Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
LakeLivin

Poll: Would You Trade Justin Faulk?

Would you trade Justin Faulk?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you trade Justin Faulk for either Matt Duchene or Leon Draisaitl??

    • Strong Yes
      6
    • Yes
      10
    • Not Sure
      6
    • No
      12
    • Strong No
      8


Recommended Posts

I get the argument about his defense and largely agree with it. But the bottom line is that moving him still forces guys who may not be ready to step in. Without Faulk we know have two and a half proven NHL pairings. With him we know we have all three.

 

 

A solid point, but i still think if Faulk can turn into a 1st line center, we can easily find a defenseman through FA who can give us three proven pairings.  It would be a lot easier to find a 2nd pairing defenseman than a 1st line center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no but will admit the scenario gave me pause. Although I have always believed no player should be untouchable  In the end I think trading Faulk would set us back. We always seem to need a player to target. I don't understand this with Faulk.

 

He missed 18 games and still put up 16 goals and 39 points.  12 PP goals led the team. We think our PP was weak well imagine it without Faulk. He did have the worst +/- on the team but he is defending top pair and had at least 3 different partners. If you don't think Faulk is a top pair look at his partners.

 

It would be foolish IMO to even consider moving Faulk at this stage in the rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulk's goal scoring and the loss there-of is a fair point for sure. He put up 15 goals last year too, so while his early year tear was a bit flukey, and he went many games without a 5 on 5 goal, he still did put 16 pucks in the net, and our next best D man was Hainsey at 5, and he is notoriously not a goal scorer.

 

Still we are talking young elite 1C and maybe more.

 

If Francis has a plan to get that guy in a different trade, that might be better, but otherwise, how do we get that guy? If we can to it and keep Faulk and Fleury? Even better.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, it really comes down to return. Arizona and other teams have searched for years for the illusive 1C. Here, especially w/ Draisaitl, we are looking at a mostly proven, very young 1C... 

 

 

A solid point, but i still think if Faulk can turn into a 1st line center...

 

I've made the point in numerous threads previously, but this is where I depart from what seems to be the prevailing notion that we're looking for a 1C. I don't think so, and here are the reasons why:

 

- Under BP's system, line designation (1, 2, 3 etc) is secondary to four balanced lines with speed that control the puck and keep the opposition on its heels. The center's job on any line is to win face-offs, be defensively responsible, and create traffic/screens in front in the O-zone. Jordan, Rask, Lindholm, Nash, McClement, Ryan - and in a pinch, Nesty - count 'em, SEVEN current players - all have these abilities.

 

- This team has been stuck in the blind alley of counting on a 1C to be the difference-maker for years, and it hasn't happened. That's not because Eric was not talented, but because the game has changed. BP's system is built to win based on today's NHL. Speed is generated from clean outlet passes to fast wings on BOTH sides. But right now we have only two lines - the second and third - that consistently play that way, and it wasn't for lack of centers, but of wings. 

 

- Assuming Skinner and Rask become top-six guys next year and Lindholm centers the third or fourth, we're still going to lack wings. We need at least one to fill Lindy's slot in the top six and - nothing against Nesty, because I think he'd be the first to tell you he's not elite - a second would even better.

 

Bottom line for me: We've got capable Cs who play BP's system already. We need speed on the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no but will admit the scenario gave me pause. Although I have always believed no player should be untouchable  In the end I think trading Faulk would set us back. We always seem to need a player to target. I don't understand this with Faulk.

 

He missed 18 games and still put up 16 goals and 39 points.  12 PP goals led the team. We think our PP was weak well imagine it without Faulk. He did have the worst +/- on the team but he is defending top pair and had at least 3 different partners. If you don't think Faulk is a top pair look at his partners.

 

It would be foolish IMO to even consider moving Faulk at this stage in the rebuild.

 

I can only speak for myself, but it's much more a matter of acquiring a franchise forward than targeting Faulk. Faulk just seems like the most realistic/ beneficial way to do that given what I see as a tremendous imbalance between our defensive and offensive talent. And I only consider it because of the confidence I have going forward in our 3 wunder-yutes. 

 

Unfortunately, when I try to articulate the reasons why that makes sense to me it probably sounds to some like I'm tearing Faulk down.  E.g., you mentioned a couple of things that might somewhat mitigate Faulk's ugly +- stat.  I could point out that Hainsey also played against mostly top lines, and with multiple partners, yet Faulk's +- was almost 70% worse. Or that last year Faulk was a -19, Hainsey -14, and Sekera -7.  But while I mean to present that as "unbiased" data (since my "eye test" is by definition biased), I can see how it might feel like it tears Faulk down.  I don't know how to avoid that (I've always highlighted the strengths I believe Faulk brings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself, but it's much more a matter of acquiring a franchise forward than targeting Faulk. Faulk just seems like the most realistic/ beneficial way to do that given what I see as a tremendous imbalance between our defensive and offensive talent. And I only consider it because of the confidence I have going forward in our 3 wunder-yutes. 

 

Unfortunately, when I try to articulate the reasons why that makes sense to me it probably sounds to some like I'm tearing Faulk down.  E.g., you mentioned a couple of things that might somewhat mitigate Faulk's ugly +- stat.  I could point out that Hainsey also played against mostly top lines, and with multiple partners, yet Faulk's +- was almost 70% worse. Or that last year Faulk was a -19, Hainsey -14, and Sekera -7.  But while I mean to present that as "unbiased" data (since my "eye test" is by definition biased), I can see how it might feel like it tears Faulk down.  I don't know how to avoid that (I've always highlighted the strengths I believe Faulk brings).

 

Please don't misunderstand I'm not trying to invalidate your point of view. Quite the opposite. I'm really just thinking out loud and trying to understand why a case would be made for moving Faulk.  I'm reading your posts and others with great interest,

 

I haven't been swayed yet (not that should matter) but I am considering your observations as I try and come to terms with this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top: I'm not so sure we have three capable centers. I am sure we have two (assuming Jordan doesn't try to cry his way out of town), in Jordan and Rask. Lindholm? Maybe. Skinner? Not really so far. Aho? Way too soon to say.

 

The thing about the IC is mostly me probably, in that I've put it in those terms. But Eric's failings as IC more prove the point than disprove it. It is certainly conventional wisdom that you need that guy.

 

The reason I keep circling back to it is in relation to Eric being gone (opens the spot), and some of the names that have been out there: Johanssen, RNH, Draisaitl, and in this poll, Duchene. They're all centers, and when I slot them down the middle, we immediately look scary strong:

 

Draisatl, J. Staal, Rask.  That could compete with anyone. Hang some wingers on that. Skinner, Aho, Lindholm, new draft pick, new vet, Nordstrom, Nesty, etc.....that is firepower.

 

 

The thing w/ Faulk as I was the first one to raise this heresy, is what Lake is saying. Who else gets it done? Hanifin is untouchable, but who else brings the return we're talking about? We have guys that should, or will in a year, but really no one else does now. So when you try to put on your GM hat and figure out how to get one or two NHL ready big guns in here, it gets tricky without involving Faulk.

 

Then Faulk doesn't help his case with more blatant whiffs and ugly turnovers than Murphy at points in the year, including the last few games. And finally, his trade value. It is very hard to sell high, exactly because the player you are "selling" is good. But Faulk is probably viewed by some GM's as a near franchise guy. Will he keep improving and be that? He may, he may not, but he probably would bring back return like that right now.

 

I still tend to agree Francis is unlikely to actually do it, but it is an interesting thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top: I'm not so sure we have three capable centers. I am sure we have two (assuming Jordan doesn't try to cry his way out of town), in Jordan and Rask. Lindholm? Maybe. Skinner? Not really so far. Aho? Way too soon to say.

 

The thing about the IC is mostly me probably, in that I've put it in those terms. But Eric's failings as IC more prove the point than disprove it. It is certainly conventional wisdom that you need that guy.

 

The reason I keep circling back to it is in relation to Eric being gone (opens the spot)

I get that, but AFATOIC (as far as the organization...), Eric wasn't going to be a center last year anyway. RF and BP both wanted him to be an effective wing with Rask in the middle, and if he'd had the wheels (and will) to do it, we'd be talking about Lindholm with a full year at 3C under his belt, instead of being forced to be a wing on Eric the Center's line with mere looks at the dots when face-off position dictated.

 

My guess is that the failure of Eric at wing made letting him go easier, because it allows the brain trust to do, with Rask and Lindholm, what it's been on record as wanting to do since BP became coach: Make the middle younger, tougher and more slot-centric. Add to those two Jordan, Nash, McClement and Ryan and that's six centers by any measure. If you don't think Lindholm is proven there that's fine, but he also hasn't played there enough to know.

 

I don't think Skinner or Aho ever become centers on this team. Their speed, size, and the way BP wants to play all scream "winger," and I'm fine with that b/c that outside speed is exactly what we need. But imagine...

 

Rask with his elite hands centering Skinner and Duchene (or Draisaitl or Okposo).

Next up, the shut-down line of Nordy-J-Nesty.

Now roll Lindy centering Nash (for the tossed-from-the dot option) and PDG.

And finally McClement, Ryan (again, for puck possession certainty) and whoever wins that last wing slot.

 

Or maybe take Lake's suggestion and flip-flop the third and fourth lines above so Lindy has more time to learn from the bench, which we've never really been able to give him. Either way, not a bad four lines to roll. Hard on the puck in the slot, fast on the outside, and we've eliminated the sluggishness of the two aging-out wingers we unloaded at the TD, E and Versteeg. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

top, love that lineup FOR THE REGULAR SEASON. Understand this is not disrespectful, but just concluded watching Blackhawks vs Blues, and impressed with the universal attribute of all playoff games, Where does the "grit" come from in your proposed lineup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rask with his elite hands centering Skinner and Duchene (or Draisaitl or Okposo).

Next up, the shut-down line of Nordy-J-Nesty.

Now roll Lindy centering Nash (for the tossed-from-the dot option) and PDG.

And finally McClement, Ryan (again, for puck possession certainty) and whoever wins that last wing slot.

I don't like those lines for the most part. First, if you believe Rask is going to center the first line, you shouldn't waste Faulk or any other resources trading for Duchene or Draisaitl as they are centers more than wings. I don't think Rask is a first line center, so I'd slide him back to the third to center Aho and Lindholm. The second line is good, so I'd keep that intact. The fourth line I'd have McClement center Nash and PDG. Finally, on the first line had have Skinner on the left, sign a UFA right like Okposo, and make the Faulk trade for one of the centers discussed, with my preference being Draisaitl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just less comfortable slotting Rask as our #1 center than bringing in a guy. 

 

This does not mean Rask might not elevate to first line production. He is heading into only his 3rd NHL season, and improved a lot from season one to season two. He was apparently playing much of the year with a bum shoulder. He really could elevate his game. But he would need to because he was not first line last year, in fact he was barely second line.

 

The range of ppg for solid (top 2/3) first line centers last year was about .74-1.07, with the median .86 ppg. Rask was .60 ppg. (J Staal was .59). BTW E. Staal was .45 ppg.

 

So Rask's productivity per game ranked him as the #56 center. This is at the bottom of the list of second line centers, and on a deep team would be third line. Jordan ranked #59. So, based on points, and actual production, we have two barely second line centers. Both guys would have to up their productivity to around .65 ppg, just to be center mass for second line centers.

 

I know it's not all abut points, and both guys are good in all 3 zones, but you need productivity too.

 

Jordan, however, had a run of close to three months of around .9 ppg, which is solid first line. Unfortunately, he started very slow. But Jordan can easily get to .79 ppg IMO. He's done it. Not only during the last 3 months of the year, but his last two years in Pittsburgh including both years in the playoffs.

 

Maybe Rask elevates his game 23%. That's what he needs to do to get to about #20. But even then he's in the bottom half of NHL first line centers. Maybe Jordan keeps up the high level he had before. Maybe.

 

But relying on a lot of maybes is what we have done too many times. And in the past our maybes had more historical evidence. And in the past the maybes haven't generally played out. Planning on guys upping there level far higher than they every have, is less desirable than bringing in proven guys and letting the other guys prove they will develop.

 

If we could land a proven 1C it would do this in one dramatic move.

 

So ppg:

 

Rask: .60

J Staal: .59

 

Duchene: .78 (put up 1.00 ppg two years ago, that is very elite even for first line centers).

Draisaitl: .71 (his first full season in the NHL: Draisaitl is 20, Rask is 23).

 

Rask's numbers for this past year would be elite for a third line center. Jordan has a good chance of hitting elite for a second line center. Draisaitl has elite potential for first line center, Duchene has already put up elite first line center numbers.

 

Thus Draisaitl (or Duchene), J. Staal, V. Rask would give us elite centers on all three lines. Hang some wingers on that and go get a cup.
 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess i'll be the contrarian in this thread.

 

I voted a strong no in the poll, for more reasons than one.  While i'm not opposed to trading anybody for the right price, neither of the proposed trades are adequate for Faulk.  If most have actually seen an Avalanche or Oilers game, you wouldn't want to do those trades either.  On paper, Duchene looks good, but i'm telling you guys, Top_Shelf particularly, that Duchene is the re-incarnation of Eric Staal, except smaller.  He's a very streaky scorer, lacks defense, and has not always been loved by his coaching/management staff.  There should be red flags being waved here where in an offensive starved league, a team is entertaining offers from their top scorer.  He's had a couple of flop seasons, and I don't see him as a Bill Peters guy.

 

As far as Leon Draisitl goes, he does not impress me.  I get the hype and upside for him, but for all that he's accomplished, he only had 3 more points than Rask and Staal.  And like Duchene, he would be coming from an offensive-oriented system, where both guys are playing with high-level wingers like Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, Gabriel Landeskog, etc.  I think it would be a little naive to think they would come over hear and produce those numbers with lesser linemates.

 

As far as Faulk, the only current scenario I would trade him is for Austin Matthews.  Mainly because we've never had the 1st overall pick, and Matthews projects to be better than both Duchene and Draisitl.  Before his injury, Faulk was by far our best scorer, even weeks after his injury.  He's our only consistent person on the powerplay, and for a team that relies on scoring from the blueline, he is our most valuable player.

 

And it surprises me that after 3 pages, nobody's brought up the elephant in the room, that at this time next year, Faulk will be our oldest Dman on contract at age 25.  We need some veteran presence on D, as even though Hanifin/Slavin/Pesce had good seasons, they are far from proven.  Wiz and Hainsey's contracts both come off the books next year.  Faulk, for the numbers he's put up, has one of if not the most valuable contracts in the league, which is huge for a cap-strapped team like Carolina.

 

Also, as a couple people have pointed out, we have a ton of cap space.  We are in position to spend, perhaps even overpay for UFA's.  It's going to be at least 4 or 5 years before we're going to have to pay big bucks to our young D, we already have Skinner and Jordan locked long-term, and Rask will receive a raise, but not a significant one.  Also, next year we're going to have an additional $10 million coming off the books in Wiz, Hainsey, and McClement.  GMRF has indicated that although it wouldn't be practical to pay big money/long term to UFA's, that he will still be in on the top ones.  If I were him, and I know it's a long shot, I would call Stamkos on July 1st, ask what it would take to get him in a Carolina jersey, and then give him whatever he asks for.  I would also try to sign Eriksson.  Call me crazy, but I honestly believe Carolina will obtain at least one of these players (Stamkos, Eriksson, Backas, Okposo, Ladd).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Draisaitl is going to be very good. As you said, it was only his first year and he looked good and probably learns to play even better with experience and a good coaching staff and system.

 

As far as Faulk, the only current scenario I would trade him is for Austin Matthews.  Mainly because we've never had the 1st overall pick, and Matthews projects to be better than both Duchene and Draisitl.  Before his injury, Faulk was by far our best scorer, even weeks after his injury.  He's our only consistent person on the powerplay, and for a team that relies on scoring from the blueline, he is our most valuable player.

I doubt anyone trades away Matthews, even for Faulk. He is thought to be as good or better than Eichel. The only chance we have of that happening is if the Oilers get the #1OA and would rather keep Draisaitl, which I doubt they do just based on contract situations. If they did get that pick, my guess is it would take Faulk and our #1 this year.

 

And it surprises me that after 3 pages, nobody's brought up the elephant in the room, that at this time next year, Faulk will be our oldest Dman on contract at age 25.  We need some veteran presence on D, as even though Hanifin/Slavin/Pesce had good seasons, they are far from proven.  Wiz and Hainsey's contracts both come off the books next year.  Faulk, for the numbers he's put up, has one of if not the most valuable contracts in the league, which is huge for a cap-strapped team like Carolina.

Ok, experience is an issue. But nothing says we can't sign another vet to help on the third line. Hainsey or Wis may want to stick around on the team and could easily fill that roll. You don't need to have your veteran leadership tied up in such a valuable trade asset. They can easily be 2nd or 3rd pairing guys. And as for Faulks contract, it is more valuable to other teams than it is for us. His cap numbers are fantastic at less than $5M per year, but his actual salary next year jumps up to $5.5M. For a budget team like us, that is the real number to look at and is ok, but not great. He is a lot more valuable to teams that spend to the cap than he is to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weeks' Sports Illustrated (or last, one of the recent ones) has a bit about the NHL playoffs. There is a panel about Nashville where they lament 18 years of no first line center costing them over and over in the playoffs, despite having one of the best defenses and best goalies in the NHL. Now they have Johansen who I really wanted us to get (Faulk for Johansen) and they are primed to contend.

 

They also mentioned how they were never bad enough to get into that elite forward draft territory, but never had that 1C to put them over in the playoffs.

 

I don't want that to be us.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, experience is an issue. But nothing says we can't sign another vet to help on the third line. Hainsey or Wis may want to stick around on the team and could easily fill that roll. You don't need to have your veteran leadership tied up in such a valuable trade asset. They can easily be 2nd or 3rd pairing guys. And as for Faulks contract, it is more valuable to other teams than it is for us. His cap numbers are fantastic at less than $5M per year, but his actual salary next year jumps up to $5.5M. For a budget team like us, that is the real number to look at and is ok, but not great. He is a lot more valuable to teams that spend to the cap than he is to us.

With all due respect, I could not disagree with this more. Faulk was putting up numbers comparable to Subban, Weber, Burns, Buff, and they are all making between $7-13 million per year. We are inevatibly going to have to shell out big money again. So for a budget team, the cheaper we can get good talent, the better. Faulk's actual cap hit is 4.8 aav.

As far as Matthews, it's being heavily speculated that Oiler's GM wants more proven players rather than draft picks. They are in search of a #1 right handed Dman. Some are saying if push comes to shove, they would give their 1st rounder for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weeks' Sports Illustrated (or last, one of the recent ones) has a bit about the NHL playoffs. There is a panel about Nashville where they lament 18 years of no first line center costing them over and over in the playoffs, despite having one of the best defenses and best goalies in the NHL. Now they have Johansen who I really wanted us to get (Faulk for Johansen) and they are primed to contend.

They also mentioned how they were never bad enough to get into that elite forward draft territory.

I don't want that to be us.

There's a difference between us in them. First, as you said, they have one of the best Goalies in the league. Second, their blueline is more seasoned than ours, and they traded away their least seasoned player to get that #1 center. They could afford a Dman, while still having Josi and Weber, two 50pt dman. We trade Faulk, we have no other 50pt dman.

We also really need to consider the left and right sides. Faulk's the only right handed Dman currently in our system with the capability to log heavy minutes defensively, and put up points. Pesce could be that guy if he had a partner producing offense, but he's not there yet. Most of our top dmen prospects are lefties.

Although we played well without him at times, he's not expendable yet. Maybe in a year or two's time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for chiming in, PK.  I really wouldn't call you a contrarian here.  Although the votes are (surprisingly to me) trending to trade Faulk if the right deal is available, it's not even a majority of all voters (uh oh, this poll may be headed to a contested convention!!)

 

I appreciate your feedback on Duchene. Since all I have are stats and scouting reports to go on, I'd have to ultimately leave that one up to the Canes powers that be as to how well he'd fit into the new Canes system/ culture.

 

With regard to Draisaitl, my perspective is that even though he only outscored Rask and Staal by 3 points, that's still a 51pt season at 20yo in his first complete NHL season.  I'm applying the philosophy Gretzski's used to explain his success: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."  Sure there's some risk that Draisaitl may not ultimately reach his projected potential, but the odds of getting a player like that once he does reach that level are next to zero.  

 

I'm with you on Faulk for Matthews, but I don't see any team taking that deal (if I'm wrong, I say "jump").

 

I'm nowhere near as concerned about the defensive leadership after next season as you.  I just don't anticipate it being that difficult to bring some in if needed (our precocious yutes will have 2 full seasons under their belts, and Hanifin won't be 18yo any longer :grin: ). Whether it's re-signing Wiz or picking up a vet via trade or UFA, it's not like we'd need to bring in a top-pair vet.  When asked about who helped them the most this year they all pointed to 35yo Liles.  And I'm not sure Faulk will be the guy to provide the type of leadership I want anyways.  Too many defensive lapses (for whatever reason) for my taste.  And his lack of shot blocking, which I view as a trait that maybe better indicates "desire" than any other, has leaped out at me over the last 2 years.   He seems to avoid giving up his body rather than sacrificing it, even at key times. I know that could be my own bias talking, so I looked at stats mid season to check my impression and Faulk was way below the other Canes d-men in shots blocked/ 60 minutes played (Slavin is an absolute beast when it comes to shot blocking!)  And then there's the statement Peters made about Hainsey mid year that actually reflected as much on Faulk: "He's been a nice calming influence on Justin when his game has gotten a little erratic. Ron has helped us settle him down when needed."  That statement wouldn't even have registered with me earlier in Faulk's career, but this is his 5th full season.  If he still needs settling down now I'm not sure he's going to be in a position to settle down others a year and a half from now.  Now, one positive I took from Faulk re leadership was the number of minutes he was putting in earlier in the year. Peters had started to cut back his ice time before he got hurt, but the first half of the season or so he was putting in what I'd call "stout minutes" (not "heroic").  

 

Ok, and once again I'm sure it looks like I'm tearing Faulk down.  All I can say is that it's not my intention. I'm just trying to explain my position and these are the things that are informing it.  

 

Btw, I really like the discussion this has generated.  Lots of good points with respect to different facets of the issue.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PK,

 

The analogy is more general about how hard it can be for teams to find a top 1C and the price they've paid for it. Arizona too. Teams that have not been able to find their 1C for years, and at least they believe it has hurt them, and kept them from success.

 

The fact that Eric only put up around 40ish points vs. at least 75 for the IC he was being paid to be, was a significant reason we didn't make the playoffs this year. All those OT losses. A pure 80 point forward would have brought a significant number of wins.

 

That said, I agree with your points too. This is not a slam dunk. We are better off w/ Faulk, especially next year. I have previously conceded that Faulk's points from the back end are important and though eventually they should come from Hanifin, Slavin, and even Fleury, we don't have that offense from anyone else. I have also conceded that the L/R issue is legit. Both Francis and Peters have mentioned it.

 

But looking down the line, if we can secure a potential elite 1C, it still might be worth it. Mainly because we have the guys in the pipeline to be elite and solid dmen, but not so much on the IC.

 

Ideally we can find  a way to do it without giving up a Faulk or a Fleury. But we are picking #13 as it is, and we probably aren't going into next year with Stamkos signed. So my question has been, where do we get that guy? (Assuming on my part that it is not a guy we already have).

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I could not disagree with this more. Faulk was putting up numbers comparable to Subban, Weber, Burns, Buff, and they are all making between $7-13 million per year. We are inevatibly going to have to shell out big money again. So for a budget team, the cheaper we can get good talent, the better. Faulk's actual cap hit is 4.8 aav.

As far as Matthews, it's being heavily speculated that Oiler's GM wants more proven players rather than draft picks. They are in search of a #1 right handed Dman. Some are saying if push comes to shove, they would give their 1st rounder for it.

 

I'm guessing that if so it would be protected.  I just can't see any GM putting himself on the hook for trading away a likely truly elite player. 

 

But you did make me think of another nice possibility: each of the 1st 3 picks are subject to the lottery this year, no? So even if when we don't get Matthews, we still have a shot at either Puljujarvi or Laine, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. We are a team that can't score goals. Faulk skates big minutes. While I admit he has the highest minus +/- of Dmen we have only one Dman posting a plus, Slavin with a +1. Our Dmen skate big minutes on a team that can't score goals of course they have less than ideal +/- ratings.

 

We have stated that we want to be a team with an active defense that contributes to the offense.

 

                   Games      G     Asst    Pts    PP Goals
Justin Faulk       64     16     21     37     12

Noah Hanifin     79     4     18     22      1

Jaccob Slavin    63     2     18     20      0

Ron Hainsey      81     5     14     19      0

Brett Pesce        69     4     12     16      1

Ryan Murphy     35     0     10     10      0  

 

Michal Jordan   36     1      0       1        0

           

I f you trade Faulk how do you replace him?How is your defense better. We do need a couple of quality forwards but with FA and all our draft choices to shop I would think that is the route we are taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OB, I don't think our defense is better without Faulk.  I do think our offense is more better with another top notch forward than our defense is worse without Faulk (if that makes any sense).  I expect scoring for the 3 wunder-yutes to increase notably from last year.  I expect Draisaitl (if he were to come our way) to at least maintain if not increase.  Edmonton is perceived as a much better offensive team than the Canes but they only put up 203 goals last season as compared to our 198.  And you note Faulk's negative +- but then you seem to mostly dismiss it's importance. To me, allowing a goal against that might have otherwise been stopped works out to be pretty much the same as scoring one for us. Is it possible that a big difference in perceptions is that you're weighting the defensive side of the equation much more than some of us who are considering it more in the context of what happens to our offense, as well? (serious question, not meant to be snarky)  I'm not expecting you to come over to the dark side, just trying to explain our perspective.  :devil:   

 

Games             Gms   G       A    Pts    PP G    +-   
Justin Faulk       64     16      21    37     12      -22

Wiz(2014-15)    69      8       26    34       7      -13

Draisaitl              72     19      32    51      5         -2

Duchene            76     30      29    59      8         -8

Noah Hanifin      79       4      18     22      1       -14 
Jaccob Slavin    63      2      18      20      0        +1
Ron Hainsey      81      5      14    19       0       -13 
Brett Pesce        69      4      12    16       1        -7

Liles(w/Canes)   64      6       9     15      1         -3
Ryan Murphy      35      0       10     10     0        -1

Michal Jordan    36      1          0       1      0       -5

 

(I added Liles for reference since he was a big part of our D last season)

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulk's goals are a legit issue. His assists, though, are not much better than our other guys. Faulk got a bit of puck luck early in the year, but he put up 15 goals last year too, so I'll give him those.

 

The frustrating thing to me is that I really think Faulk has the shut down ability. But does he have the mental focus and desire to get that done. Because if he does, he becomes elite. I've seen him do it in stretches. But not hitting or blocking shots....then having stretches of bad turnovers and turned inside out....

 

The guy has the talent.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Lake but I'm going to throw out Draisaitl and Duchene's numbers. Although I agree we need forwards with number like that we are talking (IMO) adding to our scoring without subtracting. I'm looking at out defense and how on earth we are better without Faulk. I say if we want Draisaitl or Duchene find another way to get them.

 

Faulk would of been a 20 goal D-man if he hadn't been hurt and probable had 40 points or more. I do have a tendency to dismiss +/- but agree it is an indicator.  But ask yourself if Faulk had a better partner and if our forwards scored goals wile he was on the ice wouldn't you think his +/- would of been better.  Skate him second pair and that stat would go up but then who would be top pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...