Luke DeCock: Justin Faulk Speculation

[Roboturner913]

If the coaches can make it work and keep that from happening, sure... But do you have faith that would happen? After what was happening with Pesce last year?

You have to remember, this team was nowheresville when Pesce was supposedly not happy last season. People will do/say things out of frustration when you're on your umpteenth consecutive crap season.

I do think it would take some creativity to keep everybody in deserving ice time, but it's far from impossible. Laviolette managed to roll 7 d-men during the Cup season, with the top ATOI Hedican at 20:19 and the lowest Wesley at 15:28.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Kris Letang would be murdered within 10 games in a Leafs jersey. Take Leafs fans’ eye test with a grain of salt - his defensive zone miscues get blown up. Letang said it last year, “what do you want me to do, not contribute offensively?”

We got a PP1, high-end 2nd pairing guy. He won’t play PK and as of now (a Faulk trade changes this) we can give him favorable matchups at 5v5 as well. He doesn’t need them, but they’d certainly play to his strengths.

Yet, he did just get squeezed into a ~4x4 contract. The market wouldn't have let that happen unless there were some warts there.

We watched an analytics-darling get demoted to the 3rd pairing in a crucial Game 7 against Washington because of his defense. I'm proceeding with some caution here.

 

[NotOpie]

We have enough draft picks to sweeten the deal, no?

We do, but I would think we'll want to use those judiciously. And maybe from 2021 and beyond. Having said that, I believe there's more perceived value to Faulk among GMs than among the armchair ones here on HF. I also wouldn't be surprised if we're targeting a Lundestrom because of age too. Simply put, he could develop for that extra year without the need to push to the NHL. Should his play demand it, then great!

But the darts are the key. They are the lottery tickets. And more is better since most of them are trash.

To my point above, I wouldn't be surprised if we're starting to consider when we get to throw those darts more. I'd think we'd want to look at 2021 and 2022 for some of those picks, which probably means we could even get more value if we're asking for some out year picks.

 

[Svechhammer]

Yet, he did just get squeezed into a ~4x4 contract. The market wouldn't have let that happen unless there were some warts there.

We watched an analytics-darling get demoted to the 3rd pairing in a crucial Game 7 against Washington because of his defense. I'm proceeding with some caution here.

I think the Gardiner contract came from paralysis of the market from 2 directions.

1 - RFAs still have seen no major movement.
2 - Salary Cap level remained stagnant

If the RFA market had played out and gotten resolved earlier in the year like happened in previous seasons, I think teams would be better positioned to make a move for him to bring him in. Had the Salary Cap bumped up to $84m-$85m like expected, teams would have had a little more flexibility to maneuver the UFA market to bring him in. But both of those happened, and largely froze movement and paralyzed teams into not being able to move. And, lets be realistic, if Aho was still not signed, there is no way we make that move last week, so we are very lucky to have had that work out for us like it did.

This was an unusual year that kept a legitimately good player in limbo all summer because teams weren't prepared for the offseason that played out. And we pounced when the timing was right.

 

[bleedgreen]

If they're working on an extension we're getting something back. You guys have been listening to the idiots on the main board telling us Faulk was worth trash for years now. He's a productive RD who had a good year, and played very good defense through the playoffs when it mattered the most. I think we'll do better than a second and trash, we'll see. I would expect a solid young player.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Yet, he did just get squeezed into a ~4x4 contract. The market wouldn't have let that happen unless there were some warts there.

We watched an analytics-darling get demoted to the 3rd pairing in a crucial Game 7 against Washington because of his defense. I'm proceeding with some caution here.

Faulk is gone because he wants too much money and we need to get something for him if we can, and we have way too many potentially talented D behind him to justify keeping him as an own rental. It's just math.

 

[My Special Purpose]

IDK, you're telling me we're better off with an average player as our #5 defenseman than we would be having a legitimately good player as our #5 defenseman and I'm just having a hard time buying that argument.

Although this is true, it's just not how sports works. We'd be even better if we went out and got Colton Parayko as our third-pairing LD to play with Faulk. Toronto would be better if they had Carey Price to back up Frederik Andersen. They'd be even better if they had John Gibson in the AHL in case either got hurt.

But it doesn't make logical sense in a salary cap sport to get marginally better by having elite players sitting on the bench or in the minor leagues.

Yes, Faulk is better than Fleury on the third pairing. But in context, is having Faulk for one season on the third pairing, then losing him for nothing, smarter than just playing Fleury on the third pairing? No, it's not. You just can't remove the context from everything and dismiss ideas.

And on top of that, I can make a damn good argument that TvR is a better RD for our third pairing than Faulk. You're just trying to be difficult because that's your jam.

 

[My Special Purpose]

If they're working on an extension we're getting something back. You guys have been listening to the idiots on the main board telling us Faulk was worth trash for years now. He's a productive RD who had a good year, and played very good defense through the playoffs when it mattered the most. I think we'll do better than a second and trash, we'll see. I would expect a solid young player.

I dunno man. I mean, this sounds a lot like the Skinner situation last summer and we didn't get a solid young player. And Skinner was more valuable than Faulk.

I do find it fascinating that us signing Gardiner for a low number actually improved Faulk's trade value because the Gardiner option is off the table for other teams. Kinda sweet. Almost like it was planned.

 

[Roboturner913]

Yes, Faulk is better than Fleury on the third pairing. But in context, is having Faulk for one season on the third pairing, then losing him for nothing, smarter than just playing Fleury on the third pairing? No, it's not. You just can't remove the context from everything and dismiss ideas.

We can afford to lose Faulk for nothing, if it comes to that. We have Bean, Priskie, Sellgren, Fleury, etc. waiting to step in the following season. And those players have had more time to develop in either the AHL or smaller NHL minutes in the meantime. This isn't a situation where we're absolutely forced to recoup assets. It's a better situation, given the organizational depth chart at defense, than the situation surrounding the decision to keep Ferland as an "own rental" last season.

If we end up on another deep playoff run, which player would you rather have in the lineup? Faulk? Or Fleury? I think we both know the answer to that, if you're willing to answer it honestly (and I have nothing against Fleury either)

But it doesn't make logical sense in a salary cap sport to get marginally better by having elite players sitting on the bench or in the minor leagues.

Talk about removing context! You're talking about going out and getting a player. I'm talking about keeping the one we have. We're not "getting marginally better" by keeping Faulk and playing him on the third pair. We're staying with basically what we had last year when De Haan was the #5.

You're just trying to be difficult because that's your jam.

LOL, pot meet kettle

 

[Canes]

Will be sad to see Faulk go but it's understandable given the circumstances. I don't really expect him to extend with any team before testing the open market without a pretty big overpayment so the return will reflect that. It'll probably be better than the Skinner return but not by much.

 

[FreshSeabass]

The only NHL player i could see being appealing form the Ducks is Silvferberg. Right shot forward signed at 5.2 for 5 seasons. Or they are shedding faulk for picks and prospects to make room for Laine

 

[GoldiFox]

Troy Terry out of Anaheim seems like fit for the Canes.

He was #2 in Pronman's Anaheim prospect rankings last year (considered "graduated" this year) ahead of Lundestrom and Comtois:

Terry had a great season. He was one of the best players in college hockey, was a key member for the USA at the Olympics and played briefly for the Ducks at the end of the season. He’s highly skilled, smart, quick, tenacious and makes plays at both ends. It’s hard to find a weakness in his game. Like all young players, he’ll need some bulk, but he can win battles. I’ve talked to some NHL scouts who feel he has the potential to be a true impact guy at the NHL level. I’m not 100 percent of the way there on that assessment, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

Advanced stats look good. Right handed RW.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

I think the Gardiner contract came from paralysis of the market from 2 directions.

1 - RFAs still have seen no major movement.
2 - Salary Cap level remained stagnant

If the RFA market had played out and gotten resolved earlier in the year like happened in previous seasons, I think teams would be better positioned to make a move for him to bring him in. Had the Salary Cap bumped up to $84m-$85m like expected, teams would have had a little more flexibility to maneuver the UFA market to bring him in. But both of those happened, and largely froze movement and paralyzed teams into not being able to move. And, lets be realistic, if Aho was still not signed, there is no way we make that move last week, so we are very lucky to have had that work out for us like it did.

This was an unusual year that kept a legitimately good player in limbo all summer because teams weren't prepared for the offseason that played out. And we pounced when the timing was right.

All of this is true, but it wouldn't have mattered if the market valued Gardiner highly. Other players got paid in June/July; on the blueline, Myers got 6x5 and Stralman got 5.5x3. Why did Gardiner in particular fall through the cracks?

 

[Svechhammer]

The only NHL player i could see being appealing form the Ducks is Silvferberg. Right shot forward signed at 5.2 for 5 seasons. Or they are shedding faulk for picks and prospects to make room for Laine

To fit in Laine, we'd need to shed probably another $3m-$4m in salary on top of Faulk.

I just can't see that happening. Especially if we're not dealing with Winnipeg directly.

 

[Roboturner913]

They're not trading Silvferberg. If they're trading an established NHLer, it's probably Henrique, or somebody like him. I could see them wanting to get away from that contract.

 

[Svechhammer]

All of this is true, but it wouldn't have mattered if the market valued Gardiner highly. Other players got paid in June/July; on the blueline, Myers got 6x5 and Stralman got 5.5x3. Why did Gardiner in particular fall through the cracks?

Because other GMs are stupid? I mean Myers at $2m more than Gardiner per year for 1 extra year is stupidity. Ceci getting a little more is stupidity.

We can't control their stupidity. We can only take advantage of it, which we've been doing with ruthless efficiency over the last 20 months

 

[Roboturner913]

My understanding is there was concern over Gardiner's back holding up so nobody wanted to commit for more than 2 years. I don't think it was strictly a money per year thing, more reticence about the longer term.

 

[MinJaBen]

They're not trading Silvferberg. If they're trading an established NHLer, it's probably Henrique, or somebody like him. I could see them wanting to get away from that contract.

We can't take Henrique back without moving someone else....his cap hit is higher than Faulks and we are already over the cap.

Edit: It's picks or prospects or we made a homerun or we made an error. I think Henrique only fits the last option.

 

[My Special Purpose]

The only NHL player i could see being appealing form the Ducks is Silvferberg. Right shot forward signed at 5.2 for 5 seasons. Or they are shedding faulk for picks and prospects to make room for Laine

Rikard Rakell is one of my all-time faves, but I don't think that's what's going on here.

All of this is true, but it wouldn't have mattered if the market valued Gardiner highly. Other players got paid in June/July; on the blueline, Myers got 6x5 and Stralman got 5.5x3. Why did Gardiner in particular fall through the cracks?

Myers - RD
Stralman - RD
Shattenkirk - RD

Gardiner - LD

They're not trading Silvferberg. If they're trading an established NHLer, it's probably Henrique, or somebody like him. I could see them wanting to get away from that contract.

Yep. It's one of the worst in the NHL. No way we're going anywhere near Henrique.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Because other GMs are stupid? I mean Myers at $2m more than Gardiner per year for 1 extra year is stupidity. Ceci getting a little more is stupidity.

Ceci - RD

 

[Svechhammer]

My understanding is there was concern over Gardiner's back holding up so nobody wanted to commit for more than 2 years. I don't think it was strictly a money per year thing, more reticence about the longer term.

There are already reports that at least Montreal was offering 3 years, and he went with Carolina because they went with 4

 

[geehaad]

I can make a damn good argument that TvR is a better RD for our third pairing than Faulk.

 

[My Special Purpose]

It starts with him costing $3.7 million less.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

We can afford to lose Faulk for nothing, if it comes to that. We have Bean, Priskie, Sellgren, Fleury, etc. waiting to step in the following season. And those players have had more time to develop in either the AHL or smaller NHL minutes in the meantime. This isn't a situation where we're absolutely forced to recoup assets. It's a better situation, given the organizational depth chart at defense, than the situation surrounding the decision to keep Ferland as an "own rental" last season.

If we end up on another deep playoff run, which player would you rather have in the lineup? Faulk? Or Fleury? I think we both know the answer to that, if you're willing to answer it honestly (and I have nothing against Fleury either)



Talk about removing context! You're talking about going out and getting a player. I'm talking about keeping the one we have. We're not "getting marginally better" by keeping Faulk and playing him on the third pair. We're staying with basically what we had last year when De Haan was the #5.



LOL, pot meet kettle

Boys, boys. You're both difficult. And I should know! Fatheads!

 

[Svechhammer]

If we end up on another deep playoff run, which player would you rather have in the lineup? Faulk? Or Fleury?

I'm pretty sure if we're in the middle of a deep playoff run, I'm not going to care which defender is playing RD on our 3rd pairing, the fact that we'd be in the middle of that run would be justification enough that whoever is there was good enough.