Confirmed with Link: Faulk to the Blues for Edmundson, Bokk

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
Not saying it was his fault in any way, shape or form, but Faulk was out there for the OT goal against, along with O'Reilly and Tarasenko. It was really kind of a softie by Binnington, but Faulk spent OT skating around his own zone, which is how I'll remember him.
 

Big Daddy Cane

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2010
13,223
31,396
Western PA
We don't need blues fan im 100% certain BDC will rub it in how great he is every time he does a thing.:sarcasm:

?

I wasn't the one that bumped the thread. I didn't even praise him.

I readily admit that I think more highly of Faulk than others. I suppose I stand out in the cascade of over the top negativity about the guy. However, in the case of the PP, which I was commenting on, I even think he was a problem. I just don’t think he was the problem. This team has not had the pieces to run the set-up Brind’Amour wants to run. No one should be absolved from blame, including the GM for not acquiring the talent to make it work and/or the coach for not adjusting to the talent present.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Gardiner or Hamilton will magically fix things. I actually hope that’s the case. I’d rather see the team win than be right.
 

Navin R Slavin

Fifth line center
Jan 1, 2011
16,175
63,350
Durrm NC
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Gardiner or Hamilton will magically fix things. I actually hope that’s the case. I’d rather see the team win than be right.

source.gif
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,786
14,617
Toronto, ON
How has Edmundson played?

A couple of hiccups in our d-zone that led to goals. Bad attempts at clearing the zone but has also played some clutch heavy minutes and stabilized the back-end some in that regard. Seems like a player who better without the puck than with it. Good at moving bodies in front of the net and being physical in the corners and such, but 3 games in so we'll see how it goes.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
I still don't think I'd want Faulk for 5 more years on his contract though he's still a good player now. We got a decent year out of Edmundson and took a shot at a talented prospect that didn't work out. The team is still fantastic and the prospect pool still seems quite promising, so it's not really a big deal. You will never win every move.
 

Nikishin Go Boom

Russian Bulldozer Consultent
Jul 31, 2017
21,571
50,233
I still don't think I'd want Faulk for 5 more years on his contract though he's still a good player now. We got a decent year out of Edmundson and took a shot at a talented prospect that didn't work out. The team is still fantastic and the prospect pool still seems quite promising, so it's not really a big deal. You will never win every move.
should've treated Faulk as our own rental much like Hamilton, Ferland, etc.

Changes our defensive history completely from 19-20 to now.
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,080
17,655
I wouldn’t mind Faulk at $6.5M for 5 more years. Call me crazy, but that seems like decent value for what he brings considering the going rate for top 4RD these days.

Oh well. Hopefully Bokk can end up as a sweetener for that pushes a deadline deal to the finish line, and I’ll need a new user name…
 

Anton Dubinchuk

aho
Sponsor
Jul 18, 2010
25,982
54,306
Atlanta, GA
Classic case of “two things are true at once.”

1) Getting rid of Faulk when we did was the right move.

2) Getting rid of Faulk for the return we did has proved to not have been the right move.

I won’t judge this trade against a baseline of keeping Faulk. I’ll judge it against the baseline of a vague set of potential other moves that could’ve been out there. Virtually, we got nothing for him. Hindsight says a 3rd round pick would’ve been better lol.
 
Last edited:

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
I think it's certainly valid to have wanted to keep him as an own rental or keep him on the big contract. For me, I'm fine with what we tried to do as well even if it didn't really work out directly. But I also prefer to change things up a bit every year. I think he was just outside of what I would consider the core, and therefore subject to roster changes.
 

Svechhammer

THIS is hockey?
Jun 8, 2017
23,419
85,899
Classic case of “two things are true at once.”

1) Getting rid of Faulk when we did was the right move.

2) Getting rid of Faulk for the return we did has proved to not have been the right move.

I won’t judge this trade against a baseline of keeping Faulk. I’ll judge in against the baseline of a vague set of potential other moves that could’ve been out there. Virtually, we got nothing for him. Hindsight says a 3rd round pick would’ve been better lol.
Yeah this is where I am. We needed to move on from Faulk, he was not going to get the contract he wanted from us and it was good of us to get what we could have out of the situation then. With that said, the return on the trade is a big swing and a miss for us, to be honest. We couldn't get Edmundson to re-up after the season (he signed 4 years $3.5m aav) and Bokk will likely never make the league. Given what we currently have on defense right now, we probably could/should have re-upped Edmundson for that amount as a solid 3rd liner, and we've kind of been chasing our tail over that since.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,736
38,184
colorado
Visit site
I would’ve been fine with him playing out the contract, he played very well towards the end of his time with us. That summer had some odd moves and it seemed not everything went exactly the way they expected/wanted.

I didn’t think much of the trade then but since everyone knew his asking contract price I wasn’t surprised there wasn’t many takers. We’ve never heard of something better being offered elsewhere.

We had a really impressive group of defenseman that first year under Rod, we’ve done well to reshape it a few times over and still be successful but I think we could’ve gotten more mileage out of them.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
Yeah this is where I am. We needed to move on from Faulk, he was not going to get the contract he wanted from us and it was good of us to get what we could have out of the situation then. With that said, the return on the trade is a big swing and a miss for us, to be honest. We couldn't get Edmundson to re-up after the season (he signed 4 years $3.5m aav) and Bokk will likely never make the league. Given what we currently have on defense right now, we probably could/should have re-upped Edmundson for that amount as a solid 3rd liner, and we've kind of been chasing our tail over that since.
I personally wouldn't want to commit to a 3rd pairing guy for 4 years at that price. I'd rather sign a guy like Cole for the third pair for a year or two tops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WreckingCrew

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
12,027
36,990
Yeah this is where I am. We needed to move on from Faulk, he was not going to get the contract he wanted from us and it was good of us to get what we could have out of the situation then. With that said, the return on the trade is a big swing and a miss for us, to be honest. We couldn't get Edmundson to re-up after the season (he signed 4 years $3.5m aav) and Bokk will likely never make the league. Given what we currently have on defense right now, we probably could/should have re-upped Edmundson for that amount as a solid 3rd liner, and we've kind of been chasing our tail over that since.
We literally HAD to get rid of someone on RD and at that point, especially with contracts/contributions, sticking with Hamilton/Pesce was the right move (remember the drama where Pesce was being under-played and not happy with ice time?). We got what we could, much like we did with Skinner. Both returns were underwhelming, but given the contract situations both were also the right move to make at the time.
I personally wouldn't want to commit to a 3rd pairing guy for 4 years at that price. I'd rather sign a guy like Cole for the third pair for a year or two tops.
Yea, agreed, I liked Edmundson but $3.5M is way over-priced for what he brings, I probably wouldn't go over $2M for him, especially @ 4 years...passing was the right call.
 

Chrispy

Salakuljettaja's Blues
Feb 25, 2009
8,196
26,225
Cary, NC
I would’ve been fine with him playing out the contract, he played very well towards the end of his time with us. That summer had some odd moves and it seemed not everything went exactly the way they expected/wanted.

I didn’t think much of the trade then but since everyone knew his asking contract price I wasn’t surprised there wasn’t many takers. We’ve never heard of something better being offered elsewhere.

We had a really impressive group of defenseman that first year under Rod, we’ve done well to reshape it a few times over and still be successful but I think we could’ve gotten more mileage out of them.

Lots of questions about this idea:

First, who is PP QB1 if Faulk stays? Does Hamilton take over there, or is Faulk still on PP1?

Second, if the plan is to keep Faulk, is Gardiner signed? That would be a plus given everything that happened after with Gardiner's back.

Third, without Edmundson, who picks up the minutes on the bottom pairing? Fleury?

Finally, if Faulk is still on the team when Pesce and Hamilton go down, do the Canes still trade for Skjei? Or is that move still made as a longer-term Faulk replacement?
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Last season and this in St. Louis, Faulk has 49 points in 100 games played and is a combined +44 while averaging 23-24 min / game. So that's a 40 point pace while not scoring much on the PP but that's partly because Krug is getting all the PP time.

While he doesn't have to take on the toughest assignments / most Dzone starts (Parayko does that), he's 12th among NHL defensemen in 5v5 scoring this year. I watched part of the game last night against Philly and he had 5 blocks, 5 hits, was a +2 in 27 min. TOI. He looked good.

I'm not bemoaning the loss of Faulk (although he played great that last season here), Just that I'd say he's playing worth his contract in STL, and many thought it was quite an overpayment at the time. I think I was in that boat as well thinking it was too much for how long it was.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->