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

 

35 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

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. 

 

Well, I could say the same thing about every one of the trade proposals I've read here so far.  That's what happens when trade proposals move back and forth between the hypothetical and the real world.

 

I've been following the Av situation for weeks and their fan GM's are perfectly happy with Hanifin or Slavin for Duchene, and they think that's fair value.  There fans expect a #1 stud D-man or a player they expect to be a #1D in the not to distant future in return, and that's not Faulk based upon what I'm reading here.  And realistically Murphy has no value in a hypothetical trade for Duchene.  So, the discussion then has to turn to Hanifin or Slavin.

 

As far as beggars, that's really funny considering......but I see the point.

 

With that said, it does sound like the core there in Colorado may need to be shaken up, and Duchene is a good target.  I highly doubt RF is going to be throwing out our first rounder to complete a trade, it just doesn't seem to fit his philosophy of a rebuild.

 

I don't see a trade with Colorado happening now that involves their existing core, Sakic would appear to be throwing in the towel, and there are going to be teams looking for that one last piece at the trade deadline and willing to give more of the moon to get there.  If he's a competent GM, he waits.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


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

I've been following the Av situation for weeks and their fan GM's are perfectly happy with Hanifin or Slavin for Duchene, and they think that's fair value.  There fans expect a #1 stud D-man or a player they expect to be a #1D in the not to distant future in return, and that's not Faulk based upon what I'm reading here.  And realistically Murphy has no value in a hypothetical trade for Duchene.  So, the discussion then has to turn to Hanifin or Slavin.

 

It's amazing how things can change so much so quickly.  If you'd have inferred that Hanifin or Slavin had more trade value than Faulk a year ago, people would have thought you were downright certifiable. :blink::dizzy:.

 

But just to inject something uplifting into this thread, how big was our "raffle ticket" win with Slavin?  4th round, #120 overall, and with regard to trades, he's become one of the most untouchable Canes we've got going forward, at least in my mind.      

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good point Lake. Slavin is a beast.

 

In my mind Slavin and Hanifin are about as close to untouchable as we have. While Hanifin is not there yet, he's only 19 in a league where it takes most D men at least to 23-24 to figure it out. To my (admittedly non expert eye) Hanifin is notably better than last year and he oozes the skill and has the size and skating that once he gets it put together will be special. More special then Duchene probably.

 

In the very long run, if Fleury ends up being what we hope, a Slavin could be traded if he brought a good return, but I have a harder time seeing this team win this year without Slavin than without Faulk.

 

It is interesting to see other teams fans throwing some love at Slavin. We know what a beast he is, but since he's still more of a defensive D man (though the offense is coming) it is interesting that a fan base in Colorado is aware of him, and would take him over Faulk.

 

If it takes Hanifin or Slavin, then the deal definitely is not there. Just pressing the L/R aspect, Johnson is a RHD and both Hanifin and Slavin are LHD, Faulk RHD.

 

I wonder if they'd have any interest in Pesce? At 22 and only in his second year, he is still further away from his peak than Faulk in terms of years anyway. Would people rather lose Pesce or Faulk, if that were the choice?

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

I wonder if they'd have any interest in Pesce? At 22 and only in his second year, Faulk is closer to his peak in terms of years anyway. Would people rather lose Pesce or Faulk, if that were the choice?

 

 

In first..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of torn now.  it's becoming obvious that the D and goaltending is keeping us in every game.  But the team is really struggling to score goals so there is that piece too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talent like  Landeskog, MacKinnon or Duchene do not grow on trees. I think Ronnie would listen at any point in the year not just the trade deadline to acquire a high end talent. Ronnie recognizes the need for more offensive talent but he isn't going to give away the store to get it. I would love to know what he considers to be movable parts regarding his defensive assets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we found out with Gretzky, everyone is tradeable,

 

That said.  We are not trading Slavin.  Because of ability, contract, age, etc.., Duchene is not nearly enough for that move.   I know we have to give something to get something, but unless they are offering the farm Slavin is a non-starter... Honestly, I wouldn't trade Hanifin, or Pesce either, unless of course they made us an offer we could not refuse.  I'm a huge Faulk fan, but I would be OK with Faulk trade now that Slavin, Pesce, and Hanifin are coming along at the pace they are...  Sure we may have to sweeten the pot to get a Duchene.  And I would be open to trading anyone in the minors for major league scoring help if it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm super late to the conversation but I'll still chime in

 

My stance since last season's thread has gone from a strong No to a soft No.  Between Hanifin/Pesce/Slavin, the offense is just not there yet, which is important in a system that supposedly is heavy on involving Dmen in the rush.  Also, without Faulk, we are paper thin on the right side.  If we traded Faulk for a Center, we'd have no one to replace him, and we would most likely have to rely on someone who's even worse than a lot of people view Faulk as.  And I know right now our PP's ok despite little statistical input from Faulk, we'd have no one to quarterback the power play.  

 

I don't want to trade any of our big 4, as they're the strength of this team instead of the problem.  If we're going to trade someone, why not trade prospect(s) instead?  Any potential Duchene trade would likely put Colorado in rebuild mode anyway, so why not come off of a prospect we can afford to part with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

I don't want to trade any of our big 4, as they're the strength of this team instead of the problem.  If we're going to trade someone, why not trade prospect(s) instead?  Any potential Duchene trade would likely put Colorado in rebuild mode anyway, so why not come off of a prospect we can afford to part with?

 

 

If you can pull off getting a 1C in exchange for 'a prospect we can afford to part with', you have my vote for GM.

Share this post


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

 

 

If you can pull off getting a 1C in exchange for 'a prospect we can afford to part with', you have my vote for GM.

 

I don't see a contending team giving up a roster player to acquire Duchene.  And let Colorado fans tell it, they need help at every position, not just defense.  If I were GMRF, I'd start off with a package that involved Lindholm/Bean and build around that.  If you look back at when Colorado traded Ryan O'Reilly, that's the exact kind of deal they got from Buffalo. Zadarov was a D prospect drafted around the same pick as Bean, then you have Grigorenko, who was a young player with a couple years experience and upside like Lindholm.  I'd add any offensive prospect in the system that's not Roy/Gauthier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duchene is a .76 PPG career player.  He would be a legitimate #1C for the Canes and a big help.  The issue with making a trade with a guy like Slavin or Hanifin (other than giving up that skilled player) is the cost control issue with those guys.  Making a trade for Duchene is about right with talent, but you are trading a player with controlled cost for a guy with 2 1/2 years at $6M and then a UFA.  That's the major issue that RF has to contend with.

 

Trading Faulk would be trading like player for like player as far as contracts go.  With the way that people think Faulk's trade value has fallen off, the question would be, what additional is added on the Canes part to make the trade happen?  It also leaves a hole on the right side of the defense that would need to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I'd favor moving Faulk if he'll bring back a Duchene, I don't think Faulk is going anywhere this year, including at the TD. If Faulk can get back to where he was offensively before his injury - and that's clearly what GMRF and BP are hoping - that's potent, and his value goes right back to where it was before his injury.

 

I think the plan is to see how far the current group can take us. Based on their recent play without two of the top six and the looming expansion draft, that's really the most sensible route. 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see trading Faulk.  Is he the best defensive Dman?  No, but most scoring dmen aren't.  Burns and Karlsson are not known to be great defensively, but one of them is a two time Norris winner.  And If you look at most of the top 16 teams, you'd be hard pressed to find one without a scoring Dman.  It doesn't do us much good to have a 1 center and a journeyman Dman who can't defend well or score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree that we could use more points from the back end, and J Faulk is really our only goal scorer back there at the moment.

 

One point I raise really more for comment is that Faulk takes a lot of shots. I know that he has the uber green light. But only Skinner has more shots on the entire team. We tend to remember the ones that go in, but a lot of these shots are PP shots, which have a higher missed opportunity quotient than 5/5 shots, as they are often caught by the goalie leading to a coin flip to loss of possession, or actually cleared from the zone.

 

Faulk's shooting percentage is 5.9%. Jay McClement's is 5.0%. 13 Canes have higher shooting percentages than Faulk.

 

Hey, getting shots through is a skill. But unlike stretches in the past where he seemed to be sniping like a crazy, this year, they just mostly don't seem to be going in. That can change, but I almost wonder if we'd be better off if Faulk shot a little less. I kind of feel like, hey, we're letting you take the lion's share of shots, maybe a few more could go in?

 

I think Faulk is still, on balance a good NHL defenseman. But what I can't settle on, is HOW good. Lately he feels like a good, not great guy, who is being groomed like he's great, but may never quite get there.

 

Just my opinion, but I think Faulk is not even close to the class of Burns (who is almost in his own class), or Karlsson. If he were, we wouldn't even think about thinking about posting a poll about trading him. Faulk as an All Star was always a stretch, but more and more it's looking like a big stretch.

 

That said, I agree it's unlikely we trade him.

 

1. We do not have a proven NHL ready RHD replacement that is nearly as good as Faulk.

2. The coaches still value him a lot.

3. Most likely the kind of return we all feel such a trade would require, would require throwing in picks/prospects etc, and GMRF has yet to show any tendency to deviate from "no you cannot have any of my prospects" draft and develop mode.

4. We are probably not being offered the kind of player that would make the deal go.

5. The team is actually playing pretty darned well lately, and as a rule, it is not the time to shake things up with a blockbuster trade for a new guy who doesn't know our system.

 

In the long run, I'd rather have Duchene or Landeskog or even better Draisaitl or similar. But in the short run, it seems very unlikely.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remkin, the thing to remember about Burns is the age gap.  I think something that gets lost in translation is Faulk's only 24 yrs old on a very budgeted contract.  A guy with his scoring potential is not common.  And he and Burn's stats when he was 24 are nearly identical if not favoring Faulk.  Minnesota traded Burns for what today amounts to nothing, while Burns is having career years.... see what I'm getting at?  And neither Burns or Karlsson are known for their defensive prowess.

 

And Faulk being an all star isn't a stretch. He's been a top 5 scoring Dman, and made the Olympic team.  I'm not trying to be his cheerleader, I just think he's being vastly underrated on this board.  And if he's not as good as a lot seem to think, why would a team essentially trade they're best player for him?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Remkin, the thing to remember about Burns is the age gap.  I think something that gets lost in translation is Faulk's only 24 yrs old on a very budgeted contract.  A guy with his scoring potential is not common.  And he and Burn's stats when he was 24 are nearly identical if not favoring Faulk.  Minnesota traded Burns for what today amounts to nothing, while Burns is having career years.... see what I'm getting at?  And neither Burns or Karlsson are known for their defensive prowess.

 

And Faulk being an all star isn't a stretch. He's been a top 5 scoring Dman, and made the Olympic team.  I'm not trying to be his cheerleader, I just think he's being vastly underrated on this board.  And if he's not as good as a lot seem to think, why would a team essentially trade they're best player for him?

The age point is a fair one. Faulk is not at the oft quoted 28 ish years old that D men supposedly peak at. On that issue it is really the eyeball test and best attempts to project his ceiling. Personally, I'm not convinced he's going to be that guy, but what do I know?

 

Still, trading Faulk was always at least half about the return, and the long term projection that we have a lot of defense in the pipeline. If we want to trade D for O now, it has to be Faulk (unless we want to move Pesce or Slavin).  No one wants to trade Faulk for an aging third liner. It's always been about getting a first line forward of roughly the same age or even a touch younger. If that deal is not there, then I suspect most would vote "no".

 

I think you may also have appoint about us underrating him on this board. To me that is the million dollar question: what is Faulk's trade value out there? I guess we'll only know if  trade happens. Was the Hall for Faulk trade there? RNH? Duchene? Drouin back when? Landeskog? or less than those guys?

 

The other issue is that the team is playing well, and I'm not sure that a blockbuster trade is likely at the moment anyways, but how much would not having Faulk upset the balance on the back end? Possibly a lot. With the team really playing well, I don't see Francis taking that chance now unless the deal is too good to pass up, which is unlikely.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

For a 50pt Dman

Whoa, back up the truck--and please hear, PK, before I say this, that (1) I agree that moving Faulk for anything less than a top-three forward is a non-starter, (2) I think the brain trust favors keeping him through his current deal, and (3) I think his current deal is fair. But all of that being said, the ONLY year Faulk scored CLOSE to 50 points (49) he was a -19, for what I'll call an effective point total (EPT) of 30. Even with his 37 points last year in an abbreviated season due to injury, he was -22, an EPT of 15. 

 

So saying Faulk is a 50-point D-man is a stretch at worst, waaaaaay premature at best, IMO. It ignores his obvious defensive liabilities. Even though I'm not a big fan of +/- because it is absolutely impacted by team play and talent, this year - when we are a markedly better team all over the ice - Faulk is already -11 through 28 games. With his 13 total points, his EPT is 2, meaning he's on pace for an EPT of 6.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/17/2016 at 2:45 AM, PenaltyKiller17 said:

I just don't see trading Faulk.  Is he the best defensive Dman?  No, but most scoring dmen aren't.  Burns and Karlsson are not known to be great defensively, but one of them is a two time Norris winner.  And If you look at most of the top 16 teams, you'd be hard pressed to find one without a scoring Dman.  It doesn't do us much good to have a 1 center and a journeyman Dman who can't defend well or score.

 

PK, if I agreed with your assumptions I'd probably be with you as far as not considering a trade for Faulk, but I can't say that I do.  I view Faulk as very good offensively, but Karlsson is offensively ELITE and has been from the start of his career.  To my mind, using Karlsson in a comparison is a bit like saying we should do whatever we can to get a Duchene because he's a gifted scoring forward and so is Sidney Crosby.  And while it's true that Burns and Karlsson may not be known to be great defensively, both the numbers and my eye test tell me that Faulk actually hurts us a bit defensively, contributing to goals against that dilute the positives he adds on offense.  Neither Burns nor Karlsson have been consistent negative +- outliers on their teams for most of their careers like Faulk has.  [To save someone some typing, let me stipulate that I believe that +- has it's limitations and should only be considered in context (within a team and across a lot of games).  To completely ignore it (in context) makes as little sense to me as using it to compare players across teams without any context.]  To summarize, it seems like you're valuing Faulk at his maximum ceiling.

 

I also can't put a lot of weight in the "he's only 24 years old" argument with regard to Faulk's defensive development.  He's played 5 NHL seasons and 354 games.  There have been a number of young d-men recently (fortunately several of them Canes) who have shown that you can be a responsible defensive NHL d-man well before your late 20s.

 

The other place where we differ is on how we fill in for Faulk if he should go.  First off, to my mind Pesce and Slavin are already our #1 pair. And I see us being deep enough in prospects to fill in for him in the long term.  The question is what happens immediately, and there I do have concerns. Faulk is on a 14g, 37pt pace for the season, so if we got a new #1 center who scores more than that it would be a net plus offensively.  But I would want to add another right handed d-man who was at least as defensively responsible as Faulk in order retain our scoring benefit.  I trust RF to be able to do that; not sure if anyone from Charlotte would fill the bill, or if Francis would need to make multiple moves  in order to fill the hole.  In the big scheme of things, even if such a move was a bit painful short term, I think it would be in the Canes best interests long term given our fantastic pool of young d-man in the system (3 of which have already more or less proven themselves) and need for more scoring up front. 

 

Hey, I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind; I know you're not going to do that.  I'm just pointing out why I get to a different place than you.

 

EDIT: I want to add that I think Faulk has been better defensively lately.  Not enough to make me change my overall impression, but I want to give credit where it is due.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Yes it is actually.  His cap hit is 4.8 mil.  For a 50pt Dman, they're salaries are usually between 6-8 million, more closer to the 8 than the 6.

 

 

I started to point out what Top pointed out about Faulk being a 50-pointer but i backed off.  But what he said - he may or may not grow into one like Burns did, but before Faulk can be considered a consistent 50-pointer he's going to have to at least hit 50 once, if not 2 or 3 times.  But as far as the budget, Faulk makes $5.5M this season while Burns makes $5.76M, a mere $260,000 more.  Meanwhile Faulk is on pace for 38 points (a far cry from 50) and is dead last on the team in +/-... while Burns is on pace for 77 points and leads his team in +/-.  Man, if we're getting a bargain, i'm having a hard time seeing it.

 

edit - corrected $26,000 to $260,000

Edited by realmdrakkar

Share this post


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

 

 

I started to point out what Top pointed out about Faulk being a 50-pointer but i backed off.  But what he said - he may or may not grow into one like Burns did, but before Faulk can be considered a consistent 50-pointer he's going to have to at least hit 50 once, if not 2 or 3 times.  But as far as the budget, Faulk makes $5.5M this season while Burns makes $5.76M, a mere $26,000 more.  Meanwhile Faulk is on pace for 38 points (a far cry from 50) and is dead last on the team in +/-... while Burns is on pace for 77 points and leads his team in +/-.  Man, if we're getting a bargain, i'm having a hard time seeing it.

 

I'll respond to yours 1st since it's the shortest and I'm at work.  I apologize for rounding a 49pt season to 50, and another season he was on pace for 50.  And in the NHL, the only number that matters is his cap hit, which is 4.8 million. And me comparing Faulk to Burns isn't comparing him to 31 yr old Burns, but 24 yr old Burns,  as 2016 Burns just signed an $8million AAV contract.

 

If it pleases the audience, I'll compare Faulk to two other offensive Dmen not known for their defense.  Kevin Shattenkirk, who has never scored as much in season as Faulk, is said to be looking for $6million AAV.  And Buff, who is a consistent 50pt scorer that is said to be poor defensively has an AAV of $7million.  I think it's safe to put him in those categories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

 

PK, if I agreed with your assumptions I'd probably be with you as far as not considering a trade for Faulk, but I can't say that I do.  I view Faulk as very good offensively, but Karlsson is offensively ELITE and has been from the start of his career.  To my mind, using Karlsson in a comparison is a bit like saying we should do whatever we can to get a Duchene because he's a gifted scoring forward and so is Sidney Crosby.  And while it's true that Burns and Karlsson may not be known to be great defensively, both the numbers and my eye test tell me that Faulk actually hurts us a bit defensively, contributing to goals against that dilute the positives he adds on offense.  Neither Burns nor Karlsson have been consistent negative +- outliers on their teams for most of their careers like Faulk has.  [To save someone some typing, let me stipulate that I believe that +- has it's limitations and should only be considered in context (within a team and across a lot of games).  To completely ignore it (in context) makes as little sense to me as using it to compare players across teams without any context.]  To summarize, it seems like you're valuing Faulk at his maximum ceiling.

 

I also can't put a lot of weight in the "he's only 24 years old" argument with regard to Faulk's defensive development.  He's played 5 NHL seasons and 354 games.  There have been a number of young d-men recently (fortunately several of them Canes) who have shown that you can be a responsible defensive NHL d-man well before your late 20s.

 

The other place where we differ is on how we fill in for Faulk if he should go.  First off, to my mind Pesce and Slavin are already our #1 pair. And I see us being deep enough in prospects to fill in for him in the long term.  The question is what happens immediately, and there I do have concerns. Faulk is on a 14g, 37pt pace for the season, so if we got a new #1 center who scores more than that it would be a net plus offensively.  But I would want to add another right handed d-man who was at least as defensively responsible as Faulk in order retain our scoring benefit.  I trust RF to be able to do that; not sure if anyone from Charlotte would fill the bill, or if Francis would need to make multiple moves  in order to fill the hole.  In the big scheme of things, even if such a move was a bit painful short term, I think it would be in the Canes best interests long term given our fantastic pool of young d-man in the system (3 of which have already more or less proven themselves) and need for more scoring up front. 

 

Hey, I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind; I know you're not going to do that.  I'm just pointing out why I get to a different place than you.

 

EDIT: I want to add that I think Faulk has been better defensively lately.  Not enough to make me change my overall impression, but I want to give credit where it is due.

 

If we are comparing +/- in context, then there are some comparisons to both Burns and Karlsson.  Faulk's had poor +/- stats, but so have Burns and Karlsson, except both of them have been on teams that have made the playoffs multiple times compared to Faulk who's never been on a playoff team.  Burns was a minus player all but two years before he was traded to SJ.  He's even been a minus player on regular playoff teams, even a minus player despite putting up 75pts.  Same thing with Karlsson.  I'm not an idiot, I know Faulk's not anywhere near the offensive level as Burns/Karlsson, I'm just pointing out even the best scoring Dmen aren't generally huge plus players, even on good teams (Stanley Cup contending teams).  +/- to me is more indicative of the team you play more so than individual players.  I look at Faulk's situation as a player that plays the most minutes on teams that have lacked scoring and goaltending.  I've always said +/- is just as much as an offensive stat as defensive.  And if you're on a team that can't score, how can you expect a player to be a plus player?  And how many times has Faulk been on the ice for a goal allowed when Hainsey is out there being Hainsey?  Or Cam's letting in soft goals?  Combine that with the fact that most of our team are minus players, I don't think it's fair to pick on Faulk for it.  If Faulk were on a team like SJ, I'd think he'd easily be a 60pt player and closer to an even +/-.

 

And as far as who to fill in for Faulk, we do have deep defensive prospects, but most of them are left-handed shots.  Our best RHD prospect is McKeown, who's not exactly lighting it up in Charlotte.  Also, we are year 3 into this rebuild.  If we are going to turn into a playoff team within the next two years, we can't afford to keep getting rid of what little experience we do have, and waste a season or two of watching young players go through the same struggles that people are accusing Faulk of.  I'd rather build on the progress we have than to stay in the vicious cycle of replacing all our veterans with youth.  We have to remember that July 1st, 2017, Faulk will be our most experienced player on the backend.  And while I love Pesce, Slavin, and Hanifin, they're not to the level of taking over the helms on the blueline (even though I will agree Slavin/Pesce is our top line).

 

And lastly in regards to "he's only 24." well he's only 24, and as mentioned on a team that's never been to the playoffs.  GMRF has warned in interviews before about giving up on young players too early.  And in the end, I think we need a #1 goalie and a #1 center before trading away Faulk.  And as previously mentioned, I believe there are other ways to acquire those players without giving Faulk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the other way to get a #1 center though? They are very hard to come by. Teams just don't give them up very often at all.

 

It is very rare for a true, elite, top line center to hit UFA. And if they ever do, it will be open season, and the odds that they choose any time soon to come play in front of a 50% empty 25% opponent's fans, in a minor TV market are not great. If Stamkos had hit the market he would have been the first that I can remember recently. But was he coming to Raleigh?

 

The odds that an elite UFA top line center arrives in Raleigh, are roughly the same as the odds of me being named the next Pope.

 

That leaves drafting and trading.

 

So, what of draft and develop? Well right now we have two centers with the possibility of becoming top line centers: Roy and Kuokkanen. Really, that's it. Gauthier is a pure winger. You never know with Roy or Kuokkanen, but that is a tall expectation. Most of the guys we're talking about are drafted in the top 3 of the draft, often #1.

 

So to draft that guy, you have to get really bad (tank) or get really really lucky with a late round pick. This team is not tanking. The days we could have done that are past.

 

OR....you can trade for him. But to get a guy in that category, you have to give something up. And teams don't like giving up top line centers. To me that's why if a Matt Duchenne is available? Well it doesn't happen very often. Even Taylor Hall is a winger. IC's aren't traded that often, at least not while they're still producing.

 

Nashville got Johansen by giving up the best defensive player in his draft, Seth Jones.

 

Well I never meant to, but I think I'm talking myself right back into that trade for Duchene if it's there. It's just too hard to find those guys. Colorado is reeling. They are casting blame widely. If it falls on Duchene enough that they would consider moving him? PULL!

Edited by remkin

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...