I hate having disagreement with posters who I respect, especially ones I know can present their points better. You’ll probably destroy me, but I disagree so I’ll give it a shot....just go easy on me.
It’s a what if game with Eller. Who knows how he would of done here. One can make the point that Montréal rushed him when he should of been in the AHL for a few more years to develop his game and adapt to North American ice. Not to mention the conclusion he suffered in the Playoffs which certainly set his development back imho. Your probably right he wouldn't have been the missing piece here; Hitchcock would of probably ruined him by making him a defensively responsible center who still only put up 20-30 points. Just kidding, far more likely his size and style of play would of never worked here. If he was destined to be traded though I believe trading him for a goalie was a poor call. Once again all a big bunch of what ifs. No one knows what we could of got for Eller in another trade or what he would of become in the Blues system had we continued to develop him.
However, I still maintain Halak was a bust. For an organization low on Center depth at the time we should of never traded a center for him. Goalies are rarely traded for as much as we gave up for Halak. A 13th overall center in the 2007 draft who had six years left of team control (and Ian Schultz as a sweetener) for an RFA goalie who had never shown he could be a starter for a whole season. He only played 45 games the year prior to the trade for Montreal.
In his time here Halak had one excellent season, as you noted the year he won the Jennings, posting a .926 save percentage in 46 games. That was down from 57 games and a .910 the year prior, had Elliot not found his grove that year we wouldn’t have won the Jennings or been a contender imho. The two other years of Halak he posted a .899, and a .917. Three years of basically league average goaltending or below, Halak didn’t make us a contender those years. In his time here, he never showed he could handle a starter workload or stay healthy. One year of above average production from Halak is not worth six years of Eller.
My bigger point was Armstrong sucks at trading for goalies. I guess I should amend that to just say this organization sucks at making judgements on goalies. The same mistakes this organization made with Allen where all made with Halak before and that why I don’t think he was worth what we gave up. All of it has been gone over before on these forums from Bishop to Elliot, to Miller and back to Allen. Not to mention the whole Copley debacle which effected Binnington. Had we not traded for Halak perhaps we keep Bishop? Once again a whole bunch of what ifs....
They’re fair points, and since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, it all really comes down to a matter of opinion. The same “what if” with Eller technically also applies to Bish; would he become the same goalie in St. Louis as he did elsewhere? Who’s to say? With full hindsight, we absolutely should have gotten Bish his 30 NHL games, signed him to another contract and let it play out. We wouldn’t have traded Eller for Halak, but maybe, with hindsight, we do trade Eller and/or Perron for Price (who knows what the actual ask was). Price-Bishop as a tandem is mmmm decent. I wouldn’t kick it out of bed for eating crackers. That’s a big time missed opportunity, but it’s understood with the benefit of hindsight. And idk, it misses a lot of context.
We really needed a goalie; our window was opening and we didn’t have one. Our goalies the year before were Conklin and Mason, it was time to put on the big boy pants and do something, especially since Bish and Allen hadn’t really shown anything yet. Heck, Price hadn't really don’t anything yet. Halak had shown he could carry a team to the ECF just the year before, where he was incendiary. In the end it didn’t work out. But this fanbase would have had Army’s head on a pike for not making a serious play for a starting goalie that year. As luck would have it, we sort of ended up with two in Moose and Halak, but nobody really could have predicted that. Knowing what we know now, you go into the season with Moose and Bish and keep Eller. But Bish was just ok in Peoria, and Moose’s career to that point would not indicate to anybody that we would go on to post the lowest GAA in the modern era.
Idk, we’re the Blues, we aren’t allowed to have a clear-cut goalie situation. Maybe Binnington finally gives us some stability there for a few years. Maybe it forces us to trade Allen, and he goes on to win a Vezina somewhere else. Nobody would guess that would happen now, but after all we know about the Blues and goalies, wouldn’t it kind of make sense? What about Husso? He’s about ready, but is coming off a horrendous year (not all his fault). Would you trust him as a backup over Allen at this point, knowing it could mean the difference between him leaving in a year or two, or losing most of the games he does start? What about Fitzpatrick, Ellis, and Hofer, all of whom I think have strong potential? Does that change our perspective on the conversation?
It’s ultimately down to opinion, but determining (and then finding!) the exact right mix for your goalie tandem is a bizarre calculus that doesn’t ever seem to make sense in hindsight. Go back to the MTL forums from when Halak was traded, and I guarantee you’ll find some people saying “it should have been Price instead.” It’s the hardest position in hockey to evaluate because we don’t *really* know what makes a goalie good. You either have it or you don’t. Some people have it and lose it. But you need it to win, and I won’t ever be mad about us trying to find it. Because while we’ve paid hefty prices for Halak and Miller, we also found Moose and Binnington on the scrap heap. With the Blues especially, you just don’t ever know.