Value of: Faulk to Edmonton

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,253
17,749
North Carolina
I just don't think Faulk will move until a clear issue with Carolina's actual line up emerges. On paper, it looks like we don't have enough proven scoring. It looks like we're going into the season with too many expensive RHDs. It looks like our goalie situation is a mess (well, okay, that last one is a given).

However, until pre-season and/or early season game play occurs, I think the team will roll with what they have. Should guys like Svechnikov and Zykov step up to the scoring plate, then, perhaps, one of those issues becomes less important. Carolina's got $18 million + in cap space, so paying a little extra across the d-corps isn't really an issue this season....maybe in the future, but not now. But if you can get a proven goaltender in trade, then I think the Canes would certainly be interested....they did, after all, make a play for Grubauer.
 

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,309
6,562
Hard to do any deal with the Oilers. They have McDavid and a few good pieces that they do not want to part with.

Other than that who the hell wants guys like Kassian or Caggiula?
 

McOvechking

Registered User
Apr 28, 2009
11,340
2,677
Edmonton, Alberta
Faulk to Edmonton makes sense to me. Not sure the Oilers have the pieces needed to get Faulk though.
It's so hard to gauge Faulk's price in a trade. Some think it'll take RNH, some think Kassian + a 2nd get it done. Those are obviously vastly different values.

I think the truth inevitably lies somewhere in between, but you never know how Chiarelli values him. Chia shipped away Hall to get Larsson. If that's your benchmark, RNH for Faulk actually seems pretty comparable.

Personally? I would offer some combination of Kassian, Caggiula, Aberg, Khaira, 2nd, 3rd. Maybe I'd be willing to relinquish a higher potential prospect like a McLeod or Marody, but a guy like Benson/Yamamoto would be off the table. That's how I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TFHockey

TFHockey

The CEO of 7-8-0
May 16, 2014
7,061
4,456
Edmonton
It's so hard to gauge Faulk's price in a trade. Some think it'll take RNH, some think Kassian + a 2nd get it done. Those are obviously vastly different values.

I think the truth inevitably lies somewhere in between, but you never know how Chiarelli values him. Chia shipped away Hall to get Larsson. If that's your benchmark, RNH for Faulk actually seems pretty comparable.

Personally? I would offer some combination of Kassian, Caggiula, Aberg, Khaira, 2nd, 3rd. Maybe I'd be willing to relinquish a higher potential prospect like a McLeod or Marody, but a guy like Benson/Yamamoto would be off the table. That's how I see it.

I agree with this post. However, I have no idea what Chiarelli will do.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,313
97,668
The problem with any trade thread, is that most of them fail to account for team situations and supply/demand. Right now, most teams are more looking to see what they've got in training camp / pre-season and unless it's a guy like EK, teams aren't likely to make a big move for a guy. Pick up a Dotchin, or some other guy and see if that works out first. Once the season starts, injuries hit, teams do well or struggle, it changes the dynamic considerably.

For instance, if the Canes struggle out of the gate (which is very possible), their "brain trust" may have motivation to make a "panic" move and the return on any trade will be diminished. On the flipside, if another team struggles and/or has injuries, they may have more incentive to offer a better package for another team's players. None of us can predict that right now.

That said, I don't think the Canes and Oilers make very good trade partners any longer. A few years ago, when they had McDavid, Hall, RNH, Draisaitl, Eberle, Yakupov (who there was still hope for), there was more ability to make a move for a defenseman. Canes don't have use for bottom end forwards like Caggiula....which is all EDM can really afford to give up right now given their lack of forward depth. I'm not saying a trade between the teams won't happen, just that until we know the situation at the time of the trade, it's hard to predict what the trade would look like.
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
27,644
3,687
Da Big Apple
Faulk is not what he was 2, 3 years ago when he was a top guy.
There is disagreement on how fast and far he will fall further.

Oil would be foolish to overpay for a stopgap.
If there were enough depth for Canes, what arguably would be fair is to pay something adequate down, with lots of conditional based on how well Faulk plays once dealt.
However, shoe on the other foot, Faulk may not be what he was but is useful as insurance if enough RD push him out. That is not a dealbreaker, but it is a factor contributing to his diminished talent in figuring out what he can offer.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,313
97,668
Faulk had a down year in terms of goal scoring with (IMO), an unsustainable low shooting %, but prior to that, he had 3 consecutive years of 15+ goals. Faulk is what he is. He is inconsistent defensively, he's got good speed, but doesn't move laterally great, and has a bomb of a shot and he's under contract for 2 more years at a good cap hit. I hope the Canes keep him
 

TFHockey

The CEO of 7-8-0
May 16, 2014
7,061
4,456
Edmonton
My god.. I think I agree with Bernmeister. Like... his entire post.

Also Boom Boom I find your take entirely reasonable. The Oilers have no forward depth in the top 6. Like none. Therefore, from Edmonton's perspective, they would value top 6 forwards a lot more in their system than Faulk. Hence the borderline offers we're seeing on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boom Boom Apathy

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,863
38,656
colorado
Visit site
The only thing that changed about Faulk is his shots stopped going in last year. Instead of playing with a guy helping him out like Hainsey he had to babysit Hanifin or Fleury which he isn’t good at and played a role in his offense and the stats in his own end.

He’s actually better defensively than he was two years ago. He had a bad year offensively. There’s no reason that can’t turn around, he’s 26. This whole narrative that Faulk is trash in his own end just to argue he isn’t worth anything on a message board is pretty comical.

If teams won’t give a fair offer he stays. We still have the deadline, then next offseason, then the deadline after that. We aren’t spending too much money overall so the fact we spend a little too much on defense hurts nothing right now.

A second and a role player is obviously low balling and not enough.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,313
97,668
The only thing that changed about Faulk is his shots stopped going in last year. Instead of playing with a guy helping him out like Hainsey he had to babysit Hanifin or Fleury which he isn’t good at and played a role in his offense and the stats in his own end.

He’s actually better defensively than he was two years ago. He had a bad year offensively. There’s no reason that can’t turn around, he’s 26. This whole narrative that Faulk is trash in his own end just to argue he isn’t worth anything on a message board is pretty comical.

If teams won’t give a fair offer he stays. We still have the deadline, then next offseason, then the deadline after that. We aren’t spending too much money overall so the fact we spend a little too much on defense hurts nothing right now.

A second and a role player is obviously low balling and not enough.

That's my view also. Hopefully Waddell, Dundon and the "brain trust" show patience as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->