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

Rem, I mentioned before how we could go about acquiring Duchene.  Colorado set a blueprint with the O'Reilly trade by acquiring Gregorinko/Zadorov/2nd rounder/offensive prospect.  My offer would be Lindholm/Bean/NYR 2nd/either Roy or Kuok.  We'd be set down the middle without giving up any meaningful roster players while still giving a good return.  It also wouldn't kill our prospect pool either.

 

I also mentioned Colorado would be in rebuild mode if they traded Duchene for a Dman, and no team looking to contend will give up a roster player to acquire Duchene.

 

You mentioned the Johansen deal.  While Jones was turning the page and turning into a solid Dman, that trade was based purely on his potential.

 

I would give Faulk up for Landeskog/Jost though.

Share this post


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

And me comparing Faulk to Burns isn't comparing him to 31 yr old Burns, but 24 yr old Burns,

Then you should carry the comparison through to salary. At 24, Brent Burns was making 3.4 million. Faulk, at the same age, is making $2 million a year more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Rem, I mentioned before how we could go about acquiring Duchene.  Colorado set a blueprint with the O'Reilly trade by acquiring Gregorinko/Zadorov/2nd rounder/offensive prospect.  My offer would be Lindholm/Bean/NYR 2nd/either Roy or Kuok.  We'd be set down the middle without giving up any meaningful roster players while still giving a good return.  It also wouldn't kill our prospect pool either.

 

I also mentioned Colorado would be in rebuild mode if they traded Duchene for a Dman, and no team looking to contend will give up a roster player to acquire Duchene.

 

You mentioned the Johansen deal.  While Jones was turning the page and turning into a solid Dman, that trade was based purely on his potential.

 

I would give Faulk up for Landeskog/Jost though.

 

I guess when it comes down to who to trade we are all going to have different opinions. But the fact that trading is the most likely way to get that 1C we need, is the main point.

 

I am not saying your offer is not fair, but Lindholm, Bean, and both Roy and Kuokannen still all have huge upside. As we are still in draft and develop mode, I find myself uncomfortable giving away 2 of our top prospects, and Lindholm. At least the NYR second rounder currently looks to be a mid to late rounder. I guess the question would be how well Colorado has scouted our prospects. They would be getting a huge bevy of potential.

 

Personally, I'd much rather give them Faulk in the long run. Even if Faulk gets back to his peak offense or better and tightens his D up a little, we are getting a 65-70 point first line center back. I bet we can find a solid Hainsey type Dman on a short term deal or trade, as we wait for Fleury, McKeown, and Bean to develop. I also think that Hanifin will just keep getting better.

 

I guess the key would be trying to predict Francis. He has been loathe to give up any prospects, let alone two of our best plus Lindholm. He is really in draft and develop mode, and that would undermine that by trading 3 guys who could all become very good NHL players. He has a lot of hope invested in those guys. He's seen the potential in Traverse City and elsewhere. He has shown no interest in giving up any prospects.

 

It's probably a fair deal, but somehow I don't see it. I'd actually go further. It is a reasonable deal, and in fact some would say we are not giving up enough. Duchene is that rare, pretty elite, offense producing center. I just think Francis see's his prospects almost like his kids, seeing what they could become. And I know he loves Bean as a future star player.

 

Then again, he has shown no overt interest in moving Faulk either. That is all rumor.

 

Anyways, a million possible deals become a bunch of never executed deals become one deal, and Francis' pattern to date has been to avoid any deal that gives up much of anything substantial, and even in the hole Colorado finds itself, their GM will have to be very careful what he gets back for their star center, so it's still a long long shot.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

PK, when I talk about Faulk's negative +- stats validating my "eye test", I'm not doing it because it's negative. I agree that that will be influenced by the overall team.  Faulk's +- stat only jumps out at me because it has been so much worse than the rest of the Canes, including his regular line partner Ron Hainsey.  It's his "outlier" status on the Canes that raises flags from my perspective.  Even though Burns and Karlsson have had negative +- stats I don't think you'll find that they've been significantly worse than the rest of their team for so many years.     

 

1 hour ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Rem, I mentioned before how we could go about acquiring Duchene.  Colorado set a blueprint with the O'Reilly trade by acquiring Gregorinko/Zadorov/2nd rounder/offensive prospect.  My offer would be Lindholm/Bean/NYR 2nd/either Roy or Kuok.  We'd be set down the middle without giving up any meaningful roster players while still giving a good return.  It also wouldn't kill our prospect pool either.

 

I also mentioned Colorado would be in rebuild mode if they traded Duchene for a Dman, and no team looking to contend will give up a roster player to acquire Duchene.

 

You mentioned the Johansen deal.  While Jones was turning the page and turning into a solid Dman, that trade was based purely on his potential.

 

I would give Faulk up for Landeskog/Jost though.

 

The question comes down to this: would you rather have Faulk or the package of [Lindholm / Bean / NYR 2nd / either Roy or Kuok]?  You'd take Faulk, I'd take the youth package. Just a difference of opinion. :cheers:   Now if we were only interested in this season I'd go with Faulk, but going forward, in the bigger scheme of things, give me that particular youth package.

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Then you should carry the comparison through to salary. At 24, Brent Burns was making 3.4 million. Faulk, at the same age, is making $2 million a year more.

 

Salary cap was completely different in 2009.  Salary in 2009 was 56 million.  I did some armchair math, and Burns' contract actually took up more cap space than Faulk by like $300,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

Salary cap was completely different in 2009.  Salary in 2009 was 56 million.  I did some armchair math, and Burns' contract actually took up more cap space than Faulk by like $300,000.

 

Plus you've got inflation (although not much). 

 

While salary cap is more important than actual $s for most teams, it's the opposite for the Canes.  Hopefully that works to our advantage in whatever we do.  I mean, it helped us get TT, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap space can still come into play for us for sure.

 

I was trying to research trades for 1C's over the years and thought of the Boston - San Jose Joe Thornton trade. While the players involved favored San Jose, it was mentioned that Boston freed up cap space that lead to acquiring key guys including Chara, so the deal really worked for both teams.

 

Francis could still leverage our cap space in an upcoming deal. and likely has plans and ideas for just that.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

 

PK, when I talk about Faulk's negative +- stats validating my "eye test", I'm not doing it because it's negative. I agree that that will be influenced by the overall team.  Faulk's +- stat only jumps out at me because it has been so much worse than the rest of the Canes, including his regular line partner Ron Hainsey.  It's his "outlier" status on the Canes that raises flags from my perspective.  Even though Burns and Karlsson have had negative +- stats I don't think you'll find that they've been significantly worse than the rest of their team for so many years.     

 

 

The question comes down to this: would you rather have Faulk or the package of [Lindholm / Bean / NYR 2nd / either Roy or Kuok]?  You'd take Faulk, I'd take the youth package. Just a difference of opinion. :cheers:   Now if we were only interested in this season I'd go with Faulk, but going forward, in the bigger scheme of things, give me that particular youth package.

 

I mean, Chris Kunitz is a career +187, but my eye test tells me it's more indicative of who he plays with, and he ain't coming close to that in Carolina.  My eye test would also tell me Skinner ain't no -6 player, but statistically he is.  Faulk plays the most minutes in all situations with each forward line ahead of him being minus guys, and has played in front of shaky goaltending his entire career.  And the last I checked, he's a minus 11 to Hainsey's -9, so I wouldn't call that a huge gap.

 

And yes I would take Faulk, because each part of the proposed package is dealing from a position of strength.  If we got Duchene, Lindholm would be useless.  We're set on LHD's with Slavin/Hanifin, and having Fleury in Charlotte.  If we got Duchene, we'd be deep at center, so if they want Kuok we'd still have Roy and vice versa.  We also have a spare 2nd rounder.

 

Reading other boards, some Avs fans would do Duchene for Hanifin straight up. I would think about that but probably decline.

 

All I'm saying is I would trade Faulk as a very very last ditch effort, and wait to see how the prospects fill out.  We're seeing him at his worst statistically, but a lot of fans wanted Skinner's head when he had a 31pt season too.

Share this post


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

Cap space can still come into play for us for sure.

 

I was trying to research trades for 1C's over the years and thought of the Boston - San Jose Joe Thornton trade. While the players involved favored San Jose, it was mentioned that Boston freed up cap space that lead to acquiring key guys including Chara, so the deal really worked for both teams.

 

Francis could still leverage our cap space in an upcoming deal. and likely has plans and ideas for just that.

 

Lake I think the inflated cap accounts for inflation, that's why I used percentages.  Burns took up 6.9% of the cap while Faulk was at 6.5%.  Market also should be taken into account.  Faulk would make more money on the open market than what is being paid to him.

 

Rem, GMRF has indicated several times how he's trying to account for future moneys he'll have to pay out to the youth.  It's going to be years until we have to pay big money to people like Slavin/Pesce/Hanifin/Aho.  I agree with the spirit of what he's doing, but it shouldn't stop him for acquiring necessary players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Rem, GMRF has indicated several times how he's trying to account for future moneys he'll have to pay out to the youth.  It's going to be years until we have to pay big money to people like Slavin/Pesce/Hanifin/Aho.  I agree with the spirit of what he's doing, but it shouldn't stop him for acquiring necessary players.

Yes this should not stop him for acquiring necessary players now. We have had the debate previously about future cap and that Ronnie has to project future dollars for the yutes. I agree with the projection part, but holding pat strictly for future cap expenditures is not what we need to do. We need to step into more acquisitions and also plan for salary expenditures. We have the cap space so future acquisitions should not be hampered by cap space discussions. We all know that the Karmanos cap is the real issue.

Share this post


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

 

Salary cap was completely different in 2009.  Salary in 2009 was 56 million.  I did some armchair math, and Burns' contract actually took up more cap space than Faulk by like $300,000.

Salary cap doesn't enter into it, in terms of how players at given stages of their careers are valued. Agents, the players they represent, and the organizations trying to sign them don't bring the cap into the contract negotiations with the player. The salary cap is the org's problem to manage and overcome. You're comparing their stage of development and what they were being paid at the same point in their careers. For those metrics, neither the salary cap nor the amount of it a given player's deal chews up is germane.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Salary cap doesn't enter into it, in terms of how players at given stages of their careers are valued. Agents, the players they represent, and the organizations trying to sign them don't bring the cap into the contract negotiations with the player. The salary cap is the org's problem to manage and overcome. You're comparing their stage of development and what they were being paid at the same point in their careers. The salary cap isn't even germane.

 

I get what you're saying, I just respectfully disagree.  No way Jose does Toews/Kane get $10.5million each on a $56mil cap no matter how to spin it.  That's 40% cap hit on 2 players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

I get what you're saying, I just respectfully disagree.  No way Jose does Toews/Kane get $10.5million each on a $56mil cap no matter how to spin it.  That's 40% cap hit on 2 players.  

I absolutely agree, and take your point, too. And for a player at his stage of development and performance, I think we can even agree that $5.5 million would be acceptable if Faulk was playing like he did two years ago, even with the gaudy minus number. But he's not, and now that we know what shutdown D really looks like, he has a lot of work to do, whether in getting there or getting back to his offensive output.

 

My point in this discussion all along has been essentially this: On a D-starved team, Justin Faulk is an upgrade, just like he was when this team was D-starved. The question is whether the Avs are willing to use him as we did, as a step to better things--and if they (or another team) is not, I'm fine with keeping him until the current contract is up, to see if he can get where we need him to be. But if the deal is there for a Duchene or Landeskog, I think it's a no-brainer.

Share this post


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

Salary cap doesn't enter into it, in terms of how players at given stages of their careers are valued. Agents, the players they represent, and the organizations trying to sign them don't bring the cap into the contract negotiations with the player. The salary cap is the org's problem to manage and overcome. You're comparing their stage of development and what they were being paid at the same point in their careers. The salary cap isn't even germane.

 

I get what you're saying, I just respectfully disagree.  No way Jose does Toews/Kane get $10.5million each on a $56mil cap no matter how to spin it.  That's 40% cap hit on 2 players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with salary (or cap hit) as a proportion of cap max at the time as a reasonable way to "standardize" players relative values across time.  But to me that's kind of a side issue.  That whole line of thought seems to assume projecting Faulk as eventually ending up where Burns did.  Kind of my "max ceiling" argument; who knows if Faulk will get there or not?  Similarly, who knows if a Duchene might max out as a (pick the elite franchise center of your choice)?  Because if you apply the same standard (max ceiling) to Duchene, don't you do almost anything to get him?  

Edited by LakeLivin

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...