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

[A Star is Burns]

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.

Much as with Dougie, it's not about the overpayment it would be in the first few years, though maybe you could argue it could have been for us even from the beginning, it's more about how it would look in the last few years. I think that risk was still too much for a guy that I don't think was part of our core.

It's interesting to see how two different teams viewed similar situations though. The Blues knew they might lose Pietrangelo and got Faulk as insurance against that. We knew we might lose Dougie, and let Faulk go in spite of that. In the end, both teams are really good and I guess they both made pretty good decisions for their situations.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Much as with Dougie, it's not about the overpayment it would be in the first few years, though maybe you could argue it could have been for us even from the beginning, it's more about how it would look in the last few years. I think that risk was still too much for a guy that I don't think was part of our core.

I don't disagree. I don't think it made sense for Carolina.

Teams approach long term deals like that differently as well. Some teams aren't concerned with the last couple of years as they find ways to get rid of a player in the last couple of years, even if it costs them. Probably why his NMC goes to a M-NTC in the last 2 seasons.

Canes haven't really been of that mindset, and given some of the financial constraints this team faces in a small market, it's understandable.

 

[Chrispy]

It's interesting to see how two different teams viewed similar situations though. The Blues knew they might lose Pietrangelo and got Faulk as insurance against that. We knew we might lose Dougie, and let Faulk go in spite of that. In the end, both teams are really good and I guess they both made pretty good decisions for their situations.

Or did Carolina get Hamilton knowing they might lose Faulk? It seemed like Carolina was interested in dealing Faulk for a while and wasn't able to find a deal they liked.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I liked Faulk a lot, but he couldn't have co-existed with Dougie. Between the two of them, Dougie was the better bet. It's nobody's fault that Dougie ended up outplaying our cap space.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Just send Rod over to Germany to have a lil chat with Bokk. Kid will see the light.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Faulk-Krug has no business working as a pairing, yet it works spectacularly. It’s something to behold really. Good for both of them because people (me) thought they were nuts signing those two for the amounts they did. The years are definitely going to bite them in the ass eventually but that’s free agency.

 

[Unsustainable]

We won this trade

 

[geehaad]

The Faulk trade can't be evaluated yet, because this swan has yet to swim across the pond!

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I liked Faulk a lot, but he couldn't have co-existed with Dougie. Between the two of them, Dougie was the better bet. It's nobody's fault that Dougie ended up outplaying our cap space.

Most older players (and by older I mean 26) will price themselves out. This entire system depends upon identifying and developing good young talent and locking in as much of it as possible.

These is the times, and one day we'll likely say goodbye to some very very good players. At least now we've got the time and the money to let our pipeline flourish, instead of forcing our good players to learn on the job here under fire and then flourish somewhere else (like Mister Elias Viktor Zebulon Lindholm, who is now 27 years old).

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Just send Rod over to Germany to have a lil chat with Bokk. Kid will see the light.

That kid ain't seeing shit.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

That kid ain't seeing shit.

 

[MinJaBen]

View attachment 509993

We won this trade

How do we not have Lias Andersson?

 

[Lempo]

View attachment 509993

We won this trade

In case someone is wondering, 2017 7OA is Lias Andersson, currently playing for LA with a post-ELC QO contract.

 

[Unsustainable]

How do we not have Lias Andersson?

maybe we do, they just don’t know it yet

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I liked Faulk a lot, but he couldn't have co-existed with Dougie. Between the two of them, Dougie was the better bet. It's nobody's fault that Dougie ended up outplaying our cap space.

Faulk, I think, was an attempt at moneypuck. You could sign Faulk for 6 mil AAV, or you sign Gardiner for 4.5 AAV, have him take over the 2nd pairing, and you've saved yourself 1.5 mil plus got a recent 1st round draft pick out of it. That failed and they had to scramble and give up a 1st for Skjei to take Faulk's place.

I don't know what to say if they thought Hamilton- already playing top pair ES minutes with Slavin and PK time- would still be priced at 6.5 if they gave him Faulk's PP minutes. I don't think they cared a whit if they were perceived as "losing" the trade. They didn't want Lindholm or Hanifin for what those players were asking- understandable- and Calgary was offering an elite defenseman on a cap friendly deal. They're clearly not the type of org to give out big bucks to a guy just to convince themselves they "won" a trade.

They definitely lost it though.

 

[Discipline Daddy]

You can't look at the Hamilton trade and see it as we have nothing left from it. No. We got Ferland for one year, who was a big player for us. We got Hamilton for 3 years, and made the playoffs all 3 years. It helped change the culture of the team. Much of that is Brind'Amour, but some of that is that trade.

Also, all trades have 0 value eventually. Because all players will eventually retire. Every year, teams lose value because players get older and some move on to other teams, but every year teams get 7 shiny new draft picks. The hope is that you stockpile assets and win it all one year. There's something to be said for trading a guy who you KNOW will do better elsewhere, simply because you can't fit him in. That's honestly a problem of good drafting. I hope we are perpetually losing trades like the Faulk trade because we constantly have young players knocking the doors down. It's a weird way to say it but I hope you get the gist of what I mean.

Also the DeAngelo to Rangers trade from @Unsustainable is amazing.

 

[Stickpucker]

Faulk was one of my favorite Canes and one of the best d-men this franchise has seen. He can do it all pretty well and is built for the playoffs. I actually prefer his game to Pesce's. He can run a pp and is more physical while being really comparable defensively.

I wish we found a way to keep him but alas...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Faulk, I think, was an attempt at moneypuck. You could sign Faulk for 6 mil AAV, or you sign Gardiner for 4.5 AAV, have him take over the 2nd pairing, and you've saved yourself 1.5 mil plus got a recent 1st round draft pick out of it. That failed and they had to scramble and give up a 1st for Skjei to take Faulk's place.

I don't know what to say if they thought Hamilton- already playing top pair ES minutes with Slavin and PK time- would still be priced at 6.5 if they gave him Faulk's PP minutes. I don't think they cared a whit if they were perceived as "losing" the trade. They didn't want Lindholm or Hanifin for what those players were asking- understandable- and Calgary was offering an elite defenseman on a cap friendly deal. They're clearly not the type of org to give out big bucks to a guy just to convince themselves they "won" a trade.

They definitely lost it though.

I think they very well may have thought they could get Hamilton long-term for $6.5M. That was certainly the range we were talking about when the trade was first made. That was when he was viewed by a lot of people as “damaged goods” in terms of falling out with multiple orgs, and undervalued on the market, which is exactly why we went after him. At the time, nobody would have predicted he’d have a near-Norris finalist season. Just like at the time, nobody would have predicted Lindholm would end up on a line with a supernova Gaudreau.

In any case, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that one can “lose” a trade by acquiring someone who plays too well.

 

[DaveG]

Faulk was one of my favorite Canes and one of the best d-men this franchise has seen. He can do it all pretty well and is built for the playoffs. I actually prefer his game to Pesce's. He can run a pp and is more physical while being really comparable defensively.

I wish we found a way to keep him but alas...

Disagree on the Pesce point but overall agree with the premise of this post. Faulk is a good player, always had been despite some shaky stretches here post injury. The org rightly decided Dougie was the better player, and he is, but it wrongly decided there was no way to make it work with both, there was. Pesce was more than competent on his off side, and while it seemed like there was no way for us to have Hamilton and Faulk long term they took the gamble that they'd get something done with Hamilton despite there being some rather mercenary rumblings about him earlier in his career (see his exit from Boston). We gambled and lost that we could keep Dougie when we could have kept Faulk at a reasonable price, and still had room to capitalize on the Rangers TDA mistake.

Instead we trade Faulk, sign Gardner because handedness, and his back turns to shit.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Disagree on the Pesce point but overall agree with the premise of this post. Faulk is a good player, always had been despite some shaky stretches here post injury. The org rightly decided Dougie was the better player, and he is, but it wrongly decided there was no way to make it work with both, there was. Pesce was more than competent on his off side, and while it seemed like there was no way for us to have Hamilton and Faulk long term they took the gamble that they'd get something done with Hamilton despite there being some rather mercenary rumblings about him earlier in his career (see his exit from Boston). We gambled and lost that we could keep Dougie when we could have kept Faulk at a reasonable price, and still had room to capitalize on the Rangers TDA mistake.

Instead we trade Faulk, sign Gardner because handedness, and his back turns to shit.

Idea: let’s just blame it all on Gardiner.

 

[DaveG]

Idea: let’s just blame it all on Gardiner.

I mean thank God for LTIR, amirite?

 

[AD Skinner]

Its a bummer Gardiner didn't yield the harvest we were hoping for

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Its a bummer Gardiner didn't yield the harvest we were hoping for

This was dumb enough to get a lol from me.

 

[Stickpucker]

Disagree on the Pesce point but overall agree with the premise of this post. Faulk is a good player, always had been despite some shaky stretches here post injury. The org rightly decided Dougie was the better player, and he is, but it wrongly decided there was no way to make it work with both, there was. Pesce was more than competent on his off side, and while it seemed like there was no way for us to have Hamilton and Faulk long term they took the gamble that they'd get something done with Hamilton despite there being some rather mercenary rumblings about him earlier in his career (see his exit from Boston). We gambled and lost that we could keep Dougie when we could have kept Faulk at a reasonable price, and still had room to capitalize on the Rangers TDA mistake.

Instead we trade Faulk, sign Gardner because handedness, and his back turns to shit.

Does anyone have easy access to pretty numbers to compare Pesce and Faulk over the past 4 seasons?

 

[NotOpie]

Over the last 3 years:

Justin Faulk - 171 games/19 goals/49 assists/+44

Brett Pesce - 156 games/12 goals/48 assists/+ 25 (and, of course, one invaluable Bradley Pesce)

With the Bradley Pesce factor, Brett Pesce's value is unparalleled