Speculation: Pietrangelo's future (reports: to go to FA)

[bleedblue1223]

I get what your saying. FWIW I hate the contract system in the NFL and I hate the franchise tag.

I just hate the argument of compensation picks for UFAs. The NHL already has compensation picks. That's essentially what differentiates RFAs to UFAs (compensation picks + the right of first refusal). At some point, players need to have complete freedom to be employed where they want to be employed. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for Petro to say "you drafted me 12 years ago and including playoffs I gave you 841 games of service under contracts signed while you had complete control of my employment future."

The Blues got plenty of value from our 4th overall pick in 2008. If we part ways after this season, there is no need for the league to give us another draft pick because we weren't willing to offer Petro terms good enough for him to stay. That devalues 2nd round picks by sandwiching a number of "extra" picks at the end of the 1st round and it even further stifles the trade market by rewarding teams for holding on to players on expiring deals instead of trading them. Why trade a rental for a 1st when you can get a 1st simply by letting them walk? I doubt the Stastny or Shatty trades happen if we would have gotten a compensatory 1st at the end of the year by letting them walk.

Yeah, don't disagree. You make a good point about the rental market.

It tends to be an argument for low-revenue clubs, but they also benefit from revenue sharing.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I expect to see him gone in a few months. The numbers just don't work. DA shoring up the D around 55.

 

[Brockon]

I expect to see him gone in a few months. The numbers just don't work. DA shoring up the D around 55.

I personally hope DA approaches a team Faulk has/will waive his NTC for and pulls a Schenn or ROR type deal. Yes, losing a 1st will hurt, but I'd be quite happy to see a steady stay at home LD on a cheaper deal come in to play those minutes on the 1st/2nd pairing (no I don't have a particular player in mind).

There's going to significant changes to the team to keep Petro if Faulk isn't moved. That beautiful center depth and defensive depth is going to take steps back, making last year's cup run all the more special. Whether the losses are Bozak, Gunnarsson and Allen or Petro - next year's team is going to be losing pieces that played memorable roles in bringing a cup home.

That said, I'm not going to be getting too worked up about it until we're playing in the playoffs (whenever that happens), because the off-season will be right around the corner and the nail biting will begin until I see at least one of Bozak/Allen moved to create cap space - then there's actual reasons to support Petro staying.

 

[simon IC]

I personally hope DA approaches a team Faulk has/will waive his NTC for and pulls a Schenn or ROR type deal. Yes, losing a 1st will hurt, but I'd be quite happy to see a steady stay at home LD on a cheaper deal come in to play those minutes on the 1st/2nd pairing (no I don't have a particular player in mind).

There's going to significant changes to the team to keep Petro if Faulk isn't moved. That beautiful center depth and defensive depth is going to take steps back, making last year's cup run all the more special. Whether the losses are Bozak, Gunnarsson and Allen or Petro - next year's team is going to be losing pieces that played memorable roles in bringing a cup home.

That said, I'm not going to be getting too worked up about it until we're playing in the playoffs (whenever that happens), because the off-season will be right around the corner and the nail biting will begin until I see at least one of Bozak/Allen moved to create cap space - then there's actual reasons to support Petro staying.

This is my hope as well. You have to wonder how comfortable Faulk is right now. I am hoping Armstrong realizes his mistake, and orchestrates a deal with a team Faulk would be happy with. I don't even care if we don't get full value in the trade. I would rather "lose" a trade if it means getting rid of Faulk's contract.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Yeah, I remember getting a lot of grief here when I spoke poorly of the Faulk trade/extension shortly after it happened but it sounds like many have come around to it being an unnecessary unforced error. Faulk is overall better than Edmundson but he didn’t fill a need and certainly not at $6.5M for many years.

And now his contract has added to the complication of being able to re-sign Petro.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, I remember getting a lot of grief here when I spoke poorly of the Faulk trade/extension shortly after it happened but it sounds like many have come around to it being an unnecessary unforced error. Faulk is overall better than Edmundson but he didn’t fill a need and certainly not at $6.5M for many years.

And now his contract has added to the complication of being able to re-sign Petro.

I didn't mind the trade, but the extension was a head-scratcher. Would've been better to just wait and get someone like Skjei who might be a little worse overall, but fits better style wise and cheaper in terms of assets and cap. Faulk was a continuation of Army's Petro/Parayko/Shattenkirk plan where he wanted an over-loaded right side.

 

[MissouriMook]

Yeah, I remember getting a lot of grief here when I spoke poorly of the Faulk trade/extension shortly after it happened but it sounds like many have come around to it being an unnecessary unforced error. Faulk is overall better than Edmundson but he didn’t fill a need and certainly not at $6.5M for many years.

And now his contract has added to the complication of being able to re-sign Petro.

I don't know that anyone here has been questioning whether the extension was an "unforced error" or not, but there was a pretty even split of how people viewed the trade. Losing Bokk isn't nothing, but who knows if he will ever be a factor in the NHL. I feel pretty comfortable saying that Faulk of 2019-2020 has been better that any season Edmundson had with this organization, and anyone who disagrees has probably memory-holed just how many mistakes Eddy made. That alone makes the trade worthwhile even if the extension doesn't make sense, though many seem to struggle to separate the two into the two unique transaction that they are.

Eddy was always going to be gone after this season given that he went to arbitration twice and neither the team nor he was really happy with the outcome. We may never know why Army was compelled to extend Faulk before verifying whether or not he was a fit, but time will tell if he has created a problem or secured some level of a stop gap with this deal.

 

[Brian39]

I don't know that anyone here has been questioning whether the extension was an "unforced error" or not, but there was a pretty even split of how people viewed the trade. Losing Bokk isn't nothing, but who knows if he will ever be a factor in the NHL. I feel pretty comfortable saying that Faulk of 2019-2020 has been better that any season Edmundson had with this organization, and anyone who disagrees has probably memory-holed just how many mistakes Eddy made. That alone makes the trade worthwhile even if the extension doesn't make sense, though many seem to struggle to separate the two into the two unique transaction that they are.

Eddy was always going to be gone after this season given that he went to arbitration twice and neither the team nor he was really happy with the outcome. We may never know why Army was compelled to extend Faulk before verifying whether or not he was a fit, but time will tell if he has created a problem or secured some level of a stop gap with this deal.

To the bolded: I don't quite agree that the trade and extension are two unique transactions in reality. Given how quickly the extension was signed, it is crystal clear that the Blues were given permission and did talk to Faulk about the extension prior to the trade. We don't know whether the Blues were on Faulk's trade list prior to that conversation and we don't know whether the extension was necessary for Faulk to green-light the trade. Any time you have an extension signed almost simultaneously to a trade, it is impossible to say that they are completely independent transactions. Even if the extension wasn't required to get around the player's trade protection, it is 100% clear that the Blues made the trade for an extended Faulk.

 

[MissouriMook]

To the bolded: I don't quite agree that the trade and extension are two unique transactions in reality. Given how quickly the extension was signed, it is crystal clear that the Blues were given permission and did talk to Faulk about the extension prior to the trade. We don't know whether the Blues were on Faulk's trade list prior to that conversation and we don't know whether the extension was necessary for Faulk to green-light the trade. Any time you have an extension signed almost simultaneously to a trade, it is impossible to say that they are completely independent transactions. Even if the extension wasn't required to get around the player's trade protection, it is 100% clear that the Blues made the trade for an extended Faulk.

You make a good point, but the only way this assumption negates the value of the trade is if Faulk is perceived to have negative value at his future contract amount at the end of the season and I don't personally believe that is the case. He may be an unnecessary indulgence given the RD depth on our roster, be a poor fit as an ongoing option on LD, and may ultimately make it more difficult to re-sign Petro without moving someone else of value, but those aren't remotely the same thing as having negative value.

 

[bleedblue1223]

To the bolded: I don't quite agree that the trade and extension are two unique transactions in reality. Given how quickly the extension was signed, it is crystal clear that the Blues were given permission and did talk to Faulk about the extension prior to the trade. We don't know whether the Blues were on Faulk's trade list prior to that conversation and we don't know whether the extension was necessary for Faulk to green-light the trade. Any time you have an extension signed almost simultaneously to a trade, it is impossible to say that they are completely independent transactions. Even if the extension wasn't required to get around the player's trade protection, it is 100% clear that the Blues made the trade for an extended Faulk.

Yeah, Army definitely wanted an extended Faulk. What we won't know is if in Army's ideal scenario was Faulk meant to be Petro's eventual replacement or to more or less replace Shattenkirk.

 

[Brian39]

You make a good point, but the only way this assumption negates the value of the trade is if Faulk is perceived to have negative value at his future contract amount at the end of the season and I don't personally believe that is the case. He may be an unnecessary indulgence given the RD depth on our roster, be a poor fit as an ongoing option on LD, and may ultimately make it more difficult to re-sign Petro without moving someone else of value, but those aren't remotely the same thing as having negative value.

I totally agree with you and I disagree with the seemingly popular opinion that Faulk is a liability and incapable of being an effective member of the top 4.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think with Faulk, a full training camp and a partner that balances his strengths and weaknesses will be a big help. I just don't know if we'll have that ideal partner. There were many times where he did look like the player that we thought we were getting. Could be a case where sometimes players initially struggle when they get traded, especially when it's the first time moving to a new organization.

 

[Ranksu]

I saw 69 games of Faulk. Only dmen who Faulk work decently was Pietro. Faulk was so bad that our d-pair didn't went south with him. His lack of hockey IQ is what it is. No matter if Pietro walks I view Army should really put deep thinking is Faulk helping team or is he just cancer for proper top6. Faulk is like Lehterä 2.0. Have to use him, 'cus he was paid for that job. Hope Army understand his error and correct it.

 

[BlueKnight]

I liked Faulk when he was in Carolina. I thought be would be good but I just haven't seen it except for a few games here and there. If Faulk causes Petro to walk then I'll hate Faulk till the day I die. I know it sounds harsh but that's my honest opinion.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I liked Faulk when he was in Carolina. I thought be would be good but I just haven't seen it except for a few games here and there. If Faulk causes Petro to walk then I'll hate Faulk till the day I die. I know it sounds harsh but that's my honest opinion.

He really could be the next Brewer here.

 

[MissouriMook]

He really could be the next Brewer here.

Could be? I think he is already.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Could be? I think he is already.

If he rebounds to normal production and/or Pietrangelo returns, then he won't be. Brewer did not play well, it was the fact that we moved Pronger and got him in return that made it worse.

In a way I think Faulk could be like Brouwer. Someone we got in a trade that people didn't like, that initially didn't play well, but eventually found a spot that worked and performed up to his ability. Now Brouwer only played here 1 season, and it's not like he was ever a fan favorite at the end, but his play was noticably better when he was with Stastny and Fabbri and played a big role in the playoffs. I'll always have that memory of him scoring the series winner against Chicago.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I don't know that anyone here has been questioning whether the extension was an "unforced error" or not, but there was a pretty even split of how people viewed the trade. Losing Bokk isn't nothing, but who knows if he will ever be a factor in the NHL. I feel pretty comfortable saying that Faulk of 2019-2020 has been better that any season Edmundson had with this organization, and anyone who disagrees has probably memory-holed just how many mistakes Eddy made. That alone makes the trade worthwhile even if the extension doesn't make sense, though many seem to struggle to separate the two into the two unique transaction that they are.

Eddy was always going to be gone after this season given that he went to arbitration twice and neither the team nor he was really happy with the outcome. We may never know why Army was compelled to extend Faulk before verifying whether or not he was a fit, but time will tell if he has created a problem or secured some level of a stop gap with this deal.

I don’t think people “struggle” to separate the two; I think many combine the trade and the extension because they are so obviously connected. Army wouldn’t have traded those assets for a potential one and done and Faulk wouldn’t have waived his NTC without the extension. So yes, they’re pretty obviously connected.

I hope some of you are right that Faulk will get better or a full training camp is just what he needs...I’m just not nearly that optimistic is all.

 

[Brian39]

I don’t think people “struggle” to separate the two; I think many combine the trade and the extension because they are so obviously connected. Army wouldn’t have traded those assets for a potential one and done and Faulk wouldn’t have waived his NTC without the extension. So yes, they’re pretty obviously connected.

I hope some of you are right that Faulk will get better or a full training camp is just what he needs...I’m just not nearly that optimistic is all.

I mentioned this in my comment a few replies up, but this is speculation. He didn't have a full NTC, he had to provide a list of 15 teams that he would accept a trade to. We have no idea whether we were or were not on that list. I agree with you that the trade and extension are linked together, but it is pure speculation to say that the extension was required for Faulk to waive his NTC.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I hope some of you are right that Faulk will get better or a full training camp is just what he needs...I’m just not nearly that optimistic is all.

I'm not optimistic on it, just hopeful because that's all we can be. Same as if Berglund can just skate better or shoot more lol.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don’t think it was the NTC, as much as Faulk’s value to the Blues was a lot different if he was a rental vs a guy that the knew would re-sign at a certain number. The stood to lose Edmundson for nothing, and replaced him with a veteran player who they would have under contract during his prime years.

 

[simon IC]

Prior to the 2019 TDL, I remember reading a lot of exchanges between Leaf fans and Hurricanes fans on the trade boards, with Leaf fans targeting a RD. There was lots of discussion about Faulk. Fans on both sides were critical of Faulk's defensive game then, so this is not something unique to our board. This is one of the reasons I was both astounded and dismayed when Armstrong targeted him. If you look at his career stats, the 2018-19 season was the only one where he was not in minuses. He has never been good defensively, and I don't think those +/- stats are bad just because he played on a bad team. In 2018-19 The Hurricanes had a great season and playoff run, largely due to Rod Brind'Amour. Faulk had a career year that season, and I think this may have fooled our scouts into thinking they were acquiring a two-way defenseman. He has never been that.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I'm not worried about Faulk and I won't stress over Petro leaving.

The future is #55.

 

[Stlblue50]

I don't know that anyone here has been questioning whether the extension was an "unforced error" or not, but there was a pretty even split of how people viewed the trade. Losing Bokk isn't nothing, but who knows if he will ever be a factor in the NHL. I feel pretty comfortable saying that Faulk of 2019-2020 has been better that any season Edmundson had with this organization, and anyone who disagrees has probably memory-holed just how many mistakes Eddy made. That alone makes the trade worthwhile even if the extension doesn't make sense, though many seem to struggle to separate the two into the two unique transaction that they are.

No flipping way, Faulk was terrible on both sides of the puck all season outside of a few weeks. Eddy had some very strong seasons here. He even had a period where he was putting the puck in the net for some big goals.

 

[Ranksu]

I'm not worried about Faulk and I won't stress over Petro leaving.

The future is #55.

Team wont be same if Pietro leaves and Faulk is our #2 RHD.

We had best d-core in NHL and after one season from Cup it becomes mediocre. We don't know for sure does Parayko want to stay here too. If I remember correctly in here some members have been vocal that they view Parayko could be out more likely compare to Pietro. Note too that Parayko could be out after 2021-2022 season.