Faulk name heating up?

[Unfathomable]

Pierre LeBrun: Blues GM Doug Armstrong has been open for business since November, and there’s no question in my mind that one of the players he’s listening on is Justin Faulk - The Athletic (1/2)

Pierre LeBrun: I could see a world in which Justin Faulk ends up with the Golden Knights; I still think Rasmus Andersson is the more natural fit for the Golden Knights but if that doesn’t happen, Faulk is signed through next season - The Athletic (1/2)

https://x.com/i/status/2008237061841506344

Elliotte also had this to say a few days ago fwiw

Elliotte Friedman: Re Blues: They've tried, there's no question they've been out there trying; people have known that Armstrong's been willing to do stuff for some time now, but...I just think there aren't a lot of trade partners out there - FAN Hockey Show (12/29)

[TruBlueFan_1970]

Unless a younger Dman like Kaedan Korczak is coming back, I have ZERO interest in 99% of the VGK roster/prospects and they don’t have a 1st round pick this year. If they don’t like those terms, shop elsewhere.

[Harry S Deals]

There are never any specifics with these guys, "they can see". No one is stating that any Blues have been asked to submit their no trade list or waive their NTC so until we hear more its just banter

[DawgDad]

I don't see how you trade Faulk to a team you're competing with for a playoff spot, when you don't have to trade him at all. Next season, sure. Thinking back to 2017 it would not be completely out of character for Army, but right now is too soon.

[dhsux]

Sure Justin is an attractive target for a lot of teams but if the Blues are competing for a play off spot I don't see any trade happening short of a highway robbery.

[Unfathomable]

If we're being honest we all know we are not winning this year. We all know we have been wanting off that contract since it was signed we have jiricek pushing for a roster spot next year. If a good offer is to be had idk how you dont take it.

I know drafting near the top is a hot button topic around here but I WANT to this year...

[Bluesfan1978]

I think Armstrong and the team know they need to make some changes. Depends what the return for Faulk would be and what the team envisioned for his future with the team. I think if a team offers a first for Faulk you take it and use that as part of a package for a higher draft pick or a younger player.

[danno]

let's not forget how pedestrian Faulker has been the last couple of years. If he doesn't completely fall off before March, we would be selling high on him at the trade deadline. I say do it if the return is reasonable

[hockey jedi]

I don't see how you trade Faulk to a team you're competing with for a playoff spot, when you don't have to trade him at all. Next season, sure. Thinking back to 2017 it would not be completely out of character for Army, but right now is too soon.

+1 DawgDad, I find myself agreeing with a lot of your posts. You are a welcome addition to the forum and a breath of fresh air.

[LGB73]

This team is not winning the Cup. Period. Make the playoffs? Maybe but that's not the end goal nor should it be. That means you have to do what's right for the organization to put it in position to win the Cup down the road. Does that mean trading Faulk? Maybe. He's definitely the vet most likely to get the biggest return. I don't think Buch or Schenn get us back as much as Faulk could.

So should you trade him? That's the tougher question. Team has a couple young RDs in Mailloux and Jiricek who might be top 4 guys but they're not likely there next year. We might be better off holding onto him for another year. He might be a good fit to pair with Lindstein when we should be penciling him into the left side.

Then again an offer might be just too good to pass up.

[stljrs]

I think Faulk would need to bring back a 1st, a higher end prospect, and a decent D prospect. If you're Armstrong, why settle for anything less? You still have him next year. He could always be flipped then if necessary. We won't be a cup team next year either. Someone is going to have to overpay this year to get him.

[aslord]

I think Faulk would need to bring back a 1st, a higher end prospect, and a decent D prospect. If you're Armstrong, why settle for anything less? You still have him next year. He could always be flipped then if necessary. We won't be a cup team next year either. Someone is going to have to overpay this year to get him.

Why? I mean, that would be great, but why do they have to overpay to get him? What are we holding him for? Aside from a few bright spots, Faulk has not shown much during his time in St.Louis that would make him worth an overpay. If we get a second and a mid prospect I'd be surprised.

[Bacchk29]

I think Faulk would need to bring back a 1st, a higher end prospect, and a decent D prospect. If you're Armstrong, why settle for anything less? You still have him next year. He could always be flipped then if necessary. We won't be a cup team next year either. Someone is going to have to overpay this year to get him.

That’s probably what Army is asking with obviously no takers. Overvaluing his assets again.

[theograce]

Vegas is missing Pietrangelo so very badly.

[Harry S Deals]

I think Faulk would need to bring back a 1st, a higher end prospect, and a decent D prospect. If you're Armstrong, why settle for anything less? You still have him next year. He could always be flipped then if necessary. We won't be a cup team next year either. Someone is going to have to overpay this year to get him.

That’s probably what Army is asking with obviously no takers. Overvaluing his assets again.

Whats the rush to trade him? I dont think the Blues are counting on Mailloux or Jiricek to play 20+ min as soon as next year and Faulk is already signed. If Army isnt getting what he wants why sell low

[Army's Mom]

Vegas is missing Pietrangelo so very badly.

Could you imagine Faulk being traded for a second time, only to be asked to replace Pietrangelo again... At least this time there's no awkward overlap between the two.