Rumor: Rumors and Proposals Thread: Goodbye Brassard, Hello _______?

[Joey Moss]

Pulju for Bean would be nice

 

[Seachd]

You trade Puljujarvi, Bear and a top-5 protected 1st for Faulk

That sounds like an awful lot to give up.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

You trade Puljujarvi, Bear and a top-5 protected 1st for Faulk

way too much for a pending UFA

 

[GhostfaceWu]

I REALLY hope that Holland can be creative and find a way to get Faulk here, what a fit he would be.

Maybe, instead of just dumping Russell, they move out Gagner, Benning and "maybe" Manning.

Flip
Manning, Safin and a 5th to Ottawa for JC Beaduin
Gagner, Benning and 2nd to Anaheim for Nicholas Deslauriers

Then, will space being hopefully created.

You trade Puljujarvi, Bear and a top-5 protected 1st for Faulk

Holy hell this is one of the worst deals I have ever seen in this thread. Chia's burner account at it agian.

 

[Fourier]

van Riemsdyk had shoulder surgery back in May and was expected to have 4-6 months of recovery time. If he starts the season on LTIR then Carolina should be able to make it work (in the short term).

Missed that! But that is really only delaying the issue. It would mean potentially disrupting the schedule at a key time. Plus a trade a month or two in season is harder to make.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Would support a Puljujarvi for Faulk trade

 

[belair]

Would support a Puljujarvi for Faulk trade

Faulk is a UFA. That trade would make very little sense long term.

 

[belair]

Funny to note. Other than Martin Necas and Brian Gibbons--both of whom may not even make their opening roster--Carolina's forward group is entirely left-handed.

 

[Skolman]

I REALLY hope that Holland can be creative and find a way to get Faulk here, what a fit he would be.

Maybe, instead of just dumping Russell, they move out Gagner, Benning and "maybe" Manning.

Flip
Manning, Safin and a 5th to Ottawa for JC Beaduin
Gagner, Benning and 2nd to Anaheim for Nicholas Deslauriers

Then, will space being hopefully created.

You trade Puljujarvi, Bear and a top-5 protected 1st for Faulk

Okay Chia, that's horrendous

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

I REALLY hope that Holland can be creative and find a way to get Faulk here, what a fit he would be.

Maybe, instead of just dumping Russell, they move out Gagner, Benning and "maybe" Manning.

Flip
Manning, Safin and a 5th to Ottawa for JC Beaduin
Gagner, Benning and 2nd to Anaheim for Nicholas Deslauriers

Then, will space being hopefully created.

You trade Puljujarvi, Bear and a top-5 protected 1st for Faulk

Taking advantage of the legalized green stuff I see.

 

[Mr Positive]

Faulk is a UFA. That trade would make very little sense long term.

It makes sense when you realize that JPs value (even with years of control) is not even a 2nd rounder. Plus, we really need a player like Faulk, and imo his impending UFA status is a benefit because we would have the option of walking away with the cap space if we wanted to.

To make it better, I'd say how about a conditional pick? Something like that if JP has a great season, so 20+ goals or something like that, we get a pick or two from Carolina.

That team has Aho, who he's had chemistry with in the past, so getting that pick might actually happen, and it's just the nice thing to do for JP. Being vengeful is a really bad look. It's small and pathetic, and we could grab some high ground.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Faulk is a UFA. That trade would make very little sense long term.

The inside track to sign him to an extension is valuable. We've been missing an puck-moving, offensive dman like him for a long time because we've never been willing to pay the piper. Would much prefer one year and the possibility of several more for a proven asset than maybe zero years of the questionable prospect everyone agrees that he's worth right now.

 

[Cloned]

I suggested Pulju, Russell and a 3rd for Faulk a while back.

 

[Raab]

van Riemsdyk had shoulder surgery back in May and was expected to have 4-6 months of recovery time. If he starts the season on LTIR then Carolina should be able to make it work (in the short term).

Not even cap wise. They have something like this IIRC?

Slavin-Hamilton
Gardiner-Pesce
DeHann-Faulk

?

 

[Raab]

That sounds like an awful lot to give up.

It is for a guy with a year left. Canes would be lucky if he returns a 1st

 

[YakDavid]

I don't see us looking for defense till after camp and preseason is done. We have players pushing to make the team. Why close opportunity at the moment. I bet we wouldn't give term to Gardiner if we were in.

 

[Mr Positive]

I don't see us looking for defense till after camp and preseason is done. We have players pushing to make the team. Why close opportunity at the moment. I bet we wouldn't give term to Gardiner if we were in.

I think that's it (about term I mean). The issue may be that Gardiner is not exactly perfect because he's LD, and we have so many. And perhaps that would be okay if it were not for Broberg in the system.

edit: But the issue I have with your idea about waiting is that it's a bit to idealistic. You're right that it would be best to wait, but the problem is that Faulk may be traded by then.

Plus I like the idea of adding Faulk and a rookie to the D. Find a way to move something else out, or as 7th D.

 

[belair]

Not even cap wise. They have something like this IIRC?

Slavin-Hamilton
Gardiner-Pesce
DeHann-Faulk

?

De Haan was traded to Chicago.

 

[belair]

The inside track to sign him to an extension is valuable. We've been missing an puck-moving, offensive dman like him for a long time because we've never been willing to pay the piper. Would much prefer one year and the possibility of several more for a proven asset than maybe zero years of the questionable prospect everyone agrees that he's worth right now.

Why would Faulk sign with us? Or better yet, why would we extend him at his likely asking price? Faulk is a pure rental.

I just don't see the logic of moving an asset that has many years left of team control for one that has absolutely none in a year where the team's playoff chances aren't great.

Puljujarvi is worth what a team is going to pay and what we're willing to accept. There's no rush to move this asset. And until we get an offer of a similarly aged player, I don't think it'd be wise to part with a player of Puljujarvi's potential.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Why would Faulk sign with us? Or better yet, why would we extend him at his likely asking price? Faulk is a pure rental.

I just don't see the logic of moving an asset that has many years left of team control for one that has absolutely none in a year where the team's playoff chances aren't great.

Puljujarvi is worth what a team is going to pay and what we're willing to accept. There's no rush to move this asset. And until we get an offer of a similarly aged player, I don't think it'd be wise to part with a player of Puljujarvi's potential.

Why are you talking in such absolute terms? I have no idea why you're asking me to list the reasons why he'd sign without offering any perspective whatsoever on why he wouldn't.

 

[Ritchie Valens]

Thornton signs a 1 year/$2 million dollar deal with San Jose.

 

[McXLNC97]

Probably Faulk that and capfriendly has 24 guys listed on their roster, so they should be able to get under by just sending one guy down.

They will want to go with at least 13F and 7D on the roster. Even if they send Fleury and one of the cheap forwards down, they are literally right at the cap. Funny how that Marleau buyout all of a sudden has them in a tight cap situation.

 

[belair]

Why are you talking in such absolute terms? I have no idea why you're asking me to list the reasons why he'd sign without offering any perspective whatsoever on why he wouldn't.

Because the ramifications of such a trade go far beyond this season when you're moving a player the team spent a lottery pick on just three seasons ago. The asset you're talking about the Oilers 'missing for years' would be here for precisely one year. In a year where the likelihood of them pushing for a playoff spot is relatively low.

Faulk is an offensive RD turning 28 this year heading into his big payday. Same two questions...He just doesn't fit our timeline.

 

[Mr Positive]

Because the ramifications of such a trade go far beyond this season when you're moving a player the team spent a lottery pick on just three seasons ago. The asset you're talking about the Oilers 'missing for years' would be here for precisely one year. In a year where the likelihood of them pushing for a playoff spot is relatively low.

Faulk is an offensive RD turning 28 this year heading into his big payday. Same two questions...He just doesn't fit our timeline.

I doubt he gets a big payday. Look what Gardiner got.

As for our timeline, imo he's perfect because we need some "win now" players. We have good prospects. It would benefit the development of our gifted Dmen to play with someone like Faulk. I swear Schultz's best season with us was with Whitney for a reason. So imo we should be okay with paying more for Faulk than other teams, because we need him more. And maybe it benefits us for him to walk after this season.

 

[nexttothemoon]

Keep in mind that Gardiner signed on Sept 6th... not July 1st.

Gardiner and his agent likely had a much bigger number in mind and no team wanted to pay the price... and eventually the market dries up until he's willing to take less from the few teams that could afford him.