News Article: Trade Rumors: Elliotte Friedman Speculates on Potential Athanasiou Trade With Hurricanes

[Redder Winger]

Neither is AA.

Right. And?

AA is an offensive forward who is still producing quite well in his minutes, despite defensive issues.

Faulk is an offensive D who is producing at HORRID levels despite his defensive issues.

 

[Redder Winger]

You need to contact all the respectable blogs and websites that specifically use the word "rumor" instead of barking at me. I didn't start the damn rumor.

They're all quoting the speculation of Friedman, who said nothing other than "I think it's a possible deal that would make sense."

That's not a rumor.

 

[jkutswings]

Right. And?

AA is an offensive forward who is still producing quite well in his minutes, despite defensive issues.

Faulk is an offensive D who is producing at HORRID levels despite his defensive issues.

And just because a Smart Car is running well, doesn't mean it's a bad idea to trade it for an Escalade that needs a new engine.

Defensemen are significantly more valuable than all but the very best wingers. Faulk would have to continue to completely fall apart, in order for it to be a bad trade.

And as unlikely as I think it would be for that to happen, I think it's even LESS likely that AA ever becomes significantly more than he is right now.

 

[Redder Winger]

If Faulk keeps racking up minus seasons like that for 8 years, it means that the team has other players racking up minus seasons like that, which makes me wonder why the team continues to be so terrible. Which means Justin Faulk isn't the only thing at question here and you are just making hypothetical scenarios without any means to actually discuss them in good faith.

Explain what you mean? Not discuss in good faith?

I do not think AA's ceiling is that high, and as a winger that doesn't put him in a spot where I can be too picky about getting a player for him. And a young defenseman who has had some very good seasons where he is in a place where he is affordable, I am willing to part with him. Keep in mind a guy like AA isn't going to land you that much, so the real question is what kind of player is AA worth, and do you really think you could get such a player all things considered?

You're not getting last year's Faulk for AA.

But we're not dealing for last year's Faulk. We're dealing for a guy who:
is SIXTH LOWEST of ALL NHL defenseman in points per 60 at 5 on 5 (500 minutes or more).
Out of 167 defenseman who've played 500 minutes or more at 5 on 5, Faulk is the SIXTH WORST at point production.

He's an offensive defenseman with real defensive deficiencies.
And he's the SIXTH WORST at offense.

You think I'm not having a discussion in good faith to suggest pumping the brakes on this trade?

Athanasiou is 53rd in points/60 out of 264 forwards.
For an offensive forward with defensive deficiencies, his numbers are somewhat expectable.

Faulk's numbers are alarming.

 

[Redder Winger]

And just because a Smart Car is running well, doesn't mean it's a bad idea to trade it for an Escalade that needs a new engine.

Defensemen are significantly more valuable than all but the very best wingers. Faulk would have to continue to completely fall apart, in order for it to be a bad trade.

And as unlikely as I think it would be for that to happen, I think it's even LESS likely that AA ever becomes significantly more than he is right now.

Meaningless post.
Faulk has completely fallen apart.

He almost can't get worse.
He's the sixth worst defenseman in the NHL, offensively. And his defense has always been bad.

 

[Winger98]

What do you think AA's ceiling is? 30 goals? 40 goals? 80 points? If he's just a 45-55 point guy, who cares? You can find them every year.

Vanek's looking at putting up some numbers in that range again. A healthy Hudler probably puts up numbers in that area. If you're looking for some numbers and can make it work IT/responsibility wise there does always seem to be some options out there over the summer, and it doesn't even necessarily take a lot of term/cash to get it. If anything, you get into more trouble when overpaying for that type of production (Andrew Ladd).

 

[Frk It]

Buddy, holy recency bias.

Why in the f*** are you prioritizing a 54 game sample size over a 224 game sample size?

 

[ShelbyZ]

Buddy, holy recency bias.

Why in the **** are you prioritizing a 54 game sample size over a 224 game sample size?

I mean it's similar to how Mrazek now has Vezina potential after a 7 game rebound following 2 years of garbage, including an entire season of ECHL level goaltending. So at least RW is consistent....

 

[Redder Winger]

Buddy, holy recency bias.

Why in the **** are you prioritizing a 54 game sample size over a 224 game sample size?

Because 54 games at 22 minutes a night isn't something you ignore.

This isn't 20 games at 11 minutes a night.

 

[jkutswings]

Because 54 games at 22 minutes a night isn't something you ignore.

This isn't 20 games at 11 minutes a night.

How was Larkin last year?

EDIT: Nobody is saying to make the trade without scrutiny or research. But 3 years of decent to good hockey shouldn't be discounted due to one lousy year, either.

 

[Winger98]

Buddy, holy recency bias.

Why in the **** are you prioritizing a 54 game sample size over a 224 game sample size?

Or at that point why the last 54 games of 22 minutes a night is more important than the last 21 games? Or maybe we should only look at the last ten games. If we're really going to look at what the guy has done lately and try to extrapolate out from that rather than taking the much larger body of work.

 

[jkutswings]

Or at that point why the last 54 games of 22 minutes a night is more important than the last 21 games? Or maybe we should only look at the last ten games. If we're really going to look at what the guy has done lately and try to extrapolate out from that rather than taking the much larger body of work.

He had a fantastic last 3 shifts the other night. The guy is the next Bobby Orr.

 

[Winger98]

He had a fantastic last 3 shifts the other night. The guy is the next Bobby Orr.

eh, his knees are just going to go all to hell then.

 

[RedWingzz]

Right. And?

AA is an offensive forward who is still producing quite well in his minutes, despite defensive issues.

Faulk is an offensive D who is producing at HORRID levels despite his defensive issues.

While you do bring up many good points, I think it is a bit premature to write Faulk off because of his bad season. When evaluating players I like to use a 3-year window. I'm not ready to say a player has declined drastically based on 1 bad year, just as I am not ready to call a player a superstar off 1 good season. Using this logic, I still don't classify guys like Josh Bailey and Brayden Schenn as superstars yet. They may be on track to becoming stars, but they have been solid (2nd liners?) for a while, and then all of a sudden they are top 20 in NHL scoring. 1 bad year doesn't mean you have significantly regressed, just as 1 very good year doesn't vault you to superstar status. That's just my analysis anyways.

 

[kliq]

While you do bring up many good points, I think it is a bit premature to write Faulk off because of his bad season. When evaluating players I like to use a 3-year window. I'm not ready to say a player has declined drastically based on 1 bad year, just as I am not ready to call a player a superstar off 1 good season. Using this logic, I still don't classify guys like Josh Bailey and Brayden Schenn as superstars yet. They may be on track to becoming stars, but they have been solid (2nd liners?) for a while, and then all of a sudden they are top 20 in NHL scoring. 1 bad year doesn't mean you have significantly regressed, just as 1 very good year doesn't vault you to superstar status. That's just my analysis anyways.

I pretty much agree with this, but to be fair though he has regressed every single year over the past 3 seasons.

 

[Redder Winger]

How was Larkin last year?

EDIT: Nobody is saying to make the trade without scrutiny or research. But 3 years of decent to good hockey shouldn't be discounted due to one lousy year, either.

And he was awful last year.

And let's be honest.

This is year 3 for Larkin.

All 3 years have been different.

Year 1. Goal scorer/speedy sniper.
year 2. Bleh.
Year 3. Point producer, but not a sniper.

And yes, some people are saying "make the trade without scrunty or research."

Some people are totally discounting the stats and saying this is a nobrainer.

 

[Redder Winger]

While you do bring up many good points, I think it is a bit premature to write Faulk off because of his bad season. When evaluating players I like to use a 3-year window. I'm not ready to say a player has declined drastically based on 1 bad year, just as I am not ready to call a player a superstar off 1 good season. Using this logic, I still don't classify guys like Josh Bailey and Brayden Schenn as superstars yet. They may be on track to becoming stars, but they have been solid (2nd liners?) for a while, and then all of a sudden they are top 20 in NHL scoring. 1 bad year doesn't mean you have significantly regressed, just as 1 very good year doesn't vault you to superstar status. That's just my analysis anyways.

I am not writing him off.
I'm saying the stats are a red flag. Pump the brakes. Do your research and your scouting.

If you discover why his stats are down and determine that he would return to 15 goal-40 point territory in Detroit, then yeah, proceed.

 

[Redder Winger]

Or at that point why the last 54 games of 22 minutes a night is more important than the last 21 games? Or maybe we should only look at the last ten games. If we're really going to look at what the guy has done lately and try to extrapolate out from that rather than taking the much larger body of work.

54 games.
1 assist at 5 on 5.

That means in 21 games:
1 assist at 5 on 5 (at best).

By the way, in those 23 games his stats have come around. He's also -10

 

[jkutswings]

And he was awful last year.

And let's be honest.

This is year 3 for Larkin.

All 3 years have been different.

Year 1. Goal scorer/speedy sniper.
year 2. Bleh.
Year 3. Point producer, but not a sniper.

And yes, some people are saying "make the trade without scrunty or research."

Some people are totally discounting the stats and saying this is a nobrainer.

There are definitely reasons to dig very deeply when looking at Justin Faulk. But his overall body of work in the NHL is head and shoulders better than AA.

So yes, I talk to his cousin's neighbor's dog walker's boyfriend to find every bit of information I can. But if that research yields even a semi-reasonable chance that he could return to CLOSE to his original form...I pull the trigger in a heartbeat. (As an example, somebody already posted that his current shooting percentage is so low, compared to every other year, that it's a statistical outlier.) I think the career of AA will be closer to pedestrian than amazing, and defense is a much bigger need than secondary scoring anyway.

 

[Frk It]

54 games.
1 assist at 5 on 5.

That means in 21 games:
1 assist at 5 on 5 (at best).

By the way, in those 23 games his stats have come around. He's also -10

 

[Frk It]

Oh and as for plus/minus, if you only include players who have played 25 games or more for Carolina, 15/18 are a minus... and they also have one of the worst team save %'s in the league.

 

[Redder Winger]

5 on 5
does not equal
Even Strength

 

[Frk It]

5 on 5
does not equal
Even Strength

Where's the place that says he has 1 5 on 5 assist? Corsica says he has 2 @ 5 on 5, not that that's a big difference.

 

[Winger98]

54 games.
1 assist at 5 on 5.

That means in 21 games:
1 assist at 5 on 5 (at best).

By the way, in those 23 games his stats have come around. He's also -10

Because points on special teams and 4v4 are only worth 3/4 of a point scored 5v5.

 

[Winger98]

and someone remind me where our power play is right now, 21st? 22nd? We are so not in need of help there.