Justin Faulk point produce 2020-2021season

[GoldenSeal]

Points aside I think Faulk will be much better this year without a certain someone being shocked that he was traded for and signed looming over him.

Show me on stats where Faulk deserves the money and term he’s making. Please.

 

[Xerloris]

Show me on stats where Faulk deserves the money and term he’s making. Please.

I've never said he was worth the money he was signed for. I think I would have preferred him at 5m/yr but he's certainly not as terrible as everyone wants to make him out to be.

 

[stl76]

Aaaand predictably this thread is now a Faulk bashing thread.

 

[HighNote]

Aaaand predictably this thread is now a Faulk bashing thread.

A small minority are bashing him (like 1 or 2 people), but everyone else I feel is being pretty reasonable.

 

[stl76]

A small minority are bashing him (like 1 or 2 people), but everyone else I feel is being pretty reasonable.

ITT I have read the following:

Faulk has never and likely will never play a solid D game
Faulk is a bottom 6 forward, not a real dman
Faulk could not be carried by Pietrangelo/Parayko; he is not a top 4 dman but rather a bottom pairing player with low defensive IQ, and he is in fact a joker that canes fans bashed for good reason

And then when someone had the gall to even suggest Faulk would have a much better year, they were immediately mocked and challenged.

 

[HighNote]

ITT I have read the following:

Faulk has never and likely will never play a solid D game
Faulk is a bottom 6 forward, not a real dman
Faulk could not be carried by Pietrangelo/Parayko; he is not a top 4 dman but rather a bottom pairing player with low defensive IQ, and he is in fact a joker that canes fans bashed for good reason

And then when someone had the gall to even suggest Faulk would have a much better year, they were immediately mocked and challenged.

Yeah, it's the same two guys saying all those things. I do believe they are undervaluing Faulk quite a bit, but when a guy is overpayed like he is, it comes with the territory. I expected Faulk would become the whipping boy eventually. Now that Allen is gone it's probably gonna get worse. Oh well.

 

[Ranksu]

Faulk has been in his all-star apperance years 0.6 PPG and 0.58 PPG. Last seasons in Canes Faulk PPG was cut out ~0.4 PPG limited powerplay minutes. That gives hope he could some inch grow up better on point produce part.
2019-2020 full season in Blues Faulk was 0.23 PPG. All-star years he was most used at PP in Carolina. Now in Blues he wasn't that much, 'cus we had better players for that role (maybe). Faulk rely on point produce powerplay minutes. Now Pietro out, I assume Faulk should slide ahead of Parayko and Dunn for 2nd PP unite. I hope. There was slide downgrade from Parayko's icetime for PK last seasons. Faulk instead is getting more icetime a PK. Common sense you should flip those unites with those players, but idk.

I hope for sake of Blues that Faulk will some miracles way found something in his game and at least half of what that conract is holding on. I view I would play Faulk over Parayko and Dunn previous season at 2nd PP unite. Dimish his PK icetime, play more Parayko there. If you don't guys remember I was very vocal about how misuded Faulk was in Blues team. Force to play PK and limited icetime for guy where lies his best attributes of game. Search misuse and my post you can find those refers at GDT's.

Diffrenet topic, I just wonder who will take Pietro's icetime at PK and toughest d-zone starts? Krug, Faulk and Dunn gets my hair goes grey. I could watch too much behind of my finnish glasses, but Mikkola is huge, I mean huge piece if Chief would want to put him on that duty. Eat Pietro's PK and d-zone starts. I hope he better have good camp so he can crack in to team. That would mean also he would slide over Dunn.

Krug - Parayko
Mikkola - Faulk
Scandella - Bortuzzo
Gunnar/Dunn/Perunovich

 

[simon IC]

ITT I have read the following:

Faulk has never and likely will never play a solid D game
Faulk is a bottom 6 forward, not a real dman
Faulk could not be carried by Pietrangelo/Parayko; he is not a top 4 dman but rather a bottom pairing player with low defensive IQ, and he is in fact a joker that canes fans bashed for good reason

And then when someone had the gall to even suggest Faulk would have a much better year, they were immediately mocked and challenged.

The bolded is part of my reply to someone who wanted to see Faulk play solid defense. This is what I actually posted.

I think he is good for 20+ points. I may even have gone with 30+ if it was a longer season. Like others have suggested, it depends on how much PP time he gets. Sometimes I wonder if the Blues plan was to acquire Faulk and somehow turn him into a two-way all-purpose player. This would explain why Berube keeps putting him on the PK. If I am right, I really question the wisdom of this venture. It does not make any sense to me to acquire and commit to a PP specialist and then not give him ample PP minutes.

He has never done that before in his career, so why would you expect him to start now? On the bright side, he can still contribute significantly to the offense, and probably won't be a liability if he is paired with the right partner.

Context is everything. If you would like to explain why you think Faulk was a two-way defender in Carolina, and/or explain why you think he will become one going forward, I will be happy to read it.

 

[Blueston]

The bolded is part of my reply to someone who wanted to see Faulk play solid defense. This is what I actually posted.



Context is everything. If you would like to explain why you think Faulk was a two-way defender in Carolina, and/or explain why you think he will become one going forward, I will be happy to read it.

I don’t get where this only a pp specialist narrative comes from. He scores much less on pp than Petro throughout his career. He played lots of minutes in all situations in Carolina. He had ups and downs but was generally very good there. He was moved around a lot last year and never got comfortable until the bubble where he was really good. He now has a defined role and it is reasonable to expect that he bounces back. But he ain’t likely to put up big point totals as that just isn’t his game.

 

[stl76]

The bolded is part of my reply to someone who wanted to see Faulk play solid defense. This is what I actually posted.



Context is everything. If you would like to explain why you think Faulk was a two-way defender in Carolina, and/or explain why you think he will become one going forward, I will be happy to read it.

I read what you wrote and I typed what I typed. I respect you as a poster here Simon, but am going to speak bluntly.

You have made up your mind about Faulk and have expressed it ad naseum. Your assessment of Faulk is wrong, bordering on delusional IMO. For goodness sake, I saw you post in another thread that Faulk was declining. At 28. What the what? Even if you meant to say declining offensively, this is still just not true unless you want to take 1 down year in a shortened season on a new team learning a new system constantly juggling partners - then extrapolate into the future based on that single flawed data point rather than use all available date from his career.

For his entire career, Faulk has been a solid 2nd pairing defenseman consistently putting up 30-40 points and playing big minutes in all situations averaging around 23 mins/game (~2:30 PP and ~1:30 PK per game). And I expect him to be exactly that for us next season. For most of his tine in Carolina, the team around him was awful and he was forced to play a bigger role than he was really suited for, but he was still a good player for them...and yes, was even pretty good defensively despite being a minus player on a team with a large minus goal differential.

 

[Ranksu]

I don’t get where this only a pp specialist narrative comes from. He scores much less on pp than Petro throughout his career. He played lots of minutes in all situations in Carolina. He had ups and downs but was generally very good there. He was moved around a lot last year and never got comfortable until the bubble where he was really good. He now has a defined role and it is reasonable to expect that he bounces back. But he ain’t likely to put up big point totals as that just isn’t his game.

Majority of Faulk point produce is tied in his icetime at powerplay. 5on5 his produce dropp of significantly. I've posted here quite deep view about Faulk point produce at PP vs 5on5. I could try to find that post.

That's why I and some are calling him PP specialist. That isnt imo negative thing at all. Well if you ask this from Army. He target Faulk and acquire him to fix our PP problems, which is also one odd move. 5on5 and especially PK isnt Faulk best part of game. I know his stats at PK look decent, but eye test shows he isnt that.

 

[BlueDream]

He better hit 30, that’s all I’m gonna say.

 

[Renard]

Double post.

 

[Renard]

I can't add much to the discussion, since I didn't follow Faulk's career before he joined the Blues.

He wasn't impressive with us, but he didn't have a place to play.

It seemed that he was brought in to be Pietrangelo's replacement. Not as good as Pietrangelo, but younger, cheaper and available at the right time.

Was Armstrong just a damn fool in acquiring a guy who had been around the league a while, with an established track record? The same Armstrong who acquired Ryan O'Reilly a year earlier?

 

[EastonBlues22]

I can't add much to the discussion, since I didn't follow Faulk's career before he joined the Blues.

He wasn't impressive with us, but he didn't have a place to play.

It seemed that he was brought in to be Pietrangelo's replacement. Not as good as Pietrangelo, but younger, cheaper and available at the right time.

Was Armstrong just a damn fool in acquiring a guy who had been around the league a while, with an established track record? The same Armstrong who acquired Ryan O'Reilly a year earlier?

I mean, bringing in a decidedly worse player than the one you are ostensibly replacing him with, immediately locking him into a long contract despite him "not having a place to play" for an entire year, and then trying to sign Pietrangelo to a long term deal anyway once a homeless Faulk was already locked in doesn't seem like a brilliant master plan.

Did Armstrong not realize that Faulk (or someone else) would be miscast in a role all year when bringing him in, or was it just OK to hamstring the roster that way during a season when they were trying to defend the title so that he had a safety net later in case he needed it?

What sort of mess would he have been in if Pietrangelo had accepted the offer? Or did he know that his offer was so bad that Pietrangelo would never accept it?

Armstrong has made a lot of nice moves, but IMO this wasn't one of them. To me it reeks of jumping at a flawed solution prematurely to avoid getting caught with your pants down, and then hoping it all would work out somehow. When the only thing that makes this move look good is losing arguably your best player a year later, something which Armstrong appeared to actively try to avoid, then it's not really much of a win.

 

[EastonBlues22]

As for the question in the OP, I'm guessing he'll fall in the 20ish point range.

 

[mike1320]

I mean, bringing in a decidedly worse player than the one you are ostensibly replacing him with, immediately locking him into a long contract despite him "not having a place to play" for an entire year, and then trying to sign Pietrangelo to a long term deal anyway once a homeless Faulk was already locked in doesn't seem like a brilliant master plan.

Did Armstrong not realize that Faulk (or someone else) would be miscast in a role all year when bringing him in, or was it just OK to hamstring the roster that way during a season when they were trying to defend the title so that he had a safety net later in case he needed it?

What sort of mess would he have been in if Pietrangelo had accepted the offer? Or did he know that his offer was so bad that Pietrangelo would never accept it?

Armstrong has made a lot of nice moves, but IMO this wasn't one of them. To me it reeks of jumping at a flawed solution prematurely to avoid getting caught with your pants down, and then hoping it all would work out somehow. When the only thing that makes this move look good is losing arguably your best player a year later, something which Armstrong appeared to actively try to avoid, then it's not really much of a win.

Or, to play devils advocate- did he already know that Pietro was 100% set on leaving STL at the end of his contract?

 

[EastonBlues22]

Or, to play devils advocate- did he already know that Pietro was 100% set on leaving STL at the end of his contract?

And he spent months negotiating with him why then? For fun?

Armstrong made a firm offer. He even moved on the original offer well after Faulk was signed. He met with him multiple times leading up to the FA period, including some sessions at the last minute. Those aren't really things that happen if the other party has already made it clear they're leaving, and if you know it's all a waste of time.

 

[Blueston]

And he spent months negotiating with him why then? For fun?

Armstrong made a firm offer. He even moved on the original offer well after Faulk was signed. He met with him multiple times leading up to the FA period, including some sessions at the last minute. Those aren't really things that happen if the other party has already made it clear they're leaving, and if you know it's all a waste of time.

Armstrong knew that Petro was likely leaving last summer. Remember his press conference when he talked about having a bunch of upper middle class players and no truly wealthy ones? Petro had asked for a number well beyond Army’s comfort level. We heard later that Petro lowered ask when Josi signed bc he had wanted a higher number. Army kept working it bc he wanted Petro back but he knew it was unlikely bc of how far apart they were. That is why he dealt for Faulk. Gave us #2rd if Petro left as expected. If Petro blinked they would have figured it out. Like when Buffalo blinked after we signed Bozo. That is how Army works. He only goes so far and he makes sure he has contingency in place if other guy doesn’t bend to his will.

We can criticize trade for Faulk, Faulk contract (which seems about $1mm too high annually), or not meeting Petro number, but pretty clear this how it played out. He valued Faulk at 6-something more than Petro at 9-something bc it gave him ability to have more quality players. Adding Krug and Hoffman is consistent with his MO. Will it pan out this time? We don’t know yet but Army track record here is pretty good.

 

[mike1320]

And he spent months negotiating with him why then? For fun?

Optics, on both sides. Same way the Pujols negotiations went down. They were both about as likely to stay in STL once they hit free agency.

 

[BlueKnight]

Or, to play devils advocate- did he already know that Pietro was 100% set on leaving STL at the end of his contract?

Why did they spent months negotiating if Petro was so dead set on leaving. It would've been a waste of time. I don't buy that for a minute.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Armstrong knew that Petro was likely leaving last summer. Remember his press conference when he talked about having a bunch of upper middle class players and no truly wealthy ones? Petro had asked for a number well beyond Army’s comfort level. We heard later that Petro lowered ask when Josi signed bc he had wanted a higher number. Army kept working it bc he wanted Petro back but he knew it was unlikely bc of how far apart they were. That is why he dealt for Faulk. Gave us #2rd if Petro left as expected. If Petro blinked they would have figured it out. Like when Buffalo blinked after we signed Bozo. That is how Army works. He only goes so far and he makes sure he has contingency in place if other guy doesn’t bend to his will.

We can criticize trade for Faulk, Faulk contract (which seems about $1mm too high annually), or not meeting Petro number, but pretty clear this how it played out. He valued Faulk at 6-something more than Petro at 9-something bc it gave him ability to have more quality players. Adding Krug and Hoffman is consistent with his MO. Will it pan out this time? We don’t know yet but Army track record here is pretty good.

Knowing he's 100% set on leaving, as Mike said in the post I responded to, and knowing that it's possible/probable are two very different things.

I actually agree that Armstrong approached Faulk as a safety blanket. I don't fault him for trying to cover his bases, but I do think this particular course of action was a flawed enough solution (for a number of reasons).

I'm not trying to bash Armstrong here. He has made plenty of good moves, and brought the team a Cup. I just don't think this particular move should be considered one of the good ones. It may end up working out regardless moving forward, but we shouldn't forget that it definitely didn't do the team any favors last year, and it had the potential to put Armstrong in a pretty awkward situation if Pietrangelo had stayed.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Optics, on both sides. Same way the Pujols negotiations went down. They were both about as likely to stay in STL once they hit free agency.

You don't need to do all that to have "optics."

There's really nothing that supports the notion that Armstrong knew all the way back when he acquired Faulk that Pietrangelo was, for sure, gone. IMO, there's plenty that suggests otherwise.

 

[mike1320]

You don't need to do all that to have "optics."

There's really nothing that supports the notion that Armstrong knew all the way back when he acquired Faulk that Pietrangelo was, for sure, gone. IMO, there's plenty that suggests otherwise.

Well, we're certainly all entitled to our opinions. That's what keeps message boards afloat. I feel bad for jumping back in and beating on the already dead horse.

 

[Blueston]

Knowing he's 100% set on leaving, as Mike said in the post I responded to, and knowing that it's possible/probable are two very different things.

I actually agree that Armstrong approached Faulk as a safety blanket. I don't fault him for trying to cover his bases, but I do think this particular course of action was a flawed enough solution (for a number of reasons).

I'm not trying to bash Armstrong here. He has made plenty of good moves, and brought the team a Cup. I just don't think this particular move should be considered one of the good ones. It may end up working out regardless moving forward, but we shouldn't forget that it definitely didn't do the team any favors last year, and it had the potential to put Armstrong in a pretty awkward situation if Pietrangelo had stayed.

Agreed. I don’t think he was 100% determined.