Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL 2023-2024

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
oPlaiD said:
This is the worst one, to me. Not only did we give up a 1st, we actively made the team worse by using him in net. That's being a little unfair to him, I guess, since with Buffalo that season he was probably a bit better than Halak or Elliott, but in the Blues uniform he was worse than either of them by every metric. Even if he had played at the level expected of him, it still wasn't a good trade. Halak and Elliott were both above average goalies and we move 2 picks, Halak, and more for a rental at the most volatile position when it wasn't even a real team weakness, despite whatever narrative existed around them.

But oh well. Spilled milk, we did win the Cup eventually anyway, whatever.
Click to expand...
Nah I have to push back on this, the trade did make some sense at the time. Halak was traded to be the #1 here but was hurt way too often and only played in one series (also getting hurt). He had lost the good will of management because we were going to Elliott every time the playoffs approached, and the whole reason in getting Halak was because he was so dominant with Montreal. Elliott, who did have good seasons, had to be relegated to the AHL the previous year for his bad play. I think he did hold his own in the playoffs, but I don't think this team was super confident in him leading the team to a Stanley Cup.

I think the sentiment in management was that you have two good regular season goalies, but aren't comfortable running them in the playoffs because of the workload and possible injuries/bad play from one of the guys. So you trade for one of the best goalies in the league at the time, a guy who nearly beat Canada, a proven playoff performer, and his style just didn't work. NOW, I will say that we all had the same thoughts about Miller at the time as we do right now; he didn't seem like a great fit. But I think everything taken into context makes it reasonable and understandable why they would go out and get a goalie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArenaRat
BadgersandBlues said:
I never said he was a playoff choker, I just said he didn't produce here. All his production in Washington was riding shotgun with Ovi and Backstrom, two of the best in their primes. It's not as easy as it sounds to play with those types of players though, so I get the argument.

I think Oshie is a really solid supporting player. But he's not a driver and we needed drivers. Brouwer wasn't that either, but Oshie was never going to be the guy he was in Washington here.
Click to expand...
I think it was a waste of an asset for one run that had us beat a rival but in no way made us a Cup contender IMO.

I agree that we needed more upfront and as I have said numerous times (and frankly it’s getting old repeating it), we either didn’t target talent to take the team to the next level with that core or failed to do so.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman
ezcreepin said:
Nah I have to push back on this, the trade did make some sense at the time. Halak was traded to be the #1 here but was hurt way too often and only played in one series (also getting hurt). He had lost the good will of management because we were going to Elliott every time the playoffs approached, and the whole reason in getting Halak was because he was so dominant with Montreal. Elliott, who did have good seasons, had to be relegated to the AHL the previous year for his bad play. I think he did hold his own in the playoffs, but I don't think this team was super confident in him leading the team to a Stanley Cup.

I think the sentiment in management was that you have two good regular season goalies, but aren't comfortable running them in the playoffs because of the workload and possible injuries/bad play from one of the guys. So you trade for one of the best goalies in the league at the time, a guy who nearly beat Canada, a proven playoff performer, and his style just didn't work. NOW, I will say that we all had the same thoughts about Miller at the time as we do right now; he didn't seem like a great fit. But I think everything taken into context makes it reasonable and understandable why they would go out and get a goalie.
Click to expand...
Halak was having a terrible year and was equally bad at the Olympics that year. I agree that was a move that everyone s*** on Armstrong for but like you, I also saw the rationale at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
ezcreepin said:
Nah I have to push back on this, the trade did make some sense at the time. Halak was traded to be the #1 here but was hurt way too often and only played in one series (also getting hurt). He had lost the good will of management because we were going to Elliott every time the playoffs approached, and the whole reason in getting Halak was because he was so dominant with Montreal. Elliott, who did have good seasons, had to be relegated to the AHL the previous year for his bad play. I think he did hold his own in the playoffs, but I don't think this team was super confident in him leading the team to a Stanley Cup.

I think the sentiment in management was that you have two good regular season goalies, but aren't comfortable running them in the playoffs because of the workload and possible injuries/bad play from one of the guys. So you trade for one of the best goalies in the league at the time, a guy who nearly beat Canada, a proven playoff performer, and his style just didn't work. NOW, I will say that we all had the same thoughts about Miller at the time as we do right now; he didn't seem like a great fit. But I think everything taken into context makes it reasonable and understandable why they would go out and get a goalie.
Click to expand...
Agreed that the need for a goalie made sense but Miller was a poor target. That’s easier to say now with hindsight but quite a few of us were saying it at the time too. I’m not sure there was an ideal target but management seemed hell bent on replacing Halak that they ignored an obvious red flag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman
STL fan in MN said:
Agreed that the need for a goalie made sense but Miller was a poor target. That’s easier to say now with hindsight but quite a few of us were saying it at the time too. I’m not sure there was an ideal target but management seemed hell bent on replacing Halak that they ignored an obvious red flag.
Click to expand...
No for sure, I think a lot of us here said the fit didn't seem right, but it was clear that there wasn't confidence in the tandem despite their regular season success. It didn't work out in 2013-2014, but we did get a cup, so it's water under the bridge now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STL fan in MN
Majorityof1 said:
I wonder if the people who were happy were we didn't bring O'Reilly back at that contract are the same ones who think we need a 2C? And if they still think that?
Click to expand...
I thought it was time to move on. And while we have a gaping hole at #2C, I am not sold on going out and getting one. I would much rather focus on D. But I am probably in the majority of one on that. ;)
 
Celtic Note said:
I thought it was time to move on. And while we have a gaping hole at #2C, I am not sold on going out and getting one. I would much rather focus on D. But I am probably in the majority of one on that. ;)
Click to expand...
I'd like to aim for both. The biggest questionmarks for me this off-season is if we start next season with one (or more) of Bolduc/Snuggy/Dvorsky in the lineup next season.
 
BlueDream said:
Why not focus on both when we have the cap space for both?
Click to expand...
I think the problem with doing that, unless you can free up even more space by moving a guy like Krug, is that you end up only being able to afford a 2/3 guy to fill the 2C slot and a 2/3 guy to fill the 1LD slot. We’re not going to be serious competitors next season, so if we are able to elevate the level of player we add for each by adding one next season and the other the following season (assuming that the cap continues to climb) I feel like you can maximize the bang for your buck.
 
BlueDream said:
Why not focus on both when we have the cap space for both?
Click to expand...
I would like to have space to temporarily take on bad contracts to move our own as we rebuild the backend. O and/or land an expensive top pairing guy. I think we can tackle #2C in a season or so.
 
Celtic Note said:
I would like to have space to temporarily take on bad contracts to move our own as we rebuild the backend. O and/or land an expensive top pairing guy. I think we can tackle #2C in a season or so.
Click to expand...
I'd still like to tackle the 2C problem. Us forcing Buch into the Middle because we don't have enough quality center depth needs to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
Linkens Mastery said:
I'd still like to tackle the 2C problem. Us forcing Buch into the Middle because we don't have enough quality center depth needs to stop.
Click to expand...
If we do it either needs to be a short term, cheap bandaid or a young guy yet to blossom IMO. We have guys on the farm who could be that guy in a few years. I don’t want to waste time on short term fixes personally. I just want to see growth and a future that isn’t like the Backes core where we were good but clearly not good enough, only to be teased with what could have been.
 
I think Dallas is going to win the Cup if Oettinger gives them even an average performance in net(which he hasn’t really done this year.) Just so much quality depth both up front and on the back end.
 
Last edited:
Celtic Note said:
If we do it either needs to be a short term, cheap bandaid or a young guy yet to blossom IMO. We have guys on the farm who could be that guy in a few years. I don’t want to waste time on short term fixes personally. I just want to see growth and a future that isn’t like the Backes core where we were good but clearly not good enough, only to be teased with what could have been.
Click to expand...
this is an area where i think we need a short term fix, bc getting a 2c who can help set up our young wingers needs to be priority or we aren't going to get best out of guys like bolduc and snuggy. schenn can i think stilll be effective winger but he can't handle 2c any more, and having only 1 center who can set up his linemates is not conducive to developing young wingers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xerloris
If we make a trade I think it needs to be for a #1 LD but I see no reason we can't focus on FA #2C and a better LD alternative than what we have.
 
Xerloris said:
If we make a trade I think it needs to be for a #1 LD but I see no reason we can't focus on FA #2C and a better LD alternative than what we have.
Click to expand...
i ask this in all sincerity, other than hanifan is there any ufa d who is clearly better than krug or faulk? i hate them together but individually either of them is still quality player (contract aside). if we are going to upgrade on d in short term, it almost has to be by trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xerloris
Blueston said:
this is an area where i think we need a short term fix, bc getting a 2c who can help set up our young wingers needs to be priority or we aren't going to get best out of guys like bolduc and snuggy. schenn can i think stilll be effective winger but he can't handle 2c any more, and having only 1 center who can set up his linemates is not conducive to developing young wingers
Click to expand...
Looking at the projected UFA list, who fits that without getting a too long of term contract?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom