dats81
Registered User
Can't do that simply because we do not have a single power forward in the system, let alone someone who can play that role as well as Simmer.
Proposal: Simmonds for Faulk
- Thread starter Tripod
- Start date
Id love to have Faulk, he's a really good defenseman, but I don't think I could swallow giving up Simmonds. If we could swing a Schenn + Schenn + something deal for him, i'd do it without hesitation. Carolina wouldn't though.
So a 22 year old player is not going to improve? So then the Flyers prospects might not improve so it would make more sense to get him since he is a proven NHL player.
You want hfboards logic, people saying the Flyers prospects will be just as good if not better than a proven nhl player so no need to acquire said player. The Flyers would be lucky if any of the prospects end up as good as Faulk.
CanadianFlyer88
Knublin' PPs
How so?
In the last decade, only the Pens and Canes didn't have a Norris-calibre defenseman on their Cup winning teams.
A top defenseman that can eat big minutes and play in all situations is practically a requirement for a team to win a championship.
Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,452
- 994
Did I say that?
Just because a player is really good at 22 doesn't necessarily mean he will be REALLY, REALLY good at 24. It doesn't work like that.
And just because a player is really good at 26 doesn't necessarily mean he won't be as good at 28 or 29.
Players develop at different rates. I'm not sure how much better Faulk will ever be than he is right now.
Obviously not, but saying otherwise makes you sound like some of the main board clowns that think Couturier sucks and will be a 40 point bottom 6 center for the rest of his career.
I get that you didn't necessarily say that you think Faulk won't improve, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to improve, given his age and status right now. Sure, there are examples of players not following the mold, but I don't think there are any obvious signs with that regarding Faulk right now.
Totally forgot Carolina was in our division.
Guess I really do need to hope Buffalo gets McEichel.
Faulk was on the us Olympic team as a 21 year old. If he has plateaued, I'd still take him.
Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,452
- 994
Nothing even close. It's one thing when you have a relatively incomplete player like Couturier who has elements to his game that clearly have not hit their potential.
But Faulk is a well-rounded player already. I don't know how much more there is to add to an already complete game.
Again, he may still improve. But it's not a guarantee. Just because a player is 22 doesn't mean he's got more levels to hit in development. And on the other side of that coin, just because a player is 26 or 27 doesn't mean he can't keep improving.
It's a case by case thing. I hate when people try applying the league average to an individual player. You can't do that. Just because the average player peaks ~23/24 doesn't mean we can just take every <23 year old player and say he's going to improve.
Yeah, I get what you mean, fair enough. But like psu mentioned I'd take him even if he has plateaued. He'd still be our best defensrman.
Tripod
I hate this team
I didn't mean to cause any big arguments. My only thought is if we are trying yo build for 2-3 years from now, then adding a #1 RHD is a great add to all the kids that are LHD.
And yes, I agree Simmonds cannot be replaced internally. But now with the kids on D and Faulk, all efforts can be given to the forwards. And as we know, they are easier to find and develop quicker.
For me, Faulk seems to have all requirements for me to think about this trade. But as I said, I never see him play so it's just stat watching, highlights, and reputation.
And yes, I agree Simmonds cannot be replaced internally. But now with the kids on D and Faulk, all efforts can be given to the forwards. And as we know, they are easier to find and develop quicker.
For me, Faulk seems to have all requirements for me to think about this trade. But as I said, I never see him play so it's just stat watching, highlights, and reputation.
flyersfromquebec
Registered User
- Jul 22, 2012
- 1,010
- 583
Nobody is going to give that up for a guy who can't handle the puck if it's not in the crease or along the boards. Be realistic.
I wouldn't do that deal, it would have to be a 2 for 2 where we got a forward and they took back on of our defenders. I don't see why Carolina does it though.
Man that is a really tough one. Faulk is a stud. Simmonds is my favorite Flyer.
I think Faulk has more value but Simmonds is just everything you want in a player, especially a Flyer. Dont think I could do it, although Faulk would be a major upgrade.
I think Faulk has more value but Simmonds is just everything you want in a player, especially a Flyer. Dont think I could do it, although Faulk would be a major upgrade.
Cyborg LeClair
Thank You Mr. Snider
So we trade Simmonds for Faulk, and then what? We have to make a trade to acquire a physical right winger who can play the front of the net on the powerplay? I thought we learned from the L.Schenn for JVR trade that the best course of action to fill a hole is to fill it internally through smart drafting and trading EXPENDABLE assets. Simmonds might be valuable enough to fetch Faulk but that doesn't mean we should make that trade.
I wouldn't but I don't know enough about Faulk either. His stats seem to check out, idk. I'm extremely skeptical. Why would Carolina fans be willing to move a top pairing d-man at the old age of 22 for a guy that while a big piece is not a top line player and has a limited skill set. Wayne Simmonds is the ultimate complimentary piece. He fits perfectly here. But its pretty obvious his success has a lot to do with the situation he is in here.
I personally really don't think that Giroux, Couturier, Simmonds or Voracek should be moved, to a lesser extent Read. That's the core of our offense and our identity. Those 4(5) in my opinion should be the main stays for the next 4 or 5 years minimum. It would take MASSIVE MASSIVE overpayment for me to be inclined to move any of them and I don't see that here.
I personally really don't think that Giroux, Couturier, Simmonds or Voracek should be moved, to a lesser extent Read. That's the core of our offense and our identity. Those 4(5) in my opinion should be the main stays for the next 4 or 5 years minimum. It would take MASSIVE MASSIVE overpayment for me to be inclined to move any of them and I don't see that here.
Last edited:
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 49,215
- 21,617
Why do people propose trades out of their butt all the time?
Why would you move a guy who not only is a good player, but the type of leader that holds a team together during tough stretches, who adds the kind of toughness you need as you move to a faster, more finesse team (that is, he can play, but is willing to check and fight, so he adds toughness without being a liability on the ice).
Especially when the strength of this organization is a steady flow of young, talented defensemen we're going to see the next 3-4 years?
Why would you move a guy who not only is a good player, but the type of leader that holds a team together during tough stretches, who adds the kind of toughness you need as you move to a faster, more finesse team (that is, he can play, but is willing to check and fight, so he adds toughness without being a liability on the ice).
Especially when the strength of this organization is a steady flow of young, talented defensemen we're going to see the next 3-4 years?
Tripod
I hate this team
Well let me respond since I am the OP.
The proposal came out if another thread discussing us needing a Dman. And Faulk was offered for Simmonds. And TO ME, that is the only type of guy you think of moving Simmonds for.
As for our young D, NONE of them have proven anything yet. And NONE of them are RH. He is also only 22 so fits our core today AND the core coming up. And he is signed long term...like Simmonds so you don't have to worry about him breaking the bank in the next 6 years.
Adding a #1 dman NOW, allows the kids to not HAVE to become one later.
And I put the proposal out their because I have not watched Faulk even close enough to say yes/no, so wanted the opinions of others.
I love having Simmonds on the team. But also adding a 22 year old #1 RHD on a great long term contract also has merits. Especially for a team that currently has NO #1 D. Plus, Faulk plays in all scenarios. All of our current D are good at one or another, but none are good in the PK and the PP and ES. Without Simmonds, we still have a #1 RW in Jake. Then we have a Read, who until this year, looked like at any time he could get more points if not playing against such hard competition.
I just think the proposal had merit and wanted to share it.
So let me ask this, what RHD WOULD you possibly trade Simmonds for? Here is a list of some top D. Also, Seth Jones is out there.
No.
Player
1 Shea Weber 31 Brent Burns
2 Drew Doughty 32 Tobias Enstrom
3 Duncan Keith 33 Marc Staal
4 Ryan Suter 34 Justin Faulk
5 Erik Karlsson 35 Christian Ehrhoff
6 Alex Pietrangelo 36 Slava Voynov
7 P.K. Subban 37 Paul Martin
8 Ryan McDonagh 38 Johnny Boychuk
9 Zdeno Chara 39 T.J. Brodie
10 Victor Hedman 40 Dan Girardi
11 Oliver Ekman-Larsson
12 Marc-Edouard Vlasic
13 Mark Giordano
14 Niklas Kronwall
15 Kris Letang
16 Jay Bouwmeester
17 Brent Seabrook
18 Dion Phaneuf
19 Dan Hamhuis
20 Erik Johnson
21 Roman Josi
22 Cam Fowler
23 Kevin Shattenkirk
24 Keith Yandle
25 Andrei Markov
26 John Carlson
27 Andrej Sekera
28 Niklas Hjalmarsson
29 Brian Campbell
30 Andy Greene
Or we just don't trade Simmonds and let our own D develop and then avoid having our forward group be in complete shambles down the lines. That's an option.
zarley zelepukin
Registered User
If our in-house defensemen really develop that well, then we could always move one of them for forward help down the road. Since young, highly skilled defensemen are among the most valuable commodities in the game, we would have options.
I'm not super familiar with Faulk, but what I have heard is all really positive. If he's all he's cracked up to be then sure I move Simmonds, even though I'm a huge fan of his, like everybody else here.
I'm not super familiar with Faulk, but what I have heard is all really positive. If he's all he's cracked up to be then sure I move Simmonds, even though I'm a huge fan of his, like everybody else here.
