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

How About Now? Would You Trade Justin Faulk?

How About Now? Now Would You Trade Justin Faulk?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you trade Justin Faulk right now? Assuming the return is a forward with top line scoring potential.

    • Strong Yes
      3
    • Yes
      14
    • Don't know. Just can't decide.
      5
    • No.
      5
    • Strong No.
      4


Recommended Posts

This seems to be a topic that keeps popping up. So here's a place to discuss.

 

I was going to just re bump Lake's excellent April poll on this. But we can't re-set polls, and I think it would be interesting to see if people have changed on this. So I am reprising that Lake poll.

 

At the end of the season last year, 38% favored trading Faulk if we could get Draisaitl or Duchene. For the record, both are high end centers, with Draisaitl at just under 60 point pace, and Duchene at 68 point pace so far this year.

 

I am not proposing those specific players, but them or roughly equivalent players: around 25 or younger, proven producers.

 

So, how about now? If the deal were there, and you were GM, would you trade Faulk now?

 

Why or why not?

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For quite some time, actually back several years ago when I took a great deal of flack for questioning his immaturity, I've not been impressed with Faulk. All things are relative though, and without doubt, his meteoric scoring prowess for the brief early part of last year undoubtedly masked his defensive liabilities. Unless their is some lingering injury which is being hidden, more and more, I've noticed an inability to hold the point on PP, becoming very problematic. As several are mentioning, his passing also leaves a lot to be desired.

 

From much earlier in the season, I'd agreed, that with the growing maturation of our D corps, including those in Charlotte, a trade while he's apparently still viewed as a top D, should be strongly considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer to the thesis question is a strong yes, though I (respectfully) reject the justifications for each response. I think the point of these polls is to promote discussion. Pre-ordained justifications attach rationales that the respondents might not hold, and can actually chill, rather than promote, discussion IMO.

 

For me, you move Faulk for a 65-point forward if he can bring you one, because you want a 65-point forward. I don't think he's too big a defensive liability if he is used properly, as a 5-6 with limited PK and (for now) no PP time, until he is physically/mentally prepared to meet the challenges of those roles and the additional minutes they represent.

 

Some will call me crazy and say a 5-6 doesn't typically net you a top-three forward, but a D-starved team could easily see him as a 1-2, around which they can build--especially given our demonstrated success in doing just that. 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken top. I've removed the little comments after. People can provide they're own justifications. But I do ask that people vote. Even if you don't want to enter the discussion.

 

Also, I know it's "here we go again" topic that won't die. But like with a certain other topic that seems to keep popping up in French speaking places, this allows people to keep the discussion in one place and those that don't want in, can just pass by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said no, but the reason is I don't think his value is high right now.  If we were going to trade him, we should have traded him when his value was high.

 

If I am mistaken and his value is high, and GMRF can get a high return my vote is instead yes.

 

(Crap, I didn't see the 65 point forward qualifier)

Edited by hag65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, remkin said:

At the end of the season last year, 38% favored trading Faulk if we could get Draisaitl or Duchene.

 

For completeness sake: 38% were for a trade, 48% were against, and 14% were unsure.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Faulk is a defensive liability, or a middle or bottom pairing d-man (and many have expressed that), then you shouldn't vote at all because middle and bottom pairing d-men don't bring back 65-point forwards.  Or I guess you could if you are into pipe dreams.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add that the issue of Jordan Staal out could be significant. So much depends on how bad the concussion was. I am purely guessing here, but since is was caused by a stick to the helmet vs a shoulder or the ice, and since he did not lose consciousness or fall to the ground, I am hoping it is a shorter term thing.

 

If not, it would be a major piece of luck for this team, already a bit thin at center, to be able to play through this and not lose pace with the playoff cut line.

 

It has been noted that Francis has, to this point, been extremely stingy with giving up young players, prospects or picks in trades. I suspect Francis thinks our future 3C might be Roy, and don't forget Kuokannen who looks really good. Then we hope Gauthier is another serious NHL point getter. But those guys are two years off and probably 3 years from serious contributions.

 

So, for the sake of argument, lets just say that Faulk, or Faulk "plus", could bring back Matt Duchene (no way do we get Draisaitl). We immediately replace or even upgrade J now, and when J comes back we go from relatively weak down the middle, to pretty dang strong. A 40 point 3C is top box by a good bit. And Rask is at least that. Duchene, Jordan, Rask? And Duchene is only 25. So as our other guys work there way in, what a nice place to be. Gauthier is a winger, and I bet Kuokanen could play wing. And Roy could be a phenomenal 4th line center for a while. It could work long term too.

 

When I look out 2-3 years I wonder how our 1C will stack up. I love Rask, and he's definitely playing up to it now, but I love him more as more of a 2-3C.

 

My big question on this type of deal is this. While we are seeing weaknesses in Faulk's game, is he still not way ahead of his replacement? And what happens if we have more injuries on RHD? I know that Francis does not want to bring McKeown up yet ideally. Is it too soon for this defense to try to play without Faulk? Perhaps the solid play of Tennyson opens the door for it?

 

Because down the line, with Fleury, McKeown, Bean, Carrick. We have some very high end propspects for next year and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit - I started typing this before Coastal's post, but i agree with his sentiment - that's why i'm not voting at this time.  How to my regularly-scheduled post...

 

To the surprise of absolutely no-one i would vote strong yes - if i truly thought there was a snowball's chance at getting a '65 point forward with similar age'.  Only i don't think it could be pulled off.  20 forwards had 65 or more points last season. 'Similar age' - is 3 years either way a safe description of similar age?  Then of those 20 forwards you're down to Benn, Gaudreau, Panarin, Kuznetsov, Tarasenko, Seguin, Tavares, Kucherov, Hall.  I'll be a good guy and pro-rate in Stamkos, Scheifele, Stone, O'Reilly, Barkov, and McDavid, all of whom were on 65-or-more paces but didn't put in the full 82 games to get there.  15 guys.  Think throwing Faulk out as bait will reel in too many of those 14?  I doubt it.  Might have brought in Hall over the summer.  Now?  Strongly doubt it.  But if it could be done?  Hell yeah i'd pull the trigger.  Skinner! is on pace for 74 this season.  Rask is close, on pace for 63.  Last time we had anyone on pace for 65-or-higher?  The lockout year when Sasha/Eric/Tlusty caught lightning in a bottle.  Time before that?  Eric's 76 points in 2010 (fun fact - if Leighton keeps at his pace he can hit 61 points, presuming he plays every remaining game).  If we could bring in a 65-point forward, no matter which position, he's straight to the top 2 lines and causes a trickle-down that makes every other line stronger as well.

 

2 seasons ago Faulk had 49 points.  Last season 37 - pro-rate that to a full 82 games and he'd have been at 47.  This season?  Pro-rated to 82 games he's on pace for 30.  And a mere 4 PPGs.  I said multiple times before that his value will never again be as high as it was last deadline and/or over this past summer.  I'm going to go on a limb and say it's already started dropping.  Not completely - he's still a 2-time All-Star with a howitzer in a league that covets All-Stars with howitzers.  But i don't think he brings in a 65-point forward.

 

So that out of the way, would i trade Faulk for less than a 65-pointer of similar age.  Yes - if the return is still good.  I don't trade him for Eric Fehr.  I do trade him for Claude Giroux who is too old to fit the original critera (though again no way we get Giroux for him either).  I still trade him for Leon Draisaitl, even though he's still under that 65-point pace.  All depends on the return - but if i think it an improvement, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, he's completely killed his trade value in 20ish games this year?  The way opinions are around here, it's surprising that we haven't had somebody suggesting just to put him on waivers.

 

He's a legit, top 4 RHD.  He is not a bottom pairing guy.  He is signed for 3 more years at a friendly cap hit of $4.8M.  I would be willing to bet that Francis would have no problems making a quality trade, but these type of deals hardly ever happen during the season.  I have been thinking that he would be moved this coming summer if the other young guys keep improving.  My vote is the same here as it would be with anybody on the team.  If it makes the team better, make a trade.  That doesn't fit any of the poll answers, so I can't answer the poll.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

If you think Faulk is a defensive liability, or a middle or bottom pairing d-man (and many have expressed that), then you shouldn't vote at all because middle and bottom pairing d-men don't bring back 65-point forwards.  Or I guess you could if you are into pipe dreams.

 

I agree that the return issue may be a bit murky right now. How is he viewed by other GM's. And of course mainly by other GM's who would A. Be in a position to make a trade now, B. Have the right guy for us C. make that deal?

 

I really don't have a feel for it. I think that RHD that can provide offense are generally in demand. Faulk still logs big minutes, a sign that the coach still thinks he's good. But he's at the bottom of the team list for +/- (I know, I know, but it is there for viewing).

 

I just don't think Francis pulls the trigger on moving Faulk unless the return is right. Even though it might still be worth considering given Jordan's recent injury and still generally not making enough goals to make the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

edit - I started typing this before Coastal's post, but i agree with his sentiment - that's why i'm not voting at this time.  How to my regularly-scheduled post...

 

To the surprise of absolutely no-one i would vote strong yes - if i truly thought there was a snowball's chance at getting a '65 point forward with similar age'.  Only i don't think it could be pulled off.  20 forwards had 65 or more points last season. 'Similar age' - is 3 years either way a safe description of similar age?  Then of those 20 forwards you're down to Benn, Gaudreau, Panarin, Kuznetsov, Tarasenko, Seguin, Tavares, Kucherov, Hall.  I'll be a good guy and pro-rate in Stamkos, Scheifele, Stone, O'Reilly, Barkov, and McDavid, all of whom were on 65-or-more paces but didn't put in the full 82 games to get there.  15 guys.  Think throwing Faulk out as bait will reel in too many of those 14?  I doubt it.  Might have brought in Hall over the summer.  Now?  Strongly doubt it.  But if it could be done?  Hell yeah i'd pull the trigger.  Skinner! is on pace for 74 this season.  Rask is close, on pace for 63.  Last time we had anyone on pace for 65-or-higher?  The lockout year when Sasha/Eric/Tlusty caught lightning in a bottle.  Time before that?  Eric's 76 points in 2010 (fun fact - if Leighton keeps at his pace he can hit 61 points, presuming he plays every remaining game).  If we could bring in a 65-point forward, no matter which position, he's straight to the top 2 lines and causes a trickle-down that makes every other line stronger as well.

 

2 seasons ago Faulk had 49 points.  Last season 37 - pro-rate that to a full 82 games and he'd have been at 47.  This season?  Pro-rated to 82 games he's on pace for 30.  And a mere 4 PPGs.  I said multiple times before that his value will never again be as high as it was last deadline and/or over this past summer.  I'm going to go on a limb and say it's already started dropping.  Not completely - he's still a 2-time All-Star with a howitzer in a league that covets All-Stars with howitzers.  But i don't think he brings in a 65-point forward.

 

So that out of the way, would i trade Faulk for less than a 65-pointer of similar age.  Yes - if the return is still good.  I don't trade him for Eric Fehr.  I do trade him for Claude Giroux who is too old to fit the original critera (though again no way we get Giroux for him either).  I still trade him for Leon Draisaitl, even though he's still under that 65-point pace.  All depends on the return - but if i think it an improvement, of course.

 

Every poll has a weakness. If I'd have said Draistail or Duchene like the last one, people would say they'd never trade those guys. 

 

I am talking about 65 goal POTENTIAL. That list is much bigger. That is guys who have done it in years past or been close and young enough to project it on them (like Draisaitl was this offeseason). I will change the wording. The point is a first line forward. So let me change the wording a bit, then you can vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, remkin said:

 

Every poll has a weakness. If I'd have said Draistail or Duchene like the last one, people would say they'd never trade those guys. 

 

I am talking about 65 goal POTENTIAL. That list is much bigger. That is guys who have done it in years past or been close and young enough to project it on them (like Draisaitl was this offeseason). I will change the wording. The point is a first line forward. So let me change the wording a bit, then you can vote.

 

 

No need for all that - i know where you're coming from on it.  The simple answer is that if i'm the GM i'm going to make any trade that i think makes my team better.  I'm not a fan of Faulk - everyone in this forum knows that - but i'm only going to trade him if i think it makes my team better,  Just like any other player - i'm going to trade them if i think it makes my team better.  I don't covet Faulk like many do - personally i not only hold 74 and 22 in higher esteem, but probably also 26 - but that doesn't mean i'm going to trade Faulk for a bag of pucks or roll him to the waiver wire.  I'll say this, though - if i could trade him for a solid stay-at-home 2nd-pair defenseman plus a forward with 40-50 point upside, i'm definitely raising my eyebrows at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a good player for Faulk.  I know it's a pipe dream but send Faulk to the Jets for Laine.  I would be sold on that proposition.  That is just a pipe dream though.  Right?  A 6 foot 5 Finn that can score.  Man I wish we tanked last season and got him!  The leafs are also desperate for a d man.  Someone like Nylander or Marner rings a bell.  Matthews would be a pipe dream.  Bottom line:  The return needs to be a great young forward that will be cheap for the next 3 - 4 seasons due to ELC and us also being a small market budget conscious team.  A trade with the Leafs might not be so bad of an idea come to think of it.....

Edited by bluedevil58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's way too early to conclusively state that Faulk's trade value will never be higher than it has already been. There's simply no way of knowing that, and D tend to hit their stride in their later 20s.

 

I also don't think he's a 5-6 guy, but do think something is happening with his game that playing seven less minutes per night and getting some time away from the pressure of the PP and PK would probably help speed the correction of.

 

That being said, if a Dallas or Arizona or Colorado or Vancouver is worried about their huge goal differentials and Faulk (with maybe Murphy thrown in) can bring us back a top-three forward, whether a center or otherwise, I think it's a hard opportunity to ignore--but I also think the org thinks about it differently than any of us on this board. To wit:

 

Prior to his injury last year Faulk was a bonafide offensive force. I doubt anyone on this board (including realm) wouldn't keep him if he could bring that offensive upside every night. My guess is that the org believes he'll get back to that level, and that his deal, his loyalty to the org during what shall henceforth be referred to as "the lost years," and the overall strength (and future) of the broader D, means he'll get every chance to do so.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, super_dave_1 said:

So, he's completely killed his trade value in 20ish games this year?  The way opinions are around here, it's surprising that we haven't had somebody suggesting just to put him on waivers.

 

He's a legit, top 4 RHD.  He is not a bottom pairing guy.  He is signed for 3 more years at a friendly cap hit of $4.8M.  I would be willing to bet that Francis would have no problems making a quality trade, but these type of deals hardly ever happen during the season.  I have been thinking that he would be moved this coming summer if the other young guys keep improving.  My vote is the same here as it would be with anybody on the team.  If it makes the team better, make a trade.  That doesn't fit any of the poll answers, so I can't answer the poll.

 

 

 

I don't think he killed his trade value, I just think it was higher last season and I would prefer to buy low sell high.  I think he is a 3/4 pairing defensive DMan with 1/2 pairing scoring ceiling but apparently his scoring floor is low too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the question while the Polls are open?  I'd like a recount before you certify the results.  Is there a fee for that?

 

As for Faulk, the problem is fixable.  IMO he needs to make better decisions with the puck and increase his effort.  That means getting off the PP and looking at film of him waving at Nash last night.  Compare it with 3 or 4 years ago and his work vs Ovechkin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Manwolf said:

Changing the question while the Polls are open?  I'd like a recount before you certify the results.  Is there a fee for that?

 

 

Its crazy expensive in Wisconsin. But here it's cheap:

 

Half of my moderator pay.:grin:

 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no but will qualify it. I do believe under the right circumstance any player can be traded. But the poll says now and for a high end forward.  We need a scoring forward but not at the expense of our defense that RF has worked hard to fix. With the emergence of Slavin and Pesce I think Faulk has become an object for comparison. But he still skates big minutes. He still is a top 1st or 2nd pair D-man, He has a big shot on a team that looks for D contributions.

 

 Hainsey will be a UFA at the end of the season, trade Faulk for a top end forward and you are left without a top or 2nd pairing D combination. Our prospects appear to be good and developing but they are still prospects who are untested at the NHL level. Faulk may be a veteran player but he is still young. If you trade Faulk you better know where you are filling the hole because there is going to be one.

 

Nobody is UN-tradable but I would think long and hard before giving up on Faulk, especially for a forward. A couple of seasons ago many would of traded Skinner. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted not sure, here's why:

 

I believe this off-season  we could make a serious splash in the trade market. Cap space and a expansion draft will force hands from Anaheim, Winnipeg, Tampa, and Columbus to trade guys they normally wouldn't.  We could get a couple of good forwards, like Palat, because teams don't want to lose their players for nothing.  We have organizational depth and picks to make it work and the thought of losing players for nothing will lower the price.  I know next year is always the year but we may be really good next year.  Having Faulk back there will make us better.

 

Our D is decent but none of Slavin, Pesce, or Hanafin are 1st line ready yet. Adding a 60+ point forward would be great but our goal differential might not go up as much as we would like.

 

i would like to see GMRF push on Winnipeg and Anaheim to get one of their younger forwards they can't protect in the draft, now.  We will pay more now than in May but at our current state it is in our best interest.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather see us trade Jordan love him but I bet there is some team out there that needs what he provides that has a more offensive scoring type forward   He's great I know shutdown faceoffs creating plays etcc stilll.   Or lack does he have any value? Trading Faulk just doesn't seem smart especially now.  Maybe I'm ready to be done with the staal family but I'd pick him or lack to trade before Faulk. 

Ok fine I just said trade Jordan to fire   Up poeple but lack I would trade in a second.  Faulk. No way.  

Edited by caryhurricanes
Having fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is the part that says "right now".  I was a strong "yes" in the previous poll because I perceive a big imbalance between the Canes offensive and defensive depth going forward, you have to give to get, and frankly, I perceived Faulk as being somewhat overrated at the time given his defensive lapses.  But that assumed RF would have time to make adjustments to the D to compensate for the loss of Faulk.  When I say "compensate" I don't mean I expected him to land an equivalent replacement, rather someone who could hold down the fort for a year or so as our AHL yutes simmer a bit.  Like, maybe one James Wisnewski.  But given what I've seen so far this year I think the team does have the potential to compete for a playoff spot.  So it's a matter of timing for me at this point.  If RF can plug in a right shot Dman who can hold down a 2nd pair spot then I'm all for picking up a legit 1st line forward.  But if not, maybe it's best to wait until the playoff picture for the Canes becomes much more clear. 

 

As others mentioned, I'm also a bit concerned with how much Faulk's value might have dropped since the last poll.  Faulk's history suggests that his scoring will return, but will we get the return we want before that happens? But the question makes the assumption that we will, so I'll ignore that.  I'm going to also assume RF can come up with another serviceable R shot d-man (anyone from Charlotte have that potential at this point?).  I definitely think such a trade would be in our best long term interest.  I don't know what net effect it would have on the rest of this season.  Of course we'd miss Faulk on D.  But who knows how much of an impact another legit 1st line forward would have in the other direction? I think that could have a ripple effect throughout our forward ranks.  All things considered, I'm going with a cautious "yes". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, caryhurricanes said:

Or lack does he have any value?

 

 

Now that's someone we wouldn't get more than a bag of pucks for even if he weren't on IR.  I'd wager to say every one of us would trade him for a top-line forward; problem is no GM in his right mind is going to offer a top-liner for a goaltender with Lack's credentials.

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...