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

How many 2-1 losses do we have now?  Tons of 1 goal losses too.  Cam's quality of play isn't sustainable .   You can't expect to win 2-1 or 1-0 every night.

Edited by bluedevil58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We currently have 23 members voted. I think that is enough to unpin this discussion and let it find it's own level  based on interest.

 

Personally I do think this make interesting conjecture, because it just appears that we are still a bit short of the offense-pushing skill at speed in our forward ranks, while having at least two, maybe more, blue chip D prospects in the system. That, and Faulk's game not overwhelming people, the notion that his trade value might be high, all execerbated by the loss of Jordan, and our relative need for at least a 3C, at least raises the question legitimately.

 

Further, for a team without money concerns, that at least needs to be aware of the cap, Faulk's contract looks good. It was backloaded, so while he'll be making 5.5 million and $6 million, his cap hit will be only $4.8 million.

 

The results to date: Would you trade Faulk now for a top line forward:

 

Yes/Strong Yes: 52%

No/Strong No: 26%

Not sure: 22%

 

Since one likely does not actually pull the trigger unless one thinks yes or strong yes, we really have basically a tie in terms of those who would make the move 52% vs those who probably would not: 48%.

 

That makes this a very legit topic for both sides of the argument.

 

With all trade proposals it is the return that frames the debate, and this one was deliberately vague.

 

I found an article looking at a Faulk for Draisaitl trade from the Oiler's side of the deal. They were open to it.  If that deal was there for us? I'd lament losing it. Draisaitl is on a 65 point pace, and just getting started. He'd be a 1C on just about any team not sporting Conner McDavid. With the Hall - Larsen deal, and the Oil winning and Draisatil on a tear, that ship has passed. And it probably was not actually there to begin with.

 

But if a deal like that is out there? I'd do it. There is a risk for sure. But we gotta get that talent upfront somehow. The talent on the back seems to be there and more of it coming.

 

That's just my two cents. That, and Ron Francis's opinion gets  you there.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, remkin said:

Yes/Strong Yes: 52%

No/Strong No: 26%

Not sure: 22%

 

Since one likely does not actually pull the trigger unless one thinks yes or strong yes, we really have basically a tie in terms of those who would make the move 52% vs those who probably would not: 48%.

 

Sorry rem, I've got to disagree with your "tie" assessment.  I think you've got to view the "unsures" as neutral rather than against a trade. I suspect some of those votes might have had to do with questions about poll parameters like whether it's realistic to expect the return postulated or the timing.  Others might have had a hard time choosing without knowing any specifics; who knows what they might have chosen if, say, a Duchene was actually on the table. 

 

From my perspective, member sentiment has changed significantly from the original poll last spring, to the tune of 2-1 in favor of the hypothetical trade.  Not that I think that means much; I recall that we were collectively ready to kick Ward to the curb after his first 3 games of the season. :P

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

 

Sorry rem, I've got to disagree with your "tie" assessment.  I think you've got to view the "unsures" as neutral rather than against a trade. I suspect some of those votes might have had to do with questions about poll parameters like whether it's realistic to expect the return postulated or the timing.  Others might have had a hard time choosing without knowing any specifics; who knows what they might have chosen if, say, a Duchene was actually on the table. 

 

From my perspective, member sentiment has changed significantly from the original poll last spring, to the tune of 2-1 in favor of the hypothetical trade.  Not that I think that means much; I recall that we were collectively ready to kick Ward to the curb after his first 3 games of the season. :P

 

 I thought that one might be controversial. I suspect you're at least partly right. I'm assuming that if you're not sure you don't pull the trigger on your first blockbuster trade, but the return is likely indeed part of the maybe's and some of them could be convinced one way or the other rather than all being "no"'s. 

 

I think there definitely is a strong lean to trading him. But it is far from universal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty clear there's been a change in sentiment.  I voted to remain neutral but that's a change from my previous thoughts in the last poll,  But I do have some of the same concerns over replacing a defenseman who plays that many minutes. 

 

Even as staunch of a supporter of Faulk as I have been, it's pretty obvious he isn't the same player he was before the Malone injury.   Not saying that injury has anything to do with his play, it's just a timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think he's the game changing trade a few people think he is and I don't even think he's worth the mediocre trade most of us think he is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the big question. What kind of return would there be? What kind of offers were out there? At best we'll get rumors. Word is that Francis is actively shopping Murphy, speaking of low return, but I wonder what kind of interest there was or is in Faulk. Was Faulk for Taylor Hall offered? It's been speculated that is was and Francis wanted more, but that is pure speculation. Could be they wanted to give us RHN and he tried to get more. Could be none of that was offered.

 

There is still the issue that our defensive depth is really still at least a year away too. Faulk was given the A, and at least early on a ton of playing time. To me that is an indication that the coach, at least, thought he was one of our best. He's been an All Star (ok, a nod and a wink All Star) but still. He's Righty which adds some value. He has a decent cap hit (if you like him as a player).

 

But other teams watch film, and see his team-worst plus-minus, and even if that is a wonky stat, there he sits at the bottom of the team at -10, telling or not, it certainly doesn't help. The other thing on a trade is that it's not just a matter of some GM liking  Faulk's potential for offense, and RH'd ness, and All Star status and giving a return, no it has to be a GM looking to make a move, who needs or wants an offensive D man. Most teams that are in the top half aren't looking to trade at all, and others who might are also looking for offense.

 

To me, if Faulk would return a top line forward with some years of tread left on the tires, I'd make that move. But it may be true that he would no longer fetch that. In that case, I'd move to the unsure category also. Players can come around again (see Skinner). More to the point I'm quite sure that Francis would not move Faulk for a weak return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could add some interest:

 

Avs, D man Eric Johnson out for 6-8 weeks.

 

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2016/12/03/avs-d-man-johnson-suffers-broken-fibula-out-six-to-eight-weeks/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs&yptr=yahoo

 

The Avs have been a speculated trade partner, mostly around Duchenne. They are reeling even worse than us, having lost 5 in a row. They are dead last in the West and already 7 points out of a playoff spot. Johnson is a RHD, who puts up some points for them. They were struggling with him, they will be really challenged without him. Might they be ready for a shake up trade? Doubt they trade Duchene for Faulk straight up, but we could sweeten the pot.

 

With Johnson out, they need RHD help. With J out, we need center help. When J comes back we'd go from a bit thin down the middle to very very good. Duchene makes offense happen, he has 14 pts in 19 games: 60 point pace.

 

If we went Duchene-Staal-Rask down the middle? We are instantly strong. It also lets us move a weaker winger down and out.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

I think it's pretty clear there's been a change in sentiment.  I voted to remain neutral but that's a change from my previous thoughts in the last poll,  But I do have some of the same concerns over replacing a defenseman who plays that many minutes. 

 

Even as staunch of a supporter of Faulk as I have been, it's pretty obvious he isn't the same player he was before the Malone injury.   Not saying that injury has anything to do with his play, it's just a timeline.

I'm not sure the injury isn't a factor. The more I watch him the more I think he's hampered, whether by some actual lingering issue or mental doubt of his ability to make given plays. His consistent failure to back peddle to create space on the blue line prior to shooting, something he did to a fare-thee-well prior the injury, is the most obvious thing; he seems able only to load up and let fly. But whether injury-related or not, something's clearly not right--and of course if we know that, any prospective trading partner is going to know it, too. 

 

That's why I've been pushing a Faulk-Murphy-Lack package. I doubt anything less than players which help the trading partner's entire back end (versus one slot), given the players we can offer, brings back the kind of offensive talent we need. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, remkin said:

This could add some interest:

 

Avs, D man Eric Johnson out for 6-8 weeks.

 

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2016/12/03/avs-d-man-johnson-suffers-broken-fibula-out-six-to-eight-weeks/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs&yptr=yahoo

 

The Avs have been a speculated trade partner, mostly around Duchenne. They are reeling even worse than us, having lost 5 in a row. They are dead last in the West and already 7 points out of a playoff spot. Johnson is listed as a RHD. Might they be ready for a shake up trade? Doubt they trade Duchene for Faulk straight up, but we could sweeten the pot.

 

With Johnson out, they need RHD help. With J out, we need center help. When J comes back we'd go from a bit thin down the middle to very very good.

If that deal is there, you have to make it, IMO.

 

And at the risk of repeating myself, Faulk/Murph/Lack for Duchene and their veteran AHL goalie, Jeremy Smith, helps both teams--although I don't know if they're willing to let go of Duchene now, given his current status as their pretty much lone offensive light.

 

Patrick Roy: the first rat off the ship. Great goalie, but what a classhole.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the deal would have to be to pry Duchene loose, but so long as we don't give up any key pieces, we would be instantly strong up front, and really set there for a while, since Duchene is only 25. This would be a move for the future as well as now. I think this would push us back into the playoff race eventually. We need to get through this current schedule from hell stretch, but we would have the firepower to climb back in.

 

I'm thinking it might take Faulk plus our first rounder. I'm Colorado looking at our place in the standing and thinking, "if we flame out this year, we'll probably get two high first rounders next year, and Faulk." I'm just speculating here, but I'm thinking maybe that would get it done. Problem with that, of course, is that Francis is in full on draft and develop mode still, and not likely to part with a first rounder.

 

Here's the thing though. IF we do climb back in, that will be a mid round pick, and we will have a proven elite scoring 1C, something it is hard to find, even with a high first round pick, and one piece I'm having trouble seeing us get in the future too. And we have a bunch of good prospects now, which could lessen the blow of losing a pick. I'm kicking the tires, not sure I'd do it, but might.

 

Would anyone pull the trigger on Faulk plus our first rounder for Duchene? Too much? What would we add if not that?

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you even followed the Av's?

 

Mackinnon isn't getting traded.  From there they have Duchene and then a big drop off to Landeskog, and from there it's pretty pitiful.  The Av's can't deal a forward from a position of strength.  They are absolutely awful and would be even worse trading Duchene for Faulk, even if we added.

 

Not happening.

 

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


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

Have any of you even followed the Av's?

 

Mackinnon isn't getting traded.  From there they have Duchene and then a big drop off to Landeskog, and from there it's pretty pitiful.  The Av's can't deal a forward from a position of strength.  They are absolutely awful and would be even worse trading Duchene for Faulk, even if we added.

 

Not happening.

You know Landeskog has been out, though, and is expected to return any day, right? I'd take Landeskog over Duchene if they'd give him up, but since he's their Captain I doubt it would happen.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, remkin said:

 Could be they wanted to give us RHN and he tried to get more

 

 

GM Realm reaches for the phone as we speak.

 

 

14 minutes ago, remkin said:

Doubt they trade Duchene for Faulk straight up, but we could sweeten the pot.

 

 

I can't imagine they would either, but depending on the sweetener, yow.  Yes, if we trade Faulk, we're losing a big-minute eater and have to fill that hole.  But guess what?  We don't have to fill the hole with a defenseman who consistently sits at the bottom of his team in +/-, has difficulties holding the zone (note i'm not blind to his better moments and i did mention in chat yesterday that he did a great job at holding the point on one play, but it's still the exception way more than it is the rule), and suffers from a major lack of backcheck hustle (there was one time in particular yesterday on the PP where the Rags cleared the zone and he sunday-drove his way back despite a hustling Rags penalty killer who would have won the battle if not for the other guy [Hanifin?] seeing the urgency to get back).  We have a couple yutes i wouldn't mind seeing get the chance, and if not, hello Dahl-ly.

Share this post


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

Have any of you even followed the Av's?

 

Mackinnon isn't getting traded.  From there they have Duchene and then a big drop off to Landeskog, and from there it's pretty pitiful.  The Av's can't deal a forward from a position of strength.  They are absolutely awful and would be even worse trading Duchene for Faulk, even if we added.

 

Not happening.

 

 

Honestly i don't see it happening either, without some major sweetener and that sweetener being a forward to fill the gap.  Top's Faulk-Murphy-Lack package is intriguing, but it's not going to work on Colorado.  A Faulk-Lindholm-Lack package, maybe (though i'd even doubt that).

Share this post


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

GM Realm reaches for the phone as we speak.

Yeah, I'd be stunned if RF hasn't been on the phone already. 

 

I get coastal's point about them not giving up MacKinnon (or Duchene) but they're really not in a position where they have many options. They've gotta give something to get something.

 

That said, I do think Landsekog could be a possibility. Faulk would get them through until Johnson returns, at which point he becomes a marked upgrade for their D, which is really, really young, and thin. Even Murph would look good on that blue line, and those two for Landeskog would lets them put the C on Duchene. From our standpoint, it provides instant chemistry (Skinner and Landeskog played together at Kitchener). Throw in Lack even-up for Jeremy Smith, and we've replaced Leights in CLT with a similarly veteran (and highly regarded) AHL keeper--and one who is still looking for his NHL shot.

 

Faulk/Murph/Lack for Landeskog and Jeremy Smith would benefit both teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a long shot. The fact that the Avs are so anemic up front is part of why I didn't make this poll based on getting Duchene. But there has been a lot of smoke around Duchene not fitting with the Avs, at least in the recent past. And now with the loss of Johnson they need help there. But the point about how bad they might get without Duchene is what led me to speculate about a first rounder. Maybe, with Johnson out, and already 7 points back of a tough Western conference, they are seeing that they aren't making it this year, and can live with getting really bad if that happened. If they want Duchene out for some reason. They'd get Faulk, they'd get their very high first rounder and our possibly high first rounder (as it stands, pre lottery, they'd get the #1 and #5 picks next year, and Faulk). They'd also get a bit of extra cap space.

 

It would be a tough sell to the fan base, so I agree it's very unlikely, but the injury to Johnson and the frustration with the season to date seemed to at least make it somewhat interesting to consider.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Faulk goes, RF rebuild turns into win now mode, not against it, but i think Faulk turns into another great one, we let get away... Just a  hunch..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Faulk/Murph/Lack for Landeskog and Jeremy Smith would benefit both teams.

 

 

If there were really a chance they would do that i'd certainly be doing a lot of thinking and pen-clicking..  I do still think they'd want a forward in the package instead of Murphy, though, even if it's only a forward of 'warm-body' caliber.

 

 

5 minutes ago, remkin said:

But the point about how bad they might get without Duchene is what led me to speculate about a first rounder.

 

 

If the Hurricanes had a second 1st-round pick again this year, this would be another pen-clicker.  If it could be done for Faulk + one of our 2nds, i'd be reaching for the phone.  Our only 1st, gonna have to sleep on that one.  I don't think GMRF even considers doing it for one of the 2nds, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point in these hypothetical trade discussions if there is an expectation of getting a 60-65 point proven offensive producer (which don't grow on trees) you are going to have to give up more than Faulk and/or spare parts.

 

Something around Hanifin might be closer to getting a return like that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a valid point dinz. Whatever is off in Faulk's game could come back. But I would only point out that if somehow a deal could be found, Duchene and Faulk are similar in age (24/25) and have similar contracts, though admittedly Faulk is locked in for 4 more years, and Duchene for 3 more years.

 

At 25, Duchene should have quite a few good years left in him is all. Francis would have to see him as at least a medium-term piece to consider it from our end.

 

The deal probably doesn't happen, but when I look out at how Francis plans to make us a perennial cup contender, the one piece that it is hard to see him finding is the top line center, then perhaps top goalie. The rest of the pieces, even without Faulk, look to be there in the pipeline. Many experts claim you have to have that IC and some teams have chased that guy for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dinz said:

If Faulk goes, RF rebuild turns into win now mode, not against it, but i think Faulk turns into another great one, we let get away... Just a  hunch..

I disagree. I see it as an acknowledgment that we're not getting what we thought we might from Aho and TT. We're not, and while I think we can with the right guys in the middle, Jordan's injury has only magnified it. We need a proven center to fill that gap, and I agree with Rem that once J comes back, it makes us crazy good down the middle. The Avs are in the same situation on the back end: Their D is too thin of proven talent. Faulk fills the gap created by Johnson and adding Murph only adds value for a team in their shoes. When Johnson returns their D is suddenly much better than it was.

 

This is a win-win. 

Share this post


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

If there were really a chance they would do that i'd certainly be doing a lot of thinking and pen-clicking..  I do still think they'd want a forward in the package instead of Murphy, though, even if it's only a forward of 'warm-body' caliber.

I'd be fine with both. We've clearly determined that Murphy is not a fit for us. So include him and add a PDG or Nesty or McGinn, if that's what it takes to shake Landeskog (or MacKinnon or Duchene) loose.

 

7 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

Something around Hanifin might be closer to getting a return like that.

That's not gonna happen. Beggars can't be choosers, and right now, between the two teams, the Avs, with five straight losses and just losing their top D man, are the beggars in this situation, IMO. 

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...