Yeah...replacing Eddy and Bouwmeester with Faulk is a wash, financially. Plug an ELC like Mikkola into the roster, and you're back to where you were; with room to sign 10 & 27 if you do some cap maneuvering.
Confirmed with Link: Faulk & 5th to STL for Edmundson, Bokk, 2021 7th
- Thread starter The Note
- Start date
Yeah...replacing Eddy and Bouwmeester with Faulk is a wash, financially. Plug an ELC like Mikkola into the roster, and you're back to where you were; with room to sign 10 & 27 if you do some cap maneuvering.
TheBluePenguin
Registered User
I agree 100% about Petro, we should have the room to give him a raise and we NEED to do just that. Schenn I think is going to be gone, If Thomas continues his growth we are going to have let #10 walk, as much as I would like to keep him someone in free agency is going to be able to give him a lot more then us and I do not fault players for taking the money. If he stays here it will only be because he has a really bad year or takes a hometown discount.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,102
- 13,003
Phaneuf's contract was for $500k more than Faulk's extension, but signed 6 years earlier. Meaning that Phaneuf's contract was 10.89% of the cap when it was signed while Faulks is 7.98%. That is a massive difference in contract size. It also wasn't as heavily frontloaded (Faulk gets 40% of his contract money in years 1 and 2 vs Phaneuf getting 32.6%). Finally, it doesn't contain any signing bonuses while Phaneuf got at least $1 mil in bonuses each year and $2.5 mil in bonuses in the last year. That is important because more bonuses means that there is less cap savings via a buyout, which is a big deal when you are talking about finding a taker for a cap dump.
Faulk's extension could look bad by the end and might not be as easy to get out of as some of us are hoping. But it isn't remotely close to the level of Phaneuf's.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,102
- 13,003
JR's piece about the 27-72 pairing from a couple days ago was an interesting read. It sounds like Faulk thought he was going to be playing on the left side and was a bit surprised when he found out it was going to be Petro. It also sounded like Petro was happy to do it while Faulk got his feet wet in our team/system, but he definitely doesn't sound eager about playing on the left side long term.
Reading between the lines (and including JR's analysis/speculation), my guess is that Petro will not re-sign here if his role is clearly to play on the left side. Frankly, if I were him I wouldn't be looking to sign long term to play my off side either. With that said, Faulk seemed pretty ambivalent about playing the left side, so I'd wager that we will see Petro on the left for a few games while Faulk gets comfortable, but then we will see a pretty long test period of Faulk on the left paired with Petro on the right.
The more I think about it, the more I'm on board with using Faulk on the left side long term. If it works, great. It makes signing Petro easier since you don't have to worry about building a good left side of your D with $20+ mil tied up in the right side. If it doesn't, then both the team and Faulk will want to move on from each other in a couple years and we will either lose him to expansion or he will work with us on finding a trade partner. Even if it doesn't "work" as planned, a couple years of Faulk as an expensive 3rd RD is manageable with the cap and puts the D in a better spot than it was before the trade. That's a win in my mind.
Reading between the lines (and including JR's analysis/speculation), my guess is that Petro will not re-sign here if his role is clearly to play on the left side. Frankly, if I were him I wouldn't be looking to sign long term to play my off side either. With that said, Faulk seemed pretty ambivalent about playing the left side, so I'd wager that we will see Petro on the left for a few games while Faulk gets comfortable, but then we will see a pretty long test period of Faulk on the left paired with Petro on the right.
The more I think about it, the more I'm on board with using Faulk on the left side long term. If it works, great. It makes signing Petro easier since you don't have to worry about building a good left side of your D with $20+ mil tied up in the right side. If it doesn't, then both the team and Faulk will want to move on from each other in a couple years and we will either lose him to expansion or he will work with us on finding a trade partner. Even if it doesn't "work" as planned, a couple years of Faulk as an expensive 3rd RD is manageable with the cap and puts the D in a better spot than it was before the trade. That's a win in my mind.
I have no idea of how high the number will be but I feel like Armstrong (like many GMs) does not like giving long term contracts to guys that takes them into their late 30's ... especially high dollar contracts. He balked at, and eventually walked away from Backes and now is getting a little burned by the Steen contract that he probably didn't really want to give out to begin with.
The Petro negotiation will be really interesting.
I would guess that Armstrong wants a 5 or 6 year deal which Petro won't like. I would also guess that Petro (and his wife) probably wants to stay in St. Louis more than he would want to admit.
It’s impossible to know how someone in Pietro's position really feels and I’m a big believer in the “it’s always about the money” mantra... but this contract situation seems like the perfect opportunity to try and get the player to take a discount. Armstrong is clearly showing he will continue to surround the team with talent, and he’s the first Blues captain to win a cup. Why not take a little less to stick around and try to win another cup or two, get your number hung from the rafters, and a statue outside the arena. It’s an opportunity for him to build something the millions of dollars he will make could never buy.
But if he wants to go home. Leafs, take home town discount and win as a Leaf Stanley Cup. Like Tavares.
I think you guys are too much looking in to Pietro - Faulk as a pair. They will split up/separate it and eventually Faulk will play 3rd pair with Gunnar or Dunn.
If Pietro doesn't want to resign with Blues there will different reason than I don't want to play offside etc. bs. Everybody should know this is just test if one of them could play offside and bigger picture give Faulk easier transition for Blues game. Pietro - Faulk isn't long term solution. I could see Chief will make a change after Faulk feels ready for it.
If Pietro doesn't want to resign with Blues there will different reason than I don't want to play offside etc. bs. Everybody should know this is just test if one of them could play offside and bigger picture give Faulk easier transition for Blues game. Pietro - Faulk isn't long term solution. I could see Chief will make a change after Faulk feels ready for it.
Code:
Dunn - Pietro
Jbo - Parayko
Gunnar - Faulk
Why ‘eventually ‘? Wouldn’t it make more sense to start on the 3rd pair right side and THEN shift to the left?
The only way I see him going to 3rd pairing is if the performance of the Pietro-Faulk pairing is poor. I think it’s more likely than those two will develop chemistry and the ability to read each other better and better as time goes along.
Why would Faulk feel MORE ready to play the right side later?
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
Dude still played the third most minutes on defense. Numerical pairing isn't that much of a concern.
When you said “eventually” it implies this won’t happen for a long time. That made no sense to me. It makes more sense to start him on the right side (paired with Dunn or whoever) which is exactly what happened. I think this is the point you were trying to make, but you said something different with the way you worded it. But instead of reading what I actually said, you just get insulting toward me. I don’t understand why we can’t just have a conversation where you don’t twist it into a personal attack.
Eventually, when Faulk is ready. You can stop and twisting my word. Faulk is now playing right side like I predicted, not long time solution for him playing at left side like you and Brian told. I'm not gonna continue argue with you with basic things. Move along
Total Bender
Unregistered User
I try to be gracious when you misuse language knowing it’s not your native tongue, and look for the meaning behind what you said, figure out what you were actually trying to say. But when you respond with venom I really wonder why I should bother.
As far as the ‘long term’ usage for Faulk, let’s wait and see. I actually agreed with you that he’d play right side first, even if you seemed to be saying the opposite. I still think they’ll work him in on the left more as they go along this season. I like the pairing with Dunn. That’s a pretty dangerous pair of Pietro can work well with Gunnarsson too. I’m betting we’ll see the Pietro/Faulk pairing situationally, on key face-offs in the offensive zone.
Last edited:
Majorityof1
Registered User
Having given this trade a little bit of time, and having watched some of the season. I am disliking it more and more. I don't mean to pile on Faulk. He had a bad last game, but he had the excuses: new team, playing on his off-side, etc. Its not his fault. Thats the point though. I don't think the trade makes sense given our team make-up. Why make a big trade and commit so much term/salary to a player that is going to have to either play on his off-side or push our best player to his off-side. I don't think Faulk's upside is good enough for the downside.
We basically have 3 options a) overpay a our third pairing RD, b) Handicap out best player Pietrangelo by forcing him to his off-side, or c) play Faulk on his off-side where he may never get comfortable thus neutering his value. If Faulk figures out playing on his off-hand, then my point is moot. But that is easier said than done, and he has been fairly inconsistent defensively on his natural side.
The upside only we get is to have 2 RHS D on the point for our PP2. How does that help? If that is the set-up we want, is his shot that much better than Parayko's? Its not better, he is just more apt to use it. So couldn't we have taught Parayko to just shoot more and saved Bokk and Millions against the cap?
Edmundson, by the way, is not as bad as he played last year. He is solidly a 4th D in Carolina. He is getting 20 minutes a night. I haven't seen Carolina play yet, but they have other options if he was doing poorly. He is getting more time than Gardiner, Fleury and TVR.
Anyway, I know those opinions are nothing new. I am just ruminating out loud. This trade has never really gelled to make sense with me.
We basically have 3 options a) overpay a our third pairing RD, b) Handicap out best player Pietrangelo by forcing him to his off-side, or c) play Faulk on his off-side where he may never get comfortable thus neutering his value. If Faulk figures out playing on his off-hand, then my point is moot. But that is easier said than done, and he has been fairly inconsistent defensively on his natural side.
The upside only we get is to have 2 RHS D on the point for our PP2. How does that help? If that is the set-up we want, is his shot that much better than Parayko's? Its not better, he is just more apt to use it. So couldn't we have taught Parayko to just shoot more and saved Bokk and Millions against the cap?
Edmundson, by the way, is not as bad as he played last year. He is solidly a 4th D in Carolina. He is getting 20 minutes a night. I haven't seen Carolina play yet, but they have other options if he was doing poorly. He is getting more time than Gardiner, Fleury and TVR.
Anyway, I know those opinions are nothing new. I am just ruminating out loud. This trade has never really gelled to make sense with me.
Last edited:
LGB
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2019
- 2,112
- 2,129
Edmundson's struggles last year were greatly exaggerated IMO.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
I've watched some Carolina games and Edmundson has had some bad turnovers and coverage. He's not different. He's still a solid hockey player, but this idea that he had just one down year is not my memory. He had a very good 2016-17, including a breakout playoffs, and then he had two worse seasons. Handedness is an issue, but Faulk is a higher impact player. I think Armstrong just figured it couldn't hurt to add talent and he'd like to keep Faulk away from some rivals. When injury and/or fatigue hit, we could easily love this move. It's a long season, judging the move now is premature, especially when the piece the Blues gave up is a guy they only gave sixteen and a half minutes in the playoffs.
I can’t disagree with any of this. Reading between the lines, I think they’ve narrowed down Parayko’s role more. I noticed this when Robinson came on. Parayko’s strength is as a defensive defenseman and in carrying the puck. Even though he has a heavy shot, it’s slow and not accurate enough for an effective PP.
The late season run and moreso in the playoffs, Parayko’s pairing got the heavy lifting defensive shifts, while Pietro’s pairing got more offensive opportunities. Prior to this, the distinction in their usage was less noticeable.
Parayko is excellent, but I think they’re envisioning him filling a more selective shut-down role, with Faulk on the PP and to drive offense 5 on 5. I’m not certain how this will work.
I’m glad we waited 4 games before bumping this thread after one bad Faulk game.
Roboturner913
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2012
- 25,853
- 55,526
Canes fan: Edmundson's minutes are tied to Pesce while Gardiner babysits Fleury. I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that. When TVR comes back Edmundson is likely to be the #6. Still, he's been better than I expected. I've been surprised how quick he is to jump in the play for a guy that has a defense-first rep. But yet he's typically the first guy to go give somebody the business if they try messing with one of our pretty boys.
Faulk will come around, especially if he's playing with Pietrangelo. He's always been a guy who needed a good partner to be at his best.
Faulk will come around, especially if he's playing with Pietrangelo. He's always been a guy who needed a good partner to be at his best.
Excellent, excellent post. I noticed in the last GDT a couple of posters were complaining about the Faulk "hate". After re-reading the thread, the only thing resembling that were a few posts that were critical of his play and I thought that criticism was well warranted. I do agree that it is far too early to come to any conclusions, and that some posters (including myself), may be treating Faulk unfairly by putting him under a microscope. With that said, I am glad that other posters are also questioning the wisdom of this trade. When it first happened I was more perplexed than upset, but as we go forward I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable. In terms of value, I can't really criticize Doug Armstrong, he made a really good deal. My issue is more with the extension, and Faulk's role going forward. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the saying that keeps coming to mind. Our RD was one of the best, possibly "the" best in the NHL last season. This trade was unnecessary, and only really makes sense if we are going to lose one of our elite RD. I really hope I'm wrong.
Yeah the one thing about Edmundson is it always surprised me that he doesn't score more. When he jumps up in the play, he doesn't look bad doing it. But for some reason it just never translates into production and he'll end up with only 15 points a year.
Anyways, I think this will be a trade that both teams won't really care that much about in a few years. I don't think either team is going to win big by it, but also neither will lose big either. Both STL and Carolina got fine players, but I don't think there's going to be a huge difference to either team because of it. Which isn't surprising for teams who had very good bluelines already.
I can echo a lot of comments here about Faulk. I think he's looked fine for the most part - he's similar to Shattenkirk when we had him - but it is odd that we committed so much money to a guy that wasn't a huge need. I still am not really sure why Armstrong made this move. I'm not surprised he moved Edmundson, but a bit surprised he targeted Faulk. But who knows, maybe Shattenkirk would still be here if he wasn't so gung-ho about playing for the Rangers so I guess Armstrong just wanted that element back.
Let’s give Faulk some time to reach his potential. Chief is going to move him around and pair him so he can find Faulk’s sweet spot. This process takes time.
When we got ROR nobody figured he would be better then our wildest dreams. Every GM wants to trade for that diamond in the rough. The Phil Esposito trade.
Faulk seemed to do alright on top of the umbrella the other night. Faulk is an excellent passer. He can pass the puck better then most. During the Sen’s game Faulk made a beauty pass to Petro for a one timer and Petro wasn’t ready. That wasn’t Faulk’s fault.
When we got ROR nobody figured he would be better then our wildest dreams. Every GM wants to trade for that diamond in the rough. The Phil Esposito trade.
Faulk seemed to do alright on top of the umbrella the other night. Faulk is an excellent passer. He can pass the puck better then most. During the Sen’s game Faulk made a beauty pass to Petro for a one timer and Petro wasn’t ready. That wasn’t Faulk’s fault.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: 4/23/24 - 7:30PM EDT - #1 WC Tampa Bay @ #1 Florida [ECQF GAME 2]- Latest: LightningStrikes
-
Upcoming events
-
Pelicans Lahti @ Tappara Tampere - Tappara leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $14,588.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
