Brodeur going to stick with Blues?

[lektrix]

Take the deal, unless you really need goaltending help - basically getting Oshie for a WW pick-up.

I kinda do need goaltending help, hence the 6 goalies on my team: Lehtonen, Andersen, Brodeur, Bryzgalov, Darling, C. Johnson. Doing horrible in GAA and SV%. Don't expect Brodeur to help me in those areas but at least the Ws will keep coming which should equate to alright GAA/SV% in the long run.

[Axeman33]

Great! I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if he's still here when elliot is back.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hocke...229a697ab.html

"Both sides know this is a short-term situation. When Elliott returns from his sprained knee, the Blues’ goalie tandem will go back to being him and Allen. Moving either the 29-year-old Elliott or the 24-year-old Allen, both of whom the team controls until 2017, to keep the 42-year-old Brodeur, whose future is very uncertain, would amount to general manager malpractice by Doug Armstrong. Brodeur’s best hope is that his play in the short term with the Blues shows the rest of the league he can still play at this level and help him find a friendly landing place for the remainder of the season."

So, Elliott has been back for a bit and what do ya know, Brodeur is still around.

Rover? Rover? Where did you go?

[rataylor22]

Well I'm here. And I was wrong. Dunno if this makes me a "better person" for admitting I was wrong, but I think my reasoning was solid and I stick by that.

[Axeman33]

LOL!

I am just messin' with Rover because I know it was coming back to me if he was right.

[Instant Karma]

Still, the way I understood it is that the Blues don't really have to make a decision on Brodeur until February, so it's not really all that remarkable that he's still around, right?

[Axeman33]

They don't even have to make a decision per say at that point as far as his situation. It just costs them a bonus (I believe its $125K) if he stays later than that. For an NHL team looking for security/depth in goal, that's a small price to pay.

[2014olympicgold]

If he stays past January 31^st he gets a bonus of 125k, then past February 28^th he gets 125k, then past the deadline is another bonus (not sure that amount). So if he’s not traded by January 31^st, they’ll continue to keep him till the end of February. More than likely. But 125k is peanuts for teams, so if they have a trade they like on the table then they’ll accept it whenever.

[charmin1073]

Was thinking of trading for Elliot. What do you think happens. The other guy has Crawford. Was thinking Raanta and a pick next year might do it. Might hold off and see how things play out. If I were GM it would be tough for me to trade Elliot since he has been the most consistent.

[Rover]

So, Elliott has been back for a bit and what do ya know, Brodeur is still around.

Rover? Rover? Where did you go?

Wait I was going to bump this thread when brodeur is cut soon and was going to gloat about it. Right now they said they're keeping brodeur around to make sure elliot is healthy. I thought our bet was that you said brodeur would stick around for the whole year and allen would get sent to the AHL? Your argument was that brodeur would be 1 of 2 goalies around and not as a temp 3rd goalie while the blues make sure elliiot is healthy.

Yup I was right looking back on the quotes here. You argued they would keep him over allen and I called you crazy! I'm still going to win this bet and gloat about it once brodeur is cut soon, but good try on trying to win the bet on a technicality of them keeping brodeur as a 3rd goalie temporarily.

I didnt say they would keep him over Elliott, but I can see them keeping him over Allen. The fact you aren't even willing to listen to someone telling you that the Head Coach is saying he will be playing is enough for me to bail on this discussion with you. You are obviously too narrow minded to even consider the fact that Hitch likes what Brodeur brings to his team; Stanley Cup experience.

Believe me, he will be there for the remainder of this year.

This is the quote you want to hold me to and I still stick by it because once Elliot is deemed healthy enough by the blues brodeur will get cut.

Don't worry I never said you said he'll be the starter. I'm holding you to the fact you said he'll still be there once elliot is healthy because that I believe has 0 percent chance of happening unless elliot is out for 3-4 months, then that could change things.

The blues already stated they want to see elliot play for a bit to make sure he doesn't have a relapse before they made a decision on brodeur, so in the blues eyes elliot isn't considered 100% healthy yet until he passes their evaluation period of not getting injured again soon after coming back. I do not see brodeur sticking around as a 3rd goalie the rest of the year or sticking around over allen and that was always the crux of my argument. Your argument has always been that brodeur would stick around till the end of the year. Therefore, the bet isn't decided yet!

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hocke...4e56622e2.html

Blues general manager Doug Armstrong has indicated several times that Brodeur won’t be going anywhere until Elliott, who has missed 15 games, can prove that he’s completely recovered. And Monday, the club made a move to suggest it will keep three goalies for the time being, placing forward Magnus Paajarvi on waivers.

“It would be prudent for us to stay with three, knowing that Brian is not going to go from playing a hockey game to awful sore and not able to participate for another few days,” Blues coach Ken Hitchcock said. “So I think (Armstrong) wants to really guard on that sense, and I don’t blame him a bit for doing that.”

[Axeman33]

LOL! Alright.

And yes, I am looking at that exact quote you said when I asked where you went. To me, if Elliott is playing, he's obviously healthy.

If you read the next post I made right after yours it says:

You do that. LOL!

And I guess I will hold you to the fact you think he has ZERO chance of sticking around after Elliott comes back.

How does that sound?

To which you said:

Great! I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if he's still here when elliot is back.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hocke...229a697ab.html

"Both sides know this is a short-term situation. When Elliott returns from his sprained knee, the Blues’ goalie tandem will go back to being him and Allen. Moving either the 29-year-old Elliott or the 24-year-old Allen, both of whom the team controls until 2017, to keep the 42-year-old Brodeur, whose future is very uncertain, would amount to general manager malpractice by Doug Armstrong. Brodeur’s best hope is that his play in the short term with the Blues shows the rest of the league he can still play at this level and help him find a friendly landing place for the remainder of the season."

Of course, you could have just jumped read all this yourself when you jumped back a page.

[Rover]

Sure if you want to take that quote as 100 percent literally instead of understanding the meaning behind it go ahead. Then, I will take your quote of Brodeur being here the remainder of the year as such too and that quote is even less open for interpretation than mine. Therefore, unless Brodeur is a member of the blues on the final day of the regular season, I will win this bet.

I'm sorry I didn't write down the possibility of them keeping Brodeur around as insurance until they saw elliot play some games cause I didn't think of that and cause I was always arguing about it from a rest of the year standpoint because that was your argument. So Brodeur sticking around as the third goalie temporarily had no bearing on my argument.

This time I'll write down the possibility of elliot or Allen being injured at the time of the last day of the regular season not counting if Brodeur is an injury replacement (and one hasn't just returned from injury like the elliot situation now) since your argument was always that Brodeur would be there while all three goalies were healthy and would bump one of them off the roster which was why I called you crazy and how this entire argument started in the first place.

[Axeman33]

I am not sure how else to take it. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Since I cant read your mind, I have to take it as 100% literally.

And I still think they retain Marty as they are not completely comfortable with Allen's play as of late.

[ericdaoust]

Sure if you want to take that quote as 100 percent literally instead of understanding the meaning behind it go ahead. Then, I will take your quote of Brodeur being here the remainder of the year as such too and that quote is even less open for interpretation than mine. Therefore, unless Brodeur is a member of the blues on the final day of the regular season, I will win this bet.

I'm sorry I didn't write down the possibility of them keeping Brodeur around as insurance until they saw elliot play some games cause I didn't think of that and cause I was always arguing about it from a rest of the year standpoint because that was your argument. So Brodeur sticking around as the third goalie temporarily had no bearing on my argument.

This time I'll write down the possibility of elliot or Allen being injured at the time of the last day of the regular season not counting if Brodeur is an injury replacement (and one hasn't just returned from injury like the elliot situation now) since your argument was always that Brodeur would be there while all three goalies were healthy and would bump one of them off the roster which was why I called you crazy and how this entire argument started in the first place.

Not sure how else to interpret your claims. You said Brodeur would be gone when Elliott returns. Elliott has returned and Brodeur is still there.

[Rover]

Not sure how else to interpret your claims. You said Brodeur would be gone when Elliott returns. Elliott has returned and Brodeur is still there.

Because he's there right now temporarily as insurance while the blues make sure Elliott doesn’t reinjure himself. Axeman's argument has always been that Brodeur would be there for the rest of the year and be one of two healthy goalies while one of Elliott or Allen would get bumped off the roster. If you read how this argument started in the first place you would see that.

[Axeman33]

I don't consider our "back and forth" as an argument.