2017-2018 Blues Discussion Thread Part Three

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robb_K

Registered User
Apr 26, 2007
20,980
11,134
NordHolandNethrlands
Jake Allen will mentally break down in tomorrow's game?[/QUOTE]
It won't bother me if he has a mental breakdown during tomorrow's game. He won't play even a second. If he does, Yeo should be fired, and an investigation should be carried out after the season to find out if Yeo was being paid by betting interests or Avalanche owners, to sabotage The Blues' chances. :mad:
 

DoubleK81

It's always something with these pricks.
Sep 10, 2010
2,466
2,742
PETRO SUCKS
If you have to choose between Berglund and Sobotka, you choose Berglund without doubting it.

Sobotka is ****ing useless. He's not tenacious, he doesn't create any offense, he sucks defensively, he's not as good on the dot, he is a possession monstrosity. He tries to play a finesse game but has nowhere near enough skill to pull it off.

Berglund is at least a big body, who throws his weight around, is aggressive, reliable defensively, has a good shot and his possession game is almost Jaskin level. He's a perfect third line player, he just has too much term. He goes hot and cold but at least he's been hot. Sobotka is just ****ing cold all year round.

2013-14, you choose Sobotka. But it's since changed.


The best thing about Berglund? Every time when he gets hot, every year, is at the end of the season heading into the playoffs.
 

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
Berglund is good in the playoffs when he is on the wing. When he is at centre? Not so great.

In terms of just playing ability, I'd rather keep Berglund over Sobotka. I still think that moving Berglund in the summer needs to be the priority over Sobotka. It becomes far more difficult to move a player with a NTC and 3+ seasons when the season starts. At least with Sobotka we can dump him on the fourth line and move him without issue during the season.
 

Renard

Registered User
Nov 14, 2011
2,148
761
St. Louis, MO
The Blues had a difficult decision to make in June/July 2016. Elliott wanted to be anointed as the franchise goalie. Maybe he wanted to be extended too, since he only had a year left on his deal. When the Blues wouldn't give Elliott what he wanted, he asked for a trade and we traded him. We got a second round pick in return and we used it for Kyrou.

At this point, the Blues had Allen penciled in as the number one goalie. Allen had one year left on his deal, after which he would have been a restricted free agent.

The Blues didn't have to extend Allen at this point. They could have let events take their course. If Allen flopped in 2016-2017, the Blues would have had a stronger bargaining position dealing with him on the new contract. If Allen excelled in 2016-2017, Allen would have had the Blues over a barrel.

Did the Blues have another goalie in the system who looked ready to be a number one in 2017-2018? Binnington? Copley? Husso?

I can't see Armstrong being the fool here. He seems to have backed the wrong guy, but he had his reasons, and predicting the success or failure of goalies is very tough.
 

TruBlu

Registered User
Feb 7, 2016
6,784
2,923
History is also rife with goalies maturing later than other positions. Would anyone have taken Corey Crawford back in 2o12? He was 27 years old and was posting almost 3 goals allowed per game and was a shade over .900. The fan base wanted him gone and they'd be kicking themselves if they had now. I'm not advocating we keep or move on from Allen one way or another, I just try to look at the big picture instead of getting caught up in the knee jerk lynchings that occur on a week to week basis, especially when it comes to goalies. I can't remember a time when fans in St. Louis weren't at odds over the goalie position. It has always been this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MortiestOfMortys

ManyIdeas

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
6,356
915
St. Louis
Is Tim Thomas not the best example of goalies coming on hot late in their career, or did I not follow him well enough early on?
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
In recent history, most great goalies will show you their greatness at an early age. The thought that a 27 year old is going to suddenly become consistently elite is more wishful thinking (and an anomaly if it occurs) than a concept based on reality. Moreover, there are plenty of great, young goaltenders carrying the mail right now in the NHL.

It is most definitely not too early to see what Husso has as a regular starter next year, particularly when one considers what the position entails in today's game (calm and sound positioning). I have a feeling Husso will take about a half year to get acclimated and be a pretty decent 'tender for the Blues, far more consistent and predictable than Allen. He might even turn out to be great.
 
Last edited:

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
The Blues had a difficult decision to make in June/July 2016. Elliott wanted to be anointed as the franchise goalie. Maybe he wanted to be extended too, since he only had a year left on his deal. When the Blues wouldn't give Elliott what he wanted, he asked for a trade and we traded him. We got a second round pick in return and we used it for Kyrou.

At this point, the Blues had Allen penciled in as the number one goalie. Allen had one year left on his deal, after which he would have been a restricted free agent.

The Blues didn't have to extend Allen at this point. They could have let events take their course. If Allen flopped in 2016-2017, the Blues would have had a stronger bargaining position dealing with him on the new contract. If Allen excelled in 2016-2017, Allen would have had the Blues over a barrel.

Did the Blues have another goalie in the system who looked ready to be a number one in 2017-2018? Binnington? Copley? Husso?

I can't see Armstrong being the fool here. He seems to have backed the wrong guy, but he had his reasons, and predicting the success or failure of goalies is very tough.
This is a bizarre analysis.

You want to absolve Armstrong of blame, saying that goalies are very tough to predict. He gave Allen a starters contract when he hadn't shown that. Doug Armstrong has worked on a "prove yourself" basis with every other RFA, in positions that are far easier to project. He didn't with Allen.

The fact we don't have prospects in the system doesn't mean there is a need to take a risk on a contract.

Allen wouldn't have had the Blues over a barrel if he had a great year. He'd be a RFA and we'd work out a deal. Would he had got more than the 4 years at $4.35m? Yes, because he was a proven starter at that point. He'd started to earn it.

Armstrong thought he was a starter. He took an unnecessary risk on that belief in order to hopefully get a favourable deal. It hasn't worked out. Armstrong is 100% to blame for the problematic contract situation.

If Allen looked like an elite goalie the past 2 seasons, everyone would be absolutely loving that contract and Armstrong would be getting plenty of praise for it.
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
Allen's reverse VH needs serious work (players are shooting short side for a reason)..along with the 5-hole which always has been an issue. Candidly, he is a mess right now. Any good game he cards is likely a matter of luck more so than sound fundamentals. It's not like the four goals he allowed against Chicago were bar down shots....at least three of them were shots that should have been stopped if he had proper positioning and fundamentals. Shots are both going through him AND he is allowing the shooters too much net around him. He's like a golfer who is having big misses to the left AND right of the fairway...which leads to a complete lack of confidence.

Finally, regarding the mental aspect, he is completely unable to shut the door after a bad goal. Hutt's goal against last night was a tad weak but he otherwise shut the door completely. Any goalie can be allowed one lapse a game....but 2-4 lapses gets in the territory of giving away the game.
 

Thallis

Progression is not linear
Jan 23, 2010
9,113
4,450
Behind Blue Eyes
Berglund is good in the playoffs when he is on the wing. When he is at centre? Not so great.

In terms of just playing ability, I'd rather keep Berglund over Sobotka. I still think that moving Berglund in the summer needs to be the priority over Sobotka. It becomes far more difficult to move a player with a NTC and 3+ seasons when the season starts. At least with Sobotka we can dump him on the fourth line and move him without issue during the season.

I still don't know why the length of his contract makes him so necessary at get rid of. It'll end when he's 34, and Berglund's style of play is the kind that will last pretty long. He's not reliant on his speed, and he doesn't bang so hard he'll deteriorate. His stride length is what geneates most of his speed on the ice and he'll be able to lean into people to protect the puck long after he's retired. Jumbo Joe plays more or less the same way and look how long he's lasted. I get the argument Easton was saying, it'd be nice if he could get more than 11 assists a year, but I'm really hesitant to trade one of our top 5 goal scorers before seeing we'll have more guys who can hit that 15-20 range. None of the guys we currently have can be counted on for that, and I don't think we want to expect Thomas and Kyrou to do that in their rookie years.
 

Renard

Registered User
Nov 14, 2011
2,148
761
St. Louis, MO
He’s definitely up there. But he’s easily the exception and not the rule.

Tim Thomas wasn't a starting goalie in the NHL until he was 32 years old. He didn't make it into the league until he was 28 years old.

More older goalies could make the grade, I guess, but teams NHL teams won't keep them around that long. Thomas' route was to play in Europe and stick with it
 

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
I still don't know why the length of his contract makes him so necessary at get rid of. It'll end when he's 34, and Berglund's style of play is the kind that will last pretty long. He's not reliant on his speed, and he doesn't bang so hard he'll deteriorate. His stride length is what geneates most of his speed on the ice and he'll be able to lean into people to protect the puck long after he's retired. Jumbo Joe plays more or less the same way and look how long he's lasted. I get the argument Easton was saying, it'd be nice if he could get more than 11 assists a year, but I'm really hesitant to trade one of our top 5 goal scorers before seeing we'll have more guys who can hit that 15-20 range. None of the guys we currently have can be counted on for that, and I don't think we want to expect Thomas and Kyrou to do that in their rookie years.
It isn't the term that makes him necessary to get rid of.

I mentioned term in relation to our ability to move him during the season. Teams looking to make adjustments in season, particularly when looking for a third liner, are often looking for short term. That's the nature of the cap and the teams in the depth market. The teams legitimately looking for long term pieces are more likely to be teams that Berglund has on his NTC list and unlikely he'll waive. Then from a players perspective, waiving mid-season isn't exactly a desirable option when it isn't a short term thing. Players are going to be more open to that in the summer.

The issue with Berglund is where he fits on the roster. If we didn't have Steen then I'd keep Berglund as the third line LW. Steen isn't going anywhere, Berglund needs to be on LW to get the best out of him and that means pushing Steen to RW? That shouldn't be getting viewed as an option next season. We're paying Steen $5.75m, play him where he is best.
 

Thallis

Progression is not linear
Jan 23, 2010
9,113
4,450
Behind Blue Eyes
It isn't the term that makes him necessary to get rid of.

I mentioned term in relation to our ability to move him during the season. Teams looking to make adjustments in season, particularly when looking for a third liner, are often looking for short term. That's the nature of the cap and the teams in the depth market. The teams legitimately looking for long term pieces are more likely to be teams that Berglund has on his NTC list and unlikely he'll waive. Then from a players perspective, waiving mid-season isn't exactly a desirable option when it isn't a short term thing. Players are going to be more open to that in the summer.

The issue with Berglund is where he fits on the roster. If we didn't have Steen then I'd keep Berglund as the third line LW. Steen isn't going anywhere, Berglund needs to be on LW to get the best out of him and that means pushing Steen to RW? That shouldn't be getting viewed as an option next season. We're paying Steen $5.75m, play him where he is best.

Berglund has been fine at RW with Brodziak and Steen, why does he need to be anchored to the left side? I don't really see and issue with a Steen - Thomas - Berglund 3rd line going into next year.
 

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,680
14,072
Berglund has been fine at RW with Brodziak and Steen, why does he need to be anchored to the left side? I don't really see and issue with a Steen - Thomas - Berglund 3rd line going into next year.
I like it. Thomas seems like more of a playmaker and he's with a couple guys who can score 20 goals. Plus they are defensively responsible and should make it pretty easy on him.

That leaves you with Schwartz, Schenn, Tarasenko, Fabbri, Thompson, and a top 6 center through free agency or trade.

I think that's a fine lineup heading into the season. If Thompson/Kyrou aren't cutting it, we will have the assets to find a top 6 winger at the deadline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->