Blues Goaltending
- Thread starter Doohickie
- Start date
I'd trade Allen for Darling, but that's the only way a deal happens. Neither team has much to lose at that point.
Doohickie
Ft Worth (from Bflo)
- Feb 16, 2013
- 794
- 419
No trade required; Darling was waived.
That shocked me: $4.75M, with a cap hit of $4.15M
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
Cotton McKnight
He left, get over it!
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,828
- 14,753
It has to be a trade, we don't have the cap space.
It also has to be a trade because any GM with Allen and Darling on the roster with their contracts should be fired on the spot.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,095
- 12,961
A few things here:
That .888 was from last season. That was his only season as a "starter" and encompasses a sample size of 43 games. I put the word starter in quotes because he lost his job to Cam Ward in year 1 of a 4 year, $16.6 mil contract. He was given multiple chances to turn around his abysmal season since he was paid like a starter and never did. He currently has an .892 this year.
Which brings me to my next point. Darling does not have better numbers over the last 3 years than Johnson, because his games played in Chicago were pretty damn low. In the past 3 seasons, plus this season, Darling has a .905 while Johnson has a .907. If you count this season as a year and then go back only 2 seasons, Darling has a .902 compared to Johnson's .900.
Darling has proven that he can be a really good backup on a good team. He has not demonstrated that he can handle a starter's workload or that he can post respectable numbers for a bad or mediocre team. He also counts as $4.15 mil against the cap for this season and another 2 after that (almost identical cap hit with the same term as Allen). Darling can't be brought in as a replacement for Johnson. We don't have the cap space and even if we cleared the space, investing $8.5 against the cap in an Allen/Darling tandem for 2+ years is insane.
Darling only makes sense as a trade where Allen is going the other way. I don't think we win a trade like that, but it is absolutely the only way this organization can gamble that Darling can succeed with a change of scenery.
GoldenSeal
Believe In The Note
After the last few games, I am not sure that we should jettison Jake Allen. It's obvious Yeo's done considerable damage to this team off the ice and Berube might be able to right the ship if he gets the support he needs (for me this means Armstrong being gone and Stillman handling things directly). I'd call up Binnington and test the waters for a few games. Chad has Elliott tendencies in that, if you catch him at the right moment, he can go momentarily elite.
The Old Master
come and take it.
Doohickie
Ft Worth (from Bflo)
- Feb 16, 2013
- 794
- 419
cardinalnation
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2012
- 888
- 540
Darling for Allen, that was hilarious. I admit I don't see a whole lot of his games but from what I have seen Scott Darling is brutal. Probably worse than Johnson even. Zero interest here.
KingBran
Three Eyed Raven
- Apr 24, 2014
- 6,436
- 2,284
Not disagreeing with what you are saying but couldn't the same have been said about Elliott and Hutton too? To a degree Halak?
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
Just played EANHL and finished the season with Allen posting a .955 SV%, a 1.01 GAA, and winning the Vezina. I can never find a taker for Allen at the beginning of 2019, but this time it paid off. Became an 89OA the following year. The sad part is that every other time I’ve kept him, he single-handedly tanked the team posting a .888 SV% and a 3.89 GAA.
Goaltending matters, and even in fantasyland it’s difficult to find a decent starter. This needs to be our first priority - you build from the net out. We’ve wasted primes of our other players due to lack of competent goaltending
Goaltending matters, and even in fantasyland it’s difficult to find a decent starter. This needs to be our first priority - you build from the net out. We’ve wasted primes of our other players due to lack of competent goaltending
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,095
- 12,961
A
To a degree, yes. And I wouldn't want Elliott or Halak if they came with Darling's contract.
If you're talking about Halak in the summer before we acquired him, he was coming a a 43 start season where he posted a .924, stole the #1 job by the end of the year and had a lights out 3 round playoff run. He had proven much more than Darling has at this point in his career and most people still consider that acquisition/extension by Army as a mistake.
Elliott had proven nothing before he got here and was compensated to reflect that. He was brought in to fight for the backup job on a 1 year, league minimum deal. He played excellent as a Blue and eventually was traded to get a job as a true starter instead of a tandem guy. By the time he left St. Louis, he had 45 and 38 start seasons on his resume and excellent numbers. He also had a lights out, 3 round playoff performance on his resume. That was more than Darling has proven. Since that time, he has been mediocre at best and (IMO) demonstrated that he can't be a starter in the NHL. I certainly wouldn't want him on Darling's contract.
With Hutton, I wouldn't have given him Darling's contract after last season with the Blues. Since that time, Hutton has proven much more over 21 starts as a starter than Darling has in his entire time in Carolina. I still think the jury is out on Hutton's true ability as a starter until we see his overall season through 45 or 50 starts, but he has gotten much closer to proving himself since he left us than Darling has at any point since leaving the Hawks. I would certainly not want Hutton if his end of the season SV% winds up looking like Darling's has over his time in Carolina.
To a degree, yes. And I wouldn't want Elliott or Halak if they came with Darling's contract.
If you're talking about Halak in the summer before we acquired him, he was coming a a 43 start season where he posted a .924, stole the #1 job by the end of the year and had a lights out 3 round playoff run. He had proven much more than Darling has at this point in his career and most people still consider that acquisition/extension by Army as a mistake.
Elliott had proven nothing before he got here and was compensated to reflect that. He was brought in to fight for the backup job on a 1 year, league minimum deal. He played excellent as a Blue and eventually was traded to get a job as a true starter instead of a tandem guy. By the time he left St. Louis, he had 45 and 38 start seasons on his resume and excellent numbers. He also had a lights out, 3 round playoff performance on his resume. That was more than Darling has proven. Since that time, he has been mediocre at best and (IMO) demonstrated that he can't be a starter in the NHL. I certainly wouldn't want him on Darling's contract.
With Hutton, I wouldn't have given him Darling's contract after last season with the Blues. Since that time, Hutton has proven much more over 21 starts as a starter than Darling has in his entire time in Carolina. I still think the jury is out on Hutton's true ability as a starter until we see his overall season through 45 or 50 starts, but he has gotten much closer to proving himself since he left us than Darling has at any point since leaving the Hawks. I would certainly not want Hutton if his end of the season SV% winds up looking like Darling's has over his time in Carolina.
GoldenSeal
Believe In The Note
DoubleK81
It's always something with these pricks.
Is this worse or better than Niemi/Lehtonen?
I'm sorry, WHAT??????? you want someone who has had no experience actually running sports team, to take control over a franchise that he is part owner of, instead of hiring someone with some kind of tangible expertise in the area? Are you insane?
GoldenSeal
Believe In The Note
What I wrote doesn't match what I was thinking, so my apologies on that. What I meant to say was that Armstrong should take a more active role in running the franchise and not leave it entirely in the hands of people like Doug Armstrong, especially with the team going to the Cap and going from the WCF to bottom dweller in a very short period of time. At this point, Stillman should be considering options and should have a grasp on how the organization is running and the problems in the locker room and if he's not, that means he has the wrong people in place.
Allen's been the least of our worries the last several games. What you're getting out of him is Elliott level play the last couple of years he was here. He's obviously focusing on trying to stay more positional. Unfortunately, like Elliott, his save percentages in shootouts and breakaways have dropped because of it. Elliott was not good in that regard either, but at least the game was usually kept to less than the league minimum in scoring. If the team can't muster a league minimum in scoring on a nightly basis, you have to consider there might be more pressing issues.
He has been the least of our problems recently, but we should still dump him the moment the opportunity presents itself. He's had over 2 years now and he has shown us who he is.
Hopefully his current level of play continues long enough to get some GM to want to take the risk without us needing to take back a bad contract.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 6Staked: $2,128.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 3Staked: $210.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 3Staked: $145.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 8Staked: $8,175.00Event closes- Updated: