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

Training Camp 2019

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Derailed75 said:

Faulk has done and said nothing but the right things. His team mates seem to like him. The only problem is the cap and yes they have to get that resolved asap so they dont lose young talent. I think you fell he is being a problem and there is zero saying that he is. Until someone proves me wrong I believe what they say and he has said he likes it here and wants to stay, now he also wants to get paid which is his right but I dont think him being here is hurting the team (again besides the cap issue) in any way shape or form.

So you say he isn't the source of the cap issue. Okay... who is? Whom other than Faulk, who is only adding to the cap issues by demanding much more than his play dictates, would you move to make space?

 

You say you don't want the team to lose young talent. Okay... but by refusing to waive without an extension, Faulk is eating up a roster spot that young talent could amply fill, resolving the cap issue at the same time. So as GM, what would you do? 

 

Finally you say him being here isn't hurting the team. Have you actually been watching him on the PP? Can you agree that he was given an opportunity all last year to show he could QB it and help it succeed, but that it was better with Hamilton than with him--and that we went and got Gardiner essentially to force him out? Maybe you don't agree, and that is your right--just as it is Faulk's right to ask for a lot more money than he's worth. But in the end, when a team wants a player gone, whom do you think wins that argument? (Hint: it's not the player.) 

 

Faulk could go gracefully. He's choosing not to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, g105 said:

I'm totally bummed out by all those who blame him for nothing he did and want to see him traded.

Nothing he did? Like demanding $6.2 million a year as a $4 million (and that's pushing it) player?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to pile on, but I have to agree with Top that Faulk could be hurting the team long term. Yes, as our #5 D man, he makes our already great D, the best D in the NHL. But at what cost? The rumors are a return of Kase (a high end forward), or LA's first round pick (a possible lottery pick in a great draft). But, as top points out, Faulk is also not worth the money he wants. At least not to us. 

 

Many of us felt pretty good about last year's version of Faulk, present company included. But after finally breaking down and paying for The Athletic, even factoring in last year's much better numbers, Faulk is a clear #5 to Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton, and Gardiner (who BTW form the statistically best top 4 in the NHL). That article also refers to Faulk hogging a massive number of PP shots. Yes, some of them go in, but in the process, other options wither and the puck does not move well. Gardiner is a far better QB and Hamilton is an overall better option on unit 2. Yet somehow, Faulk ends up on the #1 PP over and over, probably because he gets goals. 

 

Faulk was a good player last year. Good means he was a legit low end middle pair guy in the NHL. But this is a great defense. We can't pay Faulk more than the 4 guys who are clearly better than him. Further, Faulk could easily regress once signed. 

 

I don't think that Faulk needs to be moved for locker room issues or anything like that. I have seen nothing to indicate he's not a very good teammate. He just will not fit in on this team with the next contract he wants. So let's get something for him. Our D is already so good, with so much depth, we can handle it, and we aren't signing him anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason to keep Faulk:

 

Good guy

Power Play Goals*

Good puck mover

Is better than Fleury right now, this year.

 

Reasons to trade Faulk:

 

Wants more money than we will ever pay him (and almost surely a NTC to boot). ie. he will be gone next year because the committee ain't giving him that.

Still not great defensively. Even last year ranked as a lower end middle pair guy. (But will be paid way more than that on is next deal).

Blocking new talent from getting NHL games. (lowers their value for trade too).

Very average PP QB aside from shot. IMO the occasional goal is offset by the whole PP being clunky. But coach can't seem to see it or change it. Maybe in on the queso deal. *Those goals come from about 1-2 million PP shots he takes, the vast majority of which don't go in and kill puck movement.

Very real possibility of regression to the -100 D man he's been for the previous 4 years before last year.

Return. The reported return has been WAY better than Pu. But really, better than any return that had been rumored before in the years he's been on the market.

He's been on the market for years. Finally just do it.

Need to get some cap space.

 

Share this post


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

So let's get something for him.

Or not. At this point it really doesn't matter to me. Anything we get for him is a bonus when you look at what Faulk brings, as you point out, to this team, as it's now constituted. By refusing to waive or to move without an extension, he is forcing management to do what good management does: the best it can for the whole organization, not for one intractable player.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Or not. At this point it really doesn't matter to me. Anything we get for him is a bonus when you look at what Faulk brings, as you point out, to this team, as it's now constituted. By refusing to waive or to move without an extension, he is forcing management to do what it does: the best it can for the whole group, not for one intractable player.

I've been one of the loudest voices against handing out NTC's for a long time. I get that some guys should get them, but mostly I really hate them. Yet I really don't begrudge Faulk for not waiving it. He is looking at UFA in one year, and has the limited NTC, and if he doesn't get a deal for an extension he thinks is fair, and doesn't want to move or give away his UFA by signing a subpar deal, that's his right. I don't love it because I'd love to have Kase heading into our next game in a major way, but the frustration is with JR for giving him that NTC. I wish he didn't have it. I am not happy about it. But I don't blame him.

 

I would not trade Faulk for a Skinner deal or a bag of pucks. I would beg Brind'amour to take him completely off of both PP units if he stays though. Don't get seduced by the bomb shot. But we are better with Faulk as our #5 D man than anyone else we have at this moment, and at his current pay, it is not addition by subtraction (assuming he does not regress defensively). We need some return. I hate us just giving away good players for Pu.

 

That said, the team would, IMO be far far better off with either of the returns rumored for Faulk; LA's first or Kase, than keeping Faulk. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd pull the trigger on either as well as he is never going to get 6.22- 6.25 from us. I'd rather get something now rather than getting a PU after this year. 1st round pick from LA and Grundstrom would do it for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I've been one of the loudest voices against handing out NTC's for a long time. I get that some guys should get them, but mostly I really hate them. Yet I really don't begrudge Faulk for not waiving it. He is looking at UFA in one year, and has the limited NTC, and if he doesn't get a deal for an extension he thinks is fair, and doesn't want to move or give away his UFA by signing a subpar deal, that's his right. I don't love it because I'd love to have Kase heading into our next game in a major way, but the frustration is with JR for giving him that NTC. I wish he didn't have it. I am not happy about it. But I don't blame him.

 

I would not trade Faulk for a Skinner deal or a bag of pucks. I would beg Brind'amour to take him completely off of both PP units if he stays though. Don't get seduced by the bomb shot. But we are better with Faulk as our #5 D man than anyone else we have at this moment, and at his current pay, it is not addition by subtraction (assuming he does not regress defensively). We need some return. I hate us just giving away good players for Pu.

 

That said, the team would, IMO be far far better off with either of the returns rumored for Faulk; LA's first or Kase, than keeping Faulk. 

I begrude Faulk's agent for trying to leverage what were clearly two gift ASG appearances into a contract that is 50 percent higher than his client's worth. That said, we diverge on keeping him this year, even as a 5-6 paring guy (which, I agree with you, is unlikely to happen [Edit to clarify: Roddy won't be able to resist using him on the PP, despite all the evidence that he should. Resist.]).

 

You don't go out and get all the D we did (including Priskie) to keep Justin around. He needs to go, now, and the org needs to move on to the futures it has stockpiled. The potential return even for moving him at the TD is worth none of (a) what he might bring back then, (b) what he costs us in defensive liability, or (c) the consternation that surely must be growing between him and the org by now.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other interesting thing from The Athletic article is that apparently the Canes were 3rd worst in the league in expected save percentage. That is the quality of chances given up. Seems odd given how touted our D is. The explanation was that we traded that for offense. Also, we limit total shots, so that helps. 

 

Anyways, the article claims that DeHaan was the biggest problem in allowing quality chances (surprised me) and that Gardiner has been substantially better than average at this metric. So that move to offload DeHaan's salary makes a little more sense, and Gardiner should help upgrade that. The #2 "culprit" for allowing quality chances? Faulk. (And that was in his best D year).

 

And the final irony, Fleury was actually very good at limiting quality chances (best on the D). OK, it was admitted that he was given very soft assignments, but that is what happened when he was out there, and at least gives some hope that he might become a good defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, g105 said:

Right on, derailed.  Faulk has not caused a problem.  He signed a contract to play and he's doing just that.  And that contract, signed by both parties, included the list of teams he didn't want to go to.  If there's a problem, it's with management.  They are the ones who got the org into this "situation", not Faulk.  I'm totally bummed out by all those who blame him for nothing he did and want to see him traded.

Despite whatever shortcomings people find with Faulk’s game, I would agree he has always conducted himself as a professional team-oriented player, and has every right to invoke his NTC this year. That being said, we are top-heavy with defensemen, and have a number of prospects pushing up from Charlotte. Faulk is in the last year of his contract and apparently has not been able to reach a contract extension with the Canes. I think he is looking for term at a higher salary than any of our other defensemen. Not doable from the team’s perspective. We have 15 teams we can move him to without a waiver, or the possibility that he would waive for a team that meets his price for an extension. This is what the Canes need to do. Unlike many on these boards, I was and remain a fan of Eric Staal, but it was obvious to everyone, including Eric I think, that the time had come for him to move on. I hope we move Faulk, preferably for a good return, and I also hope he gets the contract he wants somewhere else. I wish him nothing but the best, but the time has come.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the Pu return for Skinner, did we not also get a second, plus a conditional second if he re-signed, which he did. At this point, if that is the best offer on the table, I think we have to take it. It solves the salary cap issue and is one less non waiver exempt young defenseman we keep in Raleigh. If sending down our non-exempt players is one of the prices we pay for keeping Faulk, think of the player who does not get claimed as additional compensation for trading Faulk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm glad somebody does. That said, he wouldn't waive for their cross-town rivals... because who wants to live in the land of eternal sun, legal weed, and incredible scenery? (Okay, and earthquakes.)

OK, here's a subject I know a little about first hand, having lived in San Diego close to 30 years and LA for 8.  I would not exactly characterize Staples Center and The Pond as being "cross-town".  One lies in the heart of downtown LA while the other is in Orange County.  If I were Justin Faulk and I was thinking about quality of life, it would be my distinct preference to play for the Ducks, living somewhere along the coast such as Newport Beach, breathing fresh air (as opposed to the smog of LA) and making a much more pleasant drive to work in the suburbs as opposed to braving the gridlock of LA.  And, while earthquakes would not be at the top of my worry list, yes, even that would favor low buildings of Anaheim to the cityscape of LA.  And hey, if he is in Newport Beach, he is only an hour's drive from here in San Diego, where he can really enjoy life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, beboplar said:

OK, here's a subject I know a little about first hand, having lived in San Diego close to 30 years and LA for 8.  I would not exactly characterize Staples Center and The Pond as being "cross-town".  One lies in the heart of downtown LA while the other is in Orange County.  If I were Justin Faulk and I was thinking about quality of life, it would be my distinct preference to play for the Ducks, living somewhere along the coast such as Newport Beach, breathing fresh air (as opposed to the smog of LA) and making a much more pleasant drive to work in the suburbs as opposed to braving the gridlock of LA.  And, while earthquakes would not be at the top of my worry list, yes, even that would favor low buildings of Anaheim to the cityscape of LA.  And hey, if he is in Newport Beach, he is only an hour's drive from here in San Diego, where he can really enjoy life.

Pasadena's nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, beboplar said:

OK, here's a subject I know a little about first hand, having lived in San Diego close to 30 years and LA for 8.  I would not exactly characterize Staples Center and The Pond as being "cross-town".  One lies in the heart of downtown LA while the other is in Orange County.  If I were Justin Faulk and I was thinking about quality of life, it would be my distinct preference to play for the Ducks, living somewhere along the coast such as Newport Beach, breathing fresh air (as opposed to the smog of LA) and making a much more pleasant drive to work in the suburbs as opposed to braving the gridlock of LA.  And, while earthquakes would not be at the top of my worry list, yes, even that would favor low buildings of Anaheim to the cityscape of LA.  And hey, if he is in Newport Beach, he is only an hour's drive from here in San Diego, where he can really enjoy life.

Yes California is a glory land.  However, there is that pesky state income tax to deal with. 13.3 %(12.3 plus 1% surcharge) compared to 5.5 in NC.  Price of living in this glorius state.   For a 6 million a year salary that is Half a million.  Not exactly chump change.  But whos counting(probly Faulk is)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Looks like the veteran group out first, plus Gauthier and Necas. Still waiting on a camp roster cutdown.

In the first group: Aho with Svechnikov, Nino; Staal with Teravainen, Foegele; Haula with Dzingel, Necas; Wallmark with Martinook and McGinn.

On the back end: Slavin and Hamilton, Gardiner and Pesce, Fleury and Faulk. Forsling and Claesson also in group.

 

 

Share this post


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

Pasadena's nice.

Don't I know.  I built Rose Parade floats for 3 years and drove 2 in the parades of 1979 and 1980.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes California is a glory land.  However, there is that pesky state income tax to deal with. 13.3 %(12.3 plus 1% surcharge) compared to 5.5 in NC.  Price of living in this glorius state.   For a 6 million a year salary that is Half a million.  Not exactly chump change.  But whos counting(probly Faulk is)

I suspect you are right about Justin not wanting to relocate to CA, though I am not sure state income tax would be the driving force.  He is from the midwest (Minn?), and Raleigh is a good facsimile of his upbringing probably.  Anaheim, LA, San Jose, not so much.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trevor Carrick got cut by the Sharks today also.  Trying to keep my eye on the Ducks cuts, to see if Andrew Poturalski makes team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...