Again, When Faulk has been all-star?Faulk becomes an All-Star again?
it would be fun here, and the Post site might actually have servers melt
Again, When Faulk has been all-star?Faulk becomes an All-Star again?
it would be fun here, and the Post site might actually have servers melt
Was it game 2 of the Van series where he decided to turn into a stud out of nowhere? That was the first time I saw it for a full game since he joined the team. We at least know he has the ability somewhere in him....no matter how deep lol.Faulk becomes an All-Star again?
it would be fun here, and the Post site might actually have servers melt
Again, When Faulk has been all-star?
I think the most exciting thing would be Thomas, Kyrou, and Dunn all taking their respective games to the next level and becoming the nucleus of a "new core". Or the bottom completely falling out, Schwartz walking and forcing the Blues to rebuild. I'd much, much, prefer the first but either would give the Blues a sense of direction, rather than I fear will happen where they are caught in the mushy middle and become Nashville with a worse defense but better centers.What's the most exciting thing that can happen?
- for better or worse.
2014-15 Faulk had 7 goals + 20 points at powerplay from total 15+34=49 -192015, 2016, and 2017 with Carolina
2014-15 Faulk had 7 goals + 20 points at powerplay from total 15+34=49 -19
2015-16 Faulk had 12 goals + 17 points at powerplay from total 16+21=37 -22
2016-17 Faulk had 4 goals + 13 points at powerplay from total 17+20=37 -18
So those 3 season he had total of 123 points and at powerplay he produce 50 points. I know you think its elite performance in your book so I'll add here goals total number which is 48 and at powerplay 23. So his produce is depend of powerplay icetime. 5on5 he's mediocre level and powerplay he belongs at all-star level. You can see result when he clearly had shortened icetime at powerplay coming seasons which ofc shows in his produce. When you look his last season at Blues when he was cut out of powerplay his produce was showing only his 5on5 which tells how poor (not all-star) level he is. Its not like he has decline his so called all-star level is what it is and reason is he doesn't get played at powerplay.
Look here
Justin Faulk Stats and News
So Army paid dmen whos best attributes were at powerplay, poor produce at 5on5 and defensively limited skills. We kind of missed out Shattenkirk is excatly what Faulk is except he's paid 1.750mill.$ and Faulk 6.5mil.$. Ofc Shattery will get raise, but not that heavily. Paid what he's worth not crazy numbers like Faulk or what Shattery was paid at first place in Rangers.
I'll take dmen who can heavy minutes at 5on5 and shutdown opposite team. If you paid powerplay specialist that kind of money you are in trouble. Its not like we didn't have guys who can produce at powerplay. Pietro, Parayko and Dunn, pipeline Perunovich.
Its stupidity to pay that much money for Faulk type of player or Shattenkirk.
You don't need to be hockey guru to understand Faulk's contract is terrible. We just need to hope Seattle will take that contract away or at some point we need to buy him out like Rangers did with Shattenkirk.
We had luxury to spend money last season and go all-in again (got from Stillman's approval), only problem is that Faulk wanted security and Army's thinked when he got erection or lets say didn't think of deep enough what problem this could make to team in long run. Or he knew Pietro is gone and he need somebody on that spot with hesitate move which ofc make this even worse.
Other teams GM's are smelling blood.People are off their meds if they thought 8x8 would get it done.
The structure would have had to make the contract impossible to move both theoretically and literally in order for that cap hit to suffice.
Looks like you didnt understood my point.I never said he SHOULD have been an all-star, just that he was - as he was the best player on those teams and someone had to go
If he was an all-star for the Blues next year it would be a interesting story - either he was incredible and outplayed some other really good Blues players or our team sucked so bad he was the best of bad team like in Carolina
A player is only eligible for a NTC when he has seven accrued seasons or is 27 on the July 1 of that year. That's why Tarasenko got his NTC four years into his deal.Surely the Blues have to be offering some sort of NTC. All of Steen, Schenn, Faulk, Schwartz, Tarasenko, Scandella, Perron, and Bozak signed multi-year deals with some sort of NTC. The first 3 have full NTC for at least portions of their deal that tail off to M-NTC (or, in Tarasenko's case he went from no NTC to a full NTC in the last 4 years). So I cannot imagine they aren't at least offering no trade protection in some fashion for the full 8 years. I can see some hesitance on handing out a full NMC but if you're not offering signing bonuses either...
Nope. I'm guessing it might have been some kind of reference to if there wasn't a pandemic and he was becoming a UFA with a $86m cap then someone out there would be offering $11.5m.I can't watch NHL network during the day but someone told me they were reporting Pietrangelo is asking for 11.5m/year. Any truth to this?
Looks like you didnt understood my point.
The last two long-term contract we have signed (Schenn and Faulk) both have full NTC for the first 5 years and 50% NTC (15 teams) for the remaining years. I can guarantee we are offering Petro a better option than those. My guess is that we might not be offering a NMC (we have never given one or traded for anyone that has one) or signing bonus. We should absolutely be offering the NMC, but I think it would be fair to modify the NTC portion in the last 2-3 years. We should also not be refusing to offer signing bonus, but I think it is reasonable to offer 20%-40% of his compensation in the form of signing bonus, just not 80%-90% like many of the star player deals have been lately. I think it would be foolish of Army not to offer to make certain exceptions to the "company policy" for Petro, and I think it would be foolish of Stillman not to explicitly give Army the authority to do so.Surely the Blues have to be offering some sort of NTC. All of Steen, Schenn, Faulk, Schwartz, Tarasenko, Scandella, Perron, and Bozak signed multi-year deals with some sort of NTC. The first 3 have full NTC for at least portions of their deal that tail off to M-NTC (or, in Tarasenko's case he went from no NTC to a full NTC in the last 4 years). So I cannot imagine they aren't at least offering no trade protection in some fashion for the full 8 years. I can see some hesitance on handing out a full NMC but if you're not offering signing bonuses either...
NMCs are an all or nothing thing to my knowledge. You don’t modify a portion of it, because it is a blanket clause. No movement, means no movement of any kind...trades, waivers, sending down, exposing in expansion draft, etc. The player has absolute control during NMC covered years.The last two long-term contract we have signed (Schenn and Faulk) both have full NTC for the first 5 years and 50% NTC (15 teams) for the remaining years. I can guarantee we are offering Petro a better option than those. My guess is that we might not be offering a NMC (we have never given one or traded for anyone that has one) or signing bonus. We should absolutely be offering the NMC, but I think it would be fair to modify the NTC portion in the last 2-3 years. We should also not be refusing to offer signing bonus, but I think it is reasonable to offer 20%-40% of his compensation in the form of signing bonus, just not 80%-90% like many of the star player deals have been lately. I think it would be foolish of Army not to offer to make certain exceptions to the "company policy" for Petro, and I think it would be foolish of Stillman not to explicitly give Army the authority to do so.
At this point, the question is, will Petro agree to the (reported) $8M x 8 terms Army seems comfortable with if Army relents on the NMC and SB issues? We'll know one way or another in the next 16 days.
Both of those are largely meaningless.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that the tweets are meaningless because they aren’t accurate of what we already know. Cam was talking about what JR and Strickland reported, but they were reporting that the Blues wanted him to accept 8x8 without knowing the structure. Not that it was just a flat 8x8. The other tweets were someone not knowing that LeBrun was speculating on a sign-and-trade, not trading his rights.How are those largely meaningless? A no trade clause is a huge part of a contract. And signing bonuses are massive as it's much better to get your money as soon as possible rather than over a long period of time. I know you guys don't want to hear about Toronto but if you take a look at how they've structured their contracts in the past, they get massive signing bonuses early on and then the actual money owed on the deals after 2-3 years is lowered.
Matthews: $58.17m over 5 years, $30.4 paid out in the first 12 months (july 1st to july 1st).
Tavares: $77m over 7 years, $30.24m paid out in the first 12 months, $41.33m in the first 24 months.
Marner: $65.36m over 6 years, $29.6m paid out in the first 12 months (owed an average of 7.8m in real money over the next 4 years despite a 10.9m cap hit).
Nylander: $45.09m over 6 years, not as much signing bonuses here but made $19m in the first two years (first year was half a season).
Just because Toronto has a GM who likes giving out bad contracts doesn’t mean other GMs should follow suit.How are those largely meaningless? A no trade clause is a huge part of a contract. And signing bonuses are massive as it's much better to get your money as soon as possible rather than over a long period of time. I know you guys don't want to hear about Toronto but if you take a look at how they've structured their contracts in the past, they get massive signing bonuses early on and then the actual money owed on the deals after 2-3 years is lowered.
Matthews: $58.17m over 5 years, $30.4 paid out in the first 12 months (july 1st to july 1st).
Tavares: $77m over 7 years, $30.24m paid out in the first 12 months, $41.33m in the first 24 months.
Marner: $65.36m over 6 years, $29.6m paid out in the first 12 months (owed an average of 7.8m in real money over the next 4 years despite a 10.9m cap hit).
Nylander: $45.09m over 6 years, not as much signing bonuses here but made $19m in the first two years (first year was half a season).