In the words of Herb Tarlek, "Okie fine". If we are paying Faulk 6.5 million for 7 years to be our 3rd pairing RD, so be it. This is the "new NHL", after all. As long as we are not moving on from Pietrangelo or Parayko anytime soon, I am totally down with it.
Confirmed with Link: Faulk & 5th to STL for Edmundson, Bokk, 2021 7th
- Thread starter The Note
- Start date
Its still quite overkill. Tbh, Bortuzzo was good enough for 3rd pair. I guess main reason why Army acquire Faulk was lack of skill at blueline. I think Pietro and Dunn has skills for PP blueline, but the system sucked/sucks still.
I don't buy Army's quote about now we can put on ice any pair and it doesn't matter.
Edmundson was problem, but idk would there be better option LHD than RHD.
GoldenSeal
Believe In The Note
I keep feeling like Faulk is a kneejerk reaction. I'd rather we kept Eddie but whatever. We didn't really need him nor needed to spend the money on him while Stanley Cup Winning Legend Captain Pie is unsigned. That pisses me off.
I'd rather spend 3.4 million extra on Faulk than keeping Edmundson and have 3.1 million left.
So you could say that Faulks real cost is 3.4 million since we had Edmundson signed.
So you could say that Faulks real cost is 3.4 million since we had Edmundson signed.
David Dennison
I'm a tariff, man.
That's kind of moot, Edmundson is a UFA after this season, and Faulks new deal doesn't start until next season.
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
A knee-jerk trade and a knee-jerk 45 million dollar extension? Yeah...
That’s how Armstrong rolls, isn’t it? No patience, impulsive.
Edmundson was stud 2-years ago. Idk, what happened to him. He became soft and transition game went south. Stanely Cup finals you always worried when you saw Edmundson at d-zone and pull you hairs if he had puck.
Same goes guy like Perron who is maybe worst puck handler at d-zone underpressuse. Another forward who suck with puck at d-zone is Fabbri. He does so many bonehead plays. Barbashev was also guy who had serious problem with puck at d-zone, bonehead passes, but those happend early season and season progressed he improved his game from D --> A+. Become with Sundqvist best PK duo and best shutdown forward duo.
I still view Blais - Sundqvist - Barbashev would be ideal shutdown 4th line. Steen in my eyes isnt that level anymore what he use to be. Pressbox guy imo. Blais who was NHL 1st in hitting party, Sundqvist can play hard and have legs. Then add there Barbashev who has improved his 2-way and is really good grinding in forecheck.
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
Totally. He shoots from the hip and flies by the seat of his pants and other pithy sayings denoting impulsiveness as well.
ChicagoBlues
Sentient
- Oct 24, 2006
- 14,262
- 5,431
He’s like me and buys one of each candy bar at the grocery store checkout.
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
Bobby Orrtuzzo
Ya know
Such a long deal and 2 years upfront at 9M
Could end up being a Dion Phaneuf salary situation down the road.
Or a big trade win for the blues.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,069
- 3,884
The combo of the trade and committing to him for 8 years is an unnecessary long term risk IMO.
Eddie was likely gone within the next year or so regardless as it was clear he valued himself way more than the Blues did and he was expendable but Faulk really doesn’t feel a huge need IMO. Maybe he helps on the PP but there’s way less risky ways to bring in a guy that’s good on the PP than trading a top prospect and committing to a 2nd/3rd pairing caliber guy for 8 years.
It should make the team better for this 1 season but I don’t like the cost/benefit analysis on it as a whole.
Eddie was likely gone within the next year or so regardless as it was clear he valued himself way more than the Blues did and he was expendable but Faulk really doesn’t feel a huge need IMO. Maybe he helps on the PP but there’s way less risky ways to bring in a guy that’s good on the PP than trading a top prospect and committing to a 2nd/3rd pairing caliber guy for 8 years.
It should make the team better for this 1 season but I don’t like the cost/benefit analysis on it as a whole.
I have to think Armstrong expects one of the 3 RHD to play on their left side in the Top 4, for this trade to make a whole lot of sense.
Reading into team comments, it sounds like its going to be Faulk, although Pietro volunteered to do it during the first pre-season game they played together (the only game Faulk played with the Blues) to give Faulk a cushion to learn the system first. If Faulk is comfortable playing on the left AND if he plays at a better level than other (cheaper) options on the team, it makes sense. Armstrong must have determined that it would be a reasonable role.
I do think Faulk is a significant step up over Parayko on the PP. Parayko has a really hard shot, but it is too slow in the release and not accurate enough to really be the threat we all want it to be. I noted that Dunn is the lone defender on the 1st PP unit, and Pietro/Faulk are a tandem on PP2. It will be interesting to see the contrast in the styled the 2 units play. I like having two units that do different things, conceptually.
What I don't really believe is that Armstrong acquired Faulk just to play 3rd pairing and special teams. Maybe he did? If so, it will give Parayko and Pietro some relief in terms of wear and tear. Maybe that's all it was, an opportunity to get a guy they really liked for peanuts. Maybe the extension was just necessary from a business side to get Faulk to sign now. It provides some cost certainty. Could they be entertaining trading Parayko (not immediately, but in the next 2-3 years)? I really don't know what the longer term plan is. But I do think the team is stacked pretty well to make another run this year. I just hope the need to work Faulk into a role doesn't compromise other team defensive chemistry.
This, (the bolded). Perfectly stated too. Thank you, I wish I had said that!
Thanks...but I don't see anything bolded. If that was on purpose, pretty clever dig.
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
I think the term was necessary in order to keep the AAV low enough to at least feasibly re-sign Schenn and Pietrangelo. Army more or less says exactly that between the 4:05 and 5:05 mark in the press conference following the trade. And as many others have mentioned previously, I don't think Army makes this move without at least talking to Pietrangelo about it. So I don't believe that Faulk's presence changes our overall cap structure so much that it prevents Army from extending/re-signing Schenn and Pietrangelo.
My guess is that Armstrong has had enough conversations with Petro and his agent to find out that it is probably going to cost the Blues more than they want in terms of cap space, dollars, and term to keep Petro beyond this season.
67Blues
Got it for Bobby
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
So you think that Pietrangelo ostensibly will be asking for upwards of 11 million per year on a 7-8 year contract?
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,009
- 8,534
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think acquiring Faulk is a surefire guarantee that Pietrangelo won't be resigned, I think we will sign him as the money will be there through a cap raise and Bouwmeester's $3M this season coming off the books, plus any other future moves.
My bad. I was referring to your last sentence. "I just hope the need to work Faulk into a role doesn't compromise other team defensive chemistry." I zigged when I should have zagged. No dig at all.
TheDizee
Trade Jordan Kyrou ASAP | ALWAYS RIGHT
- Apr 5, 2014
- 19,942
- 12,703
