Confirmed with Link: Faulk & 5th to STL for Edmundson, Bokk, 2021 7th

[Stupendous Yappi]

A thought I’ve had with the Faulk extension is that he plays a position of value around the league. Yes, he has trade protection, but he’s likely to have good trade value over the next few years. The contract number is fine. If you’re bringing him in as a top 4 guy on your team, that number is appropriate. He was squeezed out by other options in Carolina, but most teams don’t have the defensive depth of either Carolina or St Louis. The point is, that the extension creates added value for him as you have his prime years locked up. (I’m imagining a trade in 2-3 years, for example, so the term will be ideal by that time.)

If the experiment is a failure, worst case scenario you still have a better right side than last year, with an underutilized guy on the 3rd line. I’m still interested in the expansion draft ramifications.

 

[TheGoldenGod]

 

[Robb_K]

A thought I’ve had with the Faulk extension is that he plays a position of value around the league. Yes, he has trade protection, but he’s likely to have good trade value over the next few years. The contract number is fine. If you’re bringing him in as a top 4 guy on your team, that number is appropriate. He was squeezed out by other options in Carolina, but most teams don’t have the defensive depth of either Carolina or St Louis. The point is, that the extension creates added value for him as you have his prime years locked up. (I’m imagining a trade in 2-3 years, for example, so the term will be ideal by that time.)

If the experiment is a failure, worst case scenario you still have a better right side than last year, with an underutilized guy on the 3rd line. I’m still interested in the expansion draft ramifications.

Yes, he'll likely be traded just before the expansion draft, or offered up to Seattle for an agreement to take him, which will bring "other considerations" to St. Louis.

 

[tfriede2]

Yep. He looks like just a guy out there, and his presence (or, another RHD) is messing with pairings.

 

[rumrokh]

Yep. He looks like just a guy out there, and his presence (or, another RHD) is messing with pairings.

Gunnarsson and Bouwmeester's disappointing performances have done more to mess with the defense than Faulk's handedness. The move is not beyond criticism, but I'd like to see multiple players perform up to a reasonable standard first.

 

[Brian39]

Gunnarsson and Bouwmeester's disappointing performances have done more to mess with the defense than Faulk's handedness. The move is not beyond criticism, but I'd like to see multiple players perform up to a reasonable standard first.

Dunn hasn't looked as good as we were all hoping/counting on either. He hasn't looked bad at all and his possession numbers are fantastic. But his play in our own zone has been a bit worse than last year rather than the improvement I was expecting. He is also turning the puck over a bit more than usual. Again, I'm not saying he has been playing poorly, but he hasn't looked capable of being a top pairing guy yet. Combined with the lackluster play from J-Bo and significantly worse play from Gunnar and the left side needs help.

I haven't come away from a single game thinking that all 3 of our LD had even adequate nights. I think that is the main reason we are throwing darts against the wall with the D groups.

 

[Blueston]

Dunn hasn't looked as good as we were all hoping/counting on either. He hasn't looked bad at all and his possession numbers are fantastic. But his play in our own zone has been a bit worse than last year rather than the improvement I was expecting. He is also turning the puck over a bit more than usual. Again, I'm not saying he has been playing poorly, but he hasn't looked capable of being a top pairing guy yet. Combined with the lackluster play from J-Bo and significantly worse play from Gunnar and the left side needs help.

I haven't come away from a single game thinking that all 3 of our LD had even adequate nights. I think that is the main reason we are throwing darts against the wall with the D groups.

I'm not convinced that any of our LHD are truly top 4 at this point. Gunnar has been particularly bad. I think we need to give one our RHD time to get comfortable on the offside. Still might need help if Dunn doesn't play older or JayBo younger.

 

[MissouriMook]

As of this moment, Dunn is the best LHD in our system that can be expected to be here after next season. I’d really like to see him stapled to Petro’s hip and allowed to develop into the role of a complimentary 2D.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Like to see Faulk finally score as a Blue

 

[execwrite1]

The Blues might have traded a sturdy fence for a bright, shiny object.

Still not liking this deal. Doug had a little too much free time and needed to do something.

 

[rumrokh]

The Blues might have traded a sturdy fence for a bright, shiny object.

Still not liking this deal. Doug had a little too much free time and needed to do something.

A sturdy fence that got walked and coughed up the puck for several months, including in the playoffs? Criticize not needing Faulk, criticize the contract, criticize Faulk, himself, but Eddy had stagnated and then some here.

I understand not liking the deal, but I don't understand the analysis that hinges on majorly overpraising Edmundson.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

A fence is great as long as it is there when you need it (not scratched) and sturdy not leaning when the pressure is on.

An imminent zombie apocalypse notwithstanding, I’ll take the shiny object (especially if the Shiny object came without a seven year extension). Seriously the trade was great, still is and will be unless Bokk really becomes the Danish Gretzky. The extension still sucks but can hopefully be worked around.

 

[David Dennison]

A sturdy fence that got walked and coughed up the puck for several months, including in the playoffs? Criticize not needing Faulk, criticize the contract, criticize Faulk, himself, but Eddy had stagnated and then some here.

I understand not liking the deal, but I don't understand the analysis that hinges on majorly overpraising Edmundson.

I think fans went a little overboard with the 'Edmundson has offensive upside' because he had a few goals in the playoffs and then started the next season hot a few years ago. Idk if stagnated is the right word, I think that offensive ceiling was always a mirage. He is a one dimensional player, but I think him disappointing offensively maybe brought unwarranted criticism to his overall value as a player.

 

[Blueston]

I think fans went a little overboard with the 'Edmundson has offensive upside' because he had a few goals in the playoffs and then started the next season hot a few years ago. Idk if stagnated is the right word, I think that offensive ceiling was always a mirage. He is a one dimensional player, but I think him disappointing offensively maybe brought unwarranted criticism to his overall value as a player.

Problem isn't that he lacked offense. Problem is he was awful with puck and would turn it over in own zone rather than start transition. And he took way too many penalties.

 

[David Dennison]

Problem isn't that he lacked offense. Problem is he was awful with puck and would turn it over in own zone rather than start transition. And he took way too many penalties.

I generally agree with this, although I think turnovers are a little overblown because they are so obvious. Everyone has them, and a player can play an otherwise perfect game but if he flubs a pass in their own zone and it results in a juicy opportunity or goal, that is what fans remember.

I think Edmundsons biggest issue was the puck dying on his stick, opportunities that we never saw develop because he didn't have the vision or ability to make a play with the puck on his stick, it's a more implicit opportunity cost than explicit bad play, but both cost your team chances to win.

I think the coaching staff preferred Bortuzzo because he is more decisive with the puck and doesn't try to do too much, just gets the puck off his stick quickly.

 

[Brian39]

Problem isn't that he lacked offense. Problem is he was awful with puck and would turn it over in own zone rather than start transition. And he took way too many penalties.

Yup. My biggest issue with Ed last year was his 41 giveaways to 9 takeaways. Those are far from perfect stats, but having more than a 4:1 ratio of giveaways to takeaways is hugely concerning. It got worse in the playoffs, with a 6:1 ratio (24 giveaways to 4 takeaways). I understand that our defensive system encourages the D to close lanes instead of directly taking the puck from guys, but he and Dunn were our only D that were above a 2:1 ratio of giveaways to takeaways last year. Dunn was at about 2.7:1, which isn't great but is a lot better than Eddy and I will forgive his giveaways a bit more since he is skilled offensively and a number of his giveaways are the result of taking calculated risks that often pay off.

 

[STL fan in MN]

View attachment 268051

A fence is great as long as it is there when you need it (not scratched) and sturdy not leaning when the pressure is on.

An imminent zombie apocalypse notwithstanding, I’ll take the shiny object (especially if the Shiny object came without a seven year extension). Seriously the trade was great, still is and will be unless Bokk really becomes the Danish Gretzky. The extension still sucks but can hopefully be worked around.

But the trade DID come with a 7 year extension.

I doubt many people, if anyone, would argue Eddie is better than Faulk but that doesn’t make it a good move.

To me, it was way unnecessary risk to trade for a guy that plays a position we’re already deep at and pay him a lot and commit to him for 8 years. Hoping that bad contract can somehow be worked around in the future was just a stupid and unnecessary risk to take IMO.

 

[Stealth JD]

But the trade DID come with a 7 year extension.

I doubt many people, if anyone, would argue Eddie is better than Faulk but that doesn’t make it a good move.

To me, it was way unnecessary risk to trade for a guy that plays a position we’re already deep at and pay him a lot and commit to him for 8 years. Hoping that bad contract can somehow be worked around in the future was just a stupid and unnecessary risk to take IMO.

Not if Army knows something that we don't. Or quite simply, has a plan in place that makes way more sense than what we're seeing from the surface. It's actually pretty likely he doesn't see the contract as bad (which isn't saying a lot considering he gave Steen and Allen their contracts too), and that he'd rather have options and flexibility and maximize the talent he's got access to.

If the front office thought that Mikkola and/or Reinke could play excellent 3rd pairing minutes, maybe there's a scenario where you trade a 1RHD and roll Faulk & Reinke as your 2RHD & 3RHD, and rebuild the LHD and/or wing position in the process. It's not a horrible option; and it's one he wouldn't have otherwise had without making the move. It's a far cry from "stupid and unnecessary", which it probably wouldn't initially come off as if we were privy to the inner workings of Armstrong's mind or were involved in the organizational meetings where these type of things get discussed.

 

[Blueston]

I generally agree with this, although I think turnovers are a little overblown because they are so obvious. Everyone has them, and a player can play an otherwise perfect game but if he flubs a pass in their own zone and it results in a juicy opportunity or goal, that is what fans remember.

I think Edmundsons biggest issue was the puck dying on his stick, opportunities that we never saw develop because he didn't have the vision or ability to make a play with the puck on his stick, it's a more implicit opportunity cost than explicit bad play, but both cost your team chances to win.

I think the coaching staff preferred Bortuzzo because he is more decisive with the puck and doesn't try to do too much, just gets the puck off his stick quickly.

If a guy like Dunn who is consistently trying to make offensive plays turns it over, you live with it. When it is a guy like Eddy who isn't even trying to make play but just trying to make simple play, that is when it really frustrates.

 

[Blueston]

Yup. My biggest issue with Ed last year was his 41 giveaways to 9 takeaways. Those are far from perfect stats, but having more than a 4:1 ratio of giveaways to takeaways is hugely concerning. It got worse in the playoffs, with a 6:1 ratio (24 giveaways to 4 takeaways). I understand that our defensive system encourages the D to close lanes instead of directly taking the puck from guys, but he and Dunn were our only D that were above a 2:1 ratio of giveaways to takeaways last year. Dunn was at about 2.7:1, which isn't great but is a lot better than Eddy and I will forgive his giveaways a bit more since he is skilled offensively and a number of his giveaways are the result of taking calculated risks that often pay off.

100%.

 

[izzy]

edmundson wasnt a fit with berube imo

he was trying to be more gritty

he should be a defensive d with an edge, but once berube took over he was trying too hard to standout

 

[STL fan in MN]

Not if Army knows something that we don't. Or quite simply, has a plan in place that makes way more sense than what we're seeing from the surface. It's actually pretty likely he doesn't see the contract as bad (which isn't saying a lot considering he gave Steen and Allen their contracts too), and that he'd rather have options and flexibility and maximize the talent he's got access to.

If the front office thought that Mikkola and/or Reinke could play excellent 3rd pairing minutes, maybe there's a scenario where you trade a 1RHD and roll Faulk & Reinke as your 2RHD & 3RHD, and rebuild the LHD and/or wing position in the process. It's not a horrible option; and it's one he wouldn't have otherwise had without making the move. It's a far cry from "stupid and unnecessary", which it probably wouldn't initially come off as if we were privy to the inner workings of Armstrong's mind or were involved in the organizational meetings where these type of things get discussed.

A lot of ifs and hopes in the scenario you lay out IMO. I don’t see committing pretty big money for 7-8 years for a pretty good but by no means great d-man as opening up options. I see it as greatly limiting options, especially with the Cap in mind.

 

[David Dennison]

I think it's pretty clear Army is putting the best team on the ice for the next 3-4 years and not worrying about what cap hell we will be in after that. Blues got no top defensive prospects in the system either, so we are counting on Dunn's continued development and maybe Reinke or Mikkola developing to replace Bouw and Carl over the next few years or we would have been looking outside the organization anyways.

The other thing is that we have learned time and again that no contract is immovable, although I think the cap will go up slower in the next CBA.

 

[Stealth JD]

A lot of ifs and hopes in the scenario you lay out IMO. I don’t see committing pretty big money for 7-8 years for a pretty good but by no means great d-man as opening up options. I see it as greatly limiting options, especially with the Cap in mind.

If Army knows Petro is walking, the Faulk deal makes sense. If Army knows he can get <insert amazing package here> in exchange for one of his top-D, then the Faulk deal makes sense. If any number of reasonable, carefully-considered, educated decisions were come to leading to the Faulk signing, then the Faulk deal makes sense. Hell, if it didn't make sense in the eyes of the decision-makers it obviously wouldn't have been done...so there's obviously more to the situation than meets the eye. I don't know that I'm willing to go so far as say this is the first step in the series of brilliant moves to come which will prove that Armstrong is playing 4-dimensional chess, while we all look like fools questioning the move at the time, but I will say that he's earned the benefit of the doubt with this move after delivering the Cup, and until Pietrangelo is re-signed this seems like a wise insurance policy in the event of a worst-case scenario.

After watching Petro-Parayko-Shattenkirk get disbanded over money, it's tough to imagine the Blues going down the same path when Petro-Parayko-Faulk will end up being even more costly once the 2 horses are re-upped. So, there's obviously a plan in place, even if it is just to tell Faulk to learn to love playing his off-side, but it's a bit harsh to call the move "stupid and unnecessary" without knowing the circumstances that ultimately led to the decision to acquire and extend a guy who doesn't seem needed *today*.

 

[MissouriMook]

Another factor that rarely gets mentioned in the Eddy-Faulk discussion is the fact that we probably had a good idea that Eddy was going to bolt for nothing after this year anyway. I'm sure in Army's view he was able to turn that one year contract into an attractive asset that gives him flexibility in other areas and/or a more valuable piece to the current team. All points are certainly arguable, but he was almost certainly trying to salvage what value he could for the last year of control for Eddy.