Trading Faulk Makes No Sense

[a smell of green grass]

Anybody see a recurring issue?

- We can't trade Faulk because we have no young backfill top 4 RHD.
Faulk will be "maturing out" before the Blues become ultra-competitive again, so our prospects will have to eventually fill that void. In the meantime, the D will likely suck w/o him there. But he could possibly get a decent return. In this case gotta think about the future and not next year
- We can't trade Thomas because we have no young backfill 1C.
To me it is more important to keep strong down the center and build on that. Trading your young cost-controlled 1C would be a bad idea. You can still build around him and have a future, unlike Faulk IMO
- Hofer better not go down, because Binner is a disaster behind our defense, and we have no young backfill Goalie.
Losing players via waiver happens, and was Ellis the future? A goalie doesn't command much in a trade, and especially one having a notoriously bad year. Hofer and Binner's contracts are up at the same time. In this case, without some very good offer why trade a known entity, where if you trade him, you pick up some other "meh" goalie in FA? Might as well keep him at this point.

Amazing that that is the situation we are in considering that Re-Whatever 1.0 just "completed".

I get that you are saying that Army has left the team thin. To diverge from that see my comments following your in blue (this time not sarcasm just my 5 cents - ya know inflation).

I understand and agree with your other points. My point is exclusively that no matter what TRADE BAIT SELL PLAYER you look at, Army has no young immediate rostered player to step in for that player.

I hope that Army realizes that this is a very deep hole that we are in. We are very THIN on Line 1 talent, and that is never easy to obtain.

[MrPostman01]

DMen much weaker than Faulk's median performance bring back first round picks every year. He will likely have a worse year next season, no doubt. But the the difference between Faulk now versus Faulk with 50% retention next TDL is about a B prospect. Rentals tend to draw a high floor, and an extra year from an aging defensemen doesn't bring back large returns historically.

If the goal of the team is to make the playoffs next year, I don't think they will trade him.

The issue is that this season Faulk is one of the top D men on market now with his performance.

You skip to next season and if he is having a down year and there are other options available you aren't getting a 1st like you mention IMO

Exactamundo.He is now the top RH D defense-man available and is finally having a great year. Boston is in hot pursuit, followed by Canadians and Detroit. Let the bidding wars begin!

[TBone]

Man, does this place run hot and cold on Faulk. For most of the past two seasons, most fans wanted Faulk not only gone, but imprisoned and more than a few wanted him executed. Now, we have people wanting to hold onto him like he's the missing link to next year's Cup run. Right now, they can get a return nearing what they gave up for him 5 1/2 years ago. Let's not let another day pass before they move him, lest he suffer some freak accident getting out of bed.

So true. Faulk represented the first of many failures by Armstrong to try to fill the hole left by the forced retirement of Jay Bouwmeester.

No offense to him, but I'll be happy when he's solid gone.

[dtkblueshockey]

What is the team's goal next year?

Logically, we have to assume they aren't tearing it all down and going for a rebuild. So they will hope to make the playoffs with a similar outlook to this season.

If you trade Faulk, what do you do with right D? Mailloux at number 2? The FA RD options are terrible.

I can't see them trading Faulk when they can just wait until next deadline and trade him for likely a similar value. Even if he has a down year next season, he's still likely to be worth a late first. So why trade him now and greatly reduce your odds of making the P[ositively] O[bnoxious] S[impleton] next year?

They won't.

They need to sell high on him while they can. He's not going to be a part of the next cup run here and he's not getting any younger. They have Jiricek and Lindstein on the way.

[Frank Barone]

I'm not advocating to keep Faulk, my point is that I'm surprised the assumption is that management will trade him.

Of course the bar won't be playoffs next year, but they will certainly want to maximize the probability of that alongside building for the future. I believe the owners place a high degree of focus on playoff revenue.

I also think the argument of keeping expired players being dumb is nonsensical, he's not expiring. That's the whole basis of my original post. Of course if he was expiring you'd have to trade him.

To me, this comes down to him being worth almost nearly the same amount if they trade him at next year's deadline as he is now, even expecting him to regress next year. Some of you disagree with that, which is fair. That list of RD will be much smaller when next season's deadline occurs. Many of those teams will be in the playoff hunt, and many of those players will be re-signed. With the cap being where it is and the number of teams in the league versus the talent available, deadline prices will remain very stable for the foreseeable future in my opinion.

I agree with this 100%. The Blues already have a lot of late 1st round picks and B prospects, in fact they don't have room for all of them. Also, Jiricek will not be ready early next year.

I think it is more likely they trade or waive Tucker or Kessel this season to make room for Lindstein who would then play with Faulk. Start of next year would be:

Broberg Parayko
Lindstein Faulk
Fowler Mailloux

Jiricek could become a third pair guy by this time next year with Mailloux moving up to the 2nd pair if they trade Faulk then. But he Blues could be playoff contenders next year and then could just keep Faulk.

[skilles]

I'm not advocating to keep Faulk, my point is that I'm surprised the assumption is that management will trade him.

Of course the bar won't be playoffs next year, but they will certainly want to maximize the probability of that alongside building for the future. I believe the owners place a high degree of focus on playoff revenue.

I also think the argument of keeping expired players being dumb is nonsensical, he's not expiring. That's the whole basis of my original post. Of course if he was expiring you'd have to trade him.

To me, this comes down to him being worth almost nearly the same amount if they trade him at next year's deadline as he is now, even expecting him to regress next year. Some of you disagree with that, which is fair. That list of RD will be much smaller when next season's deadline occurs. Many of those teams will be in the playoff hunt, and many of those players will be re-signed. With the cap being where it is and the number of teams in the league versus the talent available, deadline prices will remain very stable for the foreseeable future in my opinion.

I agree with this 100%. The Blues already have a lot of late 1st round picks and B prospects, in fact they don't have room for all of them. Also, Jiricek will not be ready early next year.

I think it is more likely they trade or waive Tucker or Kessel this season to make room for Lindstein who would then play with Faulk. Start of next year would be:

Broberg Parayko
Lindstein Faulk
Fowler Mailloux

Jiricek could become a third pair guy by this time next year with Mailloux moving up to the 2nd pair if they trade Faulk then. But he Blues could be playoff contenders next year and then could just keep Faulk.

I think that is a much more rational plan unless someone blows us away with an offer.

I will offer an alternative though, could be that the assets gained by selling off this year are flipped at the draft for more long tern solutions which would probably be the ideal way to go.

I definitely do not think we should just trade Faulk etc. for draft picks then actually make the picks but flipping the picks would make it all make sense.

[zamadoo]

What is the team's goal next year?

Logically, we have to assume they aren't tearing it all down and going for a rebuild. So they will hope to make the playoffs with a similar outlook to this season.

If you trade Faulk, what do you do with right D? Mailloux at number 2? The FA RD options are terrible.

I can't see them trading Faulk when they can just wait until next deadline and trade him for likely a similar value. Even if he has a down year next season, he's still likely to be worth a late first. So why trade him now and greatly reduce your odds of making the P[ositively] O[bnoxious] S[impleton] next year?

They won't.

So your plan is to not trade him now when he's at the peak of his tenure with only 2 years left and a mod-NTC at 33-337d old, turning 34 in exactly one month while the team (who was trying to compete this year) has been embarrassingly bad to the point we're aiming for the #1OA pick, but instead wait to trade him next year when he's 34, going on 35, on the basis that we need him to win next year...

So if we need him to win next year, but with him playing his best, we're losing this year (like other years), why would we trade him next year?

I'll ask again to ensure the logic was properly framed.

Why would we trade him next season at the TDL if we are trying to win next season? If you think he is that important to us winning, and we are in position next year, why would we trade him at that point?

His value is highest now. We can retain on his cap to further ensure peak value for the other team who will have him for two playoff runs and a whole season. Next season his value will decrease, he will be approaching 35 at the TDL, and we should be looking at Mailloux/Jiricek/Lindstein or a different vet to step into a top-4 role next season while collecting on assets that have been maximised by trading Faulk by this TDL. Perhaps a 1st that can instantly be used in the 2026 draft.

[skilles]

What is the team's goal next year?

Logically, we have to assume they aren't tearing it all down and going for a rebuild. So they will hope to make the playoffs with a similar outlook to this season.

If you trade Faulk, what do you do with right D? Mailloux at number 2? The FA RD options are terrible.

I can't see them trading Faulk when they can just wait until next deadline and trade him for likely a similar value. Even if he has a down year next season, he's still likely to be worth a late first. So why trade him now and greatly reduce your odds of making the P[ositively] O[bnoxious] S[impleton] next year?

They won't.

So your plan is to not trade him now when he's at the peak of his tenure with only 2 years left and a mod-NTC at 33-337d old, turning 34 in exactly one month while the team (who was trying to compete this year) has been embarrassingly bad to the point we're aiming for the #1OA pick, but instead wait to trade him next year when he's 34, going on 35, on the basis that we need him to win next year...

So if we need him to win next year, but with him playing his best, we're losing this year (like other years), why would we trade him next year?

I'll ask again to ensure the logic was properly framed.

Why would we trade him next season at the TDL if we are trying to win next season? If you think he is that important to us winning, and we are in position next year, why would we trade him at that point?

His value is highest now. We can retain on his cap to further ensure peak value for the other team who will have him for two playoff runs and a whole season. Next season his value will decrease, he will be approaching 35 at the TDL, and we should be looking at Mailloux/Jiricek/Lindstein or a different vet to step into a top-4 role next season while collecting on assets that have been maximised by trading Faulk by this TDL. Perhaps a 1st that can instantly be used in the 2026 draft.

I really don't think its certain his value is higher or much higher now than it will be next year, I'm not sure the extra year will be seen as a positive. If it is and someone wants to pay a premium sure I'm in or if we think we can flip the futures for a long term piece.

However we need to figure out why this team was so bad. I was one of few that thought this season wasn't going to be very good but this is a bigger problem than not having a good enough roster. While the roster is not great we should be better than this.

[chuckt]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

[zamadoo]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

I can factor in what you and skilles say about his value, but that still doesn't answer my question about the logic behind trading him next TDL.

It's a risk either way, and I see the ratio in favor of trading now. Maybe we just disagree, but I think we risk not trading him at all. We're sitting on an asset peaking in value, regardless of how much value (or demand) we speculate he will have next season. Based on current information, it doesn't make sense to hold.

[chuckt]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

I can factor in what you and skilles say about his value, but that still doesn't answer my question about the logic behind trading him next TDL.

It's a risk either way, and I see the ratio in favor of trading now. Maybe we just disagree, but I think we risk not trading him at all. We're sitting on an asset peaking in value, regardless of how much value (or demand) we speculate he will have next season. Based on current information, it doesn't make sense to hold.

This is a fair point. Evidence suggests Doug Armstrong would trade Faulk if we are on the borderline of playoffs (Statsny in the past). I assume Steen would act similarly.

I am typically a tear it all down type of person. I was arguing in 2019 to sell everyone right before they made their run. I still hold such opinions typically as I think the goal of the team should be a cup, not just the playoffs.

But I wouldn't be heartbroken if they kept Faulk at next seasons deadline if they had a solid playoff position. A late first round pick has a reasonable shot of being a middle six player, maybe a second pair defenseman. While I don't think their current prospect pool is good enough for an eventual cup winner, I also don't think a late first will make much of a difference. They really need a high pick to make a significant push in the future - or to get very lucky with a later pick.

I'd still prefer to trade Faulk at next year's deadline as opposed to keep him, but I'm somewhat fine either way.

To be clear, I'd also be happy with them trading him this deadline if they had an actionable plan to replace him soon. I don't see that being realistic in the current talent pool available.

[BleedingBleu]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

I can factor in what you and skilles say about his value, but that still doesn't answer my question about the logic behind trading him next TDL.

It's a risk either way, and I see the ratio in favor of trading now. Maybe we just disagree, but I think we risk not trading him at all. We're sitting on an asset peaking in value, regardless of how much value (or demand) we speculate he will have next season. Based on current information, it doesn't make sense to hold.

This is a fair point. Evidence suggests Doug Armstrong would trade Faulk if we are on the borderline of playoffs (Statsny in the past). I assume Steen would act similarly.

I am typically a tear it all down type of person. I was arguing in 2019 to sell everyone right before they made their run. I still hold such opinions typically as I think the goal of the team should be a cup, not just the playoffs.

But I wouldn't be heartbroken if they kept Faulk at next seasons deadline if they had a solid playoff position. A late first round pick has a reasonable shot of being a middle six player, maybe a second pair defenseman. While I don't think their current prospect pool is good enough for an eventual cup winner, I also don't think a late first will make much of a difference. They really need a high pick to make a significant push in the future - or to get very lucky with a later pick.

I'd still prefer to trade Faulk at next year's deadline as opposed to keep him, but I'm somewhat fine either way.

To be clear, I'd also be happy with them trading him this deadline if they had an actionable plan to replace him soon. I don't see that being realistic in the current talent pool available.

Considering how we got Faulk, that sounds like a good deal to me…

Justin Faulk (Age 27)
September 24, 2019: Traded by the Carolina Hurricanes with 5th round draft pick in 2020 to the St. Louis Blues for Dominik Bokk (#25 in 2018), Joel Edmundson (#46 in 2011), and 7th round draft pick in 2021 (Nikita Guslistov).

We really should reflect about the nature of this trade-tree

[Bluesfan1978]

I’ll be shocked if Faulk isn’t traded this year. Could have a bad year next year, could be injured. Anything could happen this year but Army has to take advantage of this poor year for a high draft pick and build some draft capital and prospects.

[zamadoo]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

I can factor in what you and skilles say about his value, but that still doesn't answer my question about the logic behind trading him next TDL.

It's a risk either way, and I see the ratio in favor of trading now. Maybe we just disagree, but I think we risk not trading him at all. We're sitting on an asset peaking in value, regardless of how much value (or demand) we speculate he will have next season. Based on current information, it doesn't make sense to hold.

This is a fair point. Evidence suggests Doug Armstrong would trade Faulk if we are on the borderline of playoffs (Statsny in the past). I assume Steen would act similarly.

I am typically a tear it all down type of person. I was arguing in 2019 to sell everyone right before they made their run. I still hold such opinions typically as I think the goal of the team should be a cup, not just the playoffs.

But I wouldn't be heartbroken if they kept Faulk at next seasons deadline if they had a solid playoff position. A late first round pick has a reasonable shot of being a middle six player, maybe a second pair defenseman. While I don't think their current prospect pool is good enough for an eventual cup winner, I also don't think a late first will make much of a difference. They really need a high pick to make a significant push in the future - or to get very lucky with a later pick.

I'd still prefer to trade Faulk at next year's deadline as opposed to keep him, but I'm somewhat fine either way.

To be clear, I'd also be happy with them trading him this deadline if they had an actionable plan to replace him soon. I don't see that being realistic in the current talent pool available.

Gotcha. We probably agree more than disagree.

If we keep him and next season we are good from season start and solidly in a playoff position, then yes, I would be just fine with it all. If he's seen as part of the plan and they move Kyrou/Buch or whoever to change what has happened, then great. I don't trust that to be the case.

I would also say that a main reason I want to trade Faulk now is that it would increase our chances of a top-3 pick this season. Maybe we lose on the lottery and use the asset(s) from a Faulk trade to move into position for Stenberg? Speculation. Maybe Steen will want to tear it down this offseason? No idea what he thinks, but reasonable to assume he will follow in Army's foot steps. Moving Faulk now increases the odds that we are again bad next season, which could get you what you want.

[callitwhatyouwant]

snuggy dvorsky and carbs are all "line 1 talent". Whether they ever graduate to that level, time will tell. Right now if you asked me our only line 1 talents, it would be Thomas/Dvorsky Snuggs/Carbs. So you have 4 guys that have shots, I would never bet more than 1 of those young guys actually get there.

Line 2 guys, Hollywood/Kyrou/Buchy/Neighbours. You are much better if Neighbours and Buchy are 3rd liners as they play a good brand of hockey but buchy has shown to be streaky, and neighbours really only scores goals, doesn't playmake.

that leaves you with stenberg who is showing middle 6 for sure. Schenn should be 3rd line.

The team isn't bad, it's just 3 years away from having proven data with the young guys. We have now proven that neighbours/buchy/kyrou aren't reliable for 1st line. But they as a group are making 1 heck of a 2nd line lately.

[skilles]

I don't think anyone arguing that he's worth so much more this year has really illustrated that point well. Take a look at deadline defenseman deals in recent history. Ceci, Carlo, etc.

There is no evidence Faulk will be worth much more this year than next, even expecting him to regress next year.

I also think people expecting the Blues to retain with a year left do not have a good sense of how this team operates.

I can factor in what you and skilles say about his value, but that still doesn't answer my question about the logic behind trading him next TDL.

It's a risk either way, and I see the ratio in favor of trading now. Maybe we just disagree, but I think we risk not trading him at all. We're sitting on an asset peaking in value, regardless of how much value (or demand) we speculate he will have next season. Based on current information, it doesn't make sense to hold.

Well the idea is that you give our young developing players more time to develop and a chance to be competitive.

There should be a real concern about this thing turning into a complete disaster the likes of which players start asking to get out resulting in one of these indefinite rebuild situations.

Remember the Blues missed the playoffs in 2018, a lot can change in a year. I'm not a 100% no an trading faulk but we need to be thinking about being competitive moving forward.