with the other Czech they signed, Daniel Pribyl. Maybe. But I'm not giving me a pass, lol. Thought we had him for 2, dammit! I like what I've seen from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames-fan-in-jets-land Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 Popular thought is saying the Flames need to get a true #1 starter that is consistent, can steal games, and is trending upward. But who is a realistic option? Goalies like Price, Holtby and Quick aren't going anywhere. Dubnyk, Crawford and Brobovsky were just as unsuccessful in the playoffs. Lundqvist, Halak, Miller and Rinne are all nearing mid 30's. Fleury, Bishop and Murry are injury prone. Whats left is basically what we already have.......and maybe Darling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 I realize that I said that Darling was not high on my list as a potential goalie for the Flames to try and obtain for next season, and I have to admit that could very well be from the limited times that I watched him play... What I had seen turns out to be some of his weaker games and highlights of goals against... So after searching out and watching more of Darling, I would now have to say he is on my short list of goalies I would be like to see in a Flames jersey as an upgrade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Carty said: I realize that I said that Darling was not high on my list as a potential goalie for the Flames to try and obtain for next season, and I have to admit that could very well be from the limited times that I watched him play... What I had seen turns out to be some of his weaker games and highlights of goals against... So after searching out and watching more of Darling, I would now have to say he is on my short list of goalies I would be like to see in a Flames jersey as an upgrade... Please call up your buddy Tre and make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 Might not be "Flames" news technically or for very long but thought it was cool that Chad Johnson is going to play for Team Canada at the Worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 18 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said: Popular thought is saying the Flames need to get a true #1 starter that is consistent, can steal games, and is trending upward. But who is a realistic option? Goalies like Price, Holtby and Quick aren't going anywhere. Dubnyk, Crawford and Brobovsky were just as unsuccessful in the playoffs. Lundqvist, Halak, Miller and Rinne are all nearing mid 30's. Fleury, Bishop and Murry are injury prone. Whats left is basically what we already have.......and maybe Darling. so since Carolina just traded for Darling's rights, you propose we just keep Bishop? please ..dont anybody suggest we trade for Cam Ward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 28, 2017 Report Share Posted April 28, 2017 Carolina trades a 3rd for Darling's negotiating rights... edit Phoenix Phast Phingers!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted April 29, 2017 Report Share Posted April 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Carolina trades a 3rd for Darling's negotiating rights... edit Phoenix Phast Phingers!! Apparently they haven't even talked to Darling's agent yet. If they do get him signed that is one team off the list of suitors for other goalies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now