Today’s Daily Cup of Joe continues building the 2019-20 Carolina Hurricanes roster by making a couple of the difficult decisions facing the team this summer.
Justin Faulk
Despite crediting Justin Faulk for have a pretty strong 2018-19 season, I would trade him this summer. I make this decision not because Faulk is not a good player but rather simply based on risk versus reward and also the team’s broader roster and needs.
Risk versus reward
Faulk is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent after the 2019-20 season. Based on continued escalation of prices in the free agent market and scarcity of available quality defensemen especially who are right shots, I would expect Faulk’s contract to cost $7-8 million per season and likely for at least four years, quite possibly more. Faulk will be 28 years old when the contract starts and 32 or 33 years old when it ends. Even in the midst of a strong season overall, Faulk still had a few games in which he struggled defending speed. In an NHL that is speed above all else, I think Faulk teeters right on the line of being mobile enough to defense top-tier forwards which makes his next contract more risky than most realize.
The roster situation
As noted above, higher-end defensemen are hard to come by in the NHL. So even given the risk that I suggested above, if the Hurricanes were short on top 4 defensemen, they might be inclined to take that risk for lack of better options. But the Hurricanes are five or arguably even six (if you want to count Trevor van Riemsdyk) deep on the blue line. The team is not desperate for help on the blue line — quite the opposite actually. There could be short-term issues with the long-term injuries to Calvin de Haan and Trevor van Riemsdyk, but once healthy the Hurricanes have five top 4 defensemen, another good #5 who could fill in higher in van Riemsdyk and then two young players who seem capable of contributing in different ways in Haydn Fleury and Jake Bean. Especially with budget issue maybe only two years out when Andei Svechnikov must be re-signed, I think the time is now to make the difficult choice and cut salary on the blue line by parting ways with Faulk.
Some will legitimately point out that the Hurricanes could be shorthanded early in the season if de Haan and van Riemsdyk are not yet available, but that can be dealt with by adding an inexpensive depth defenseman who can fill out the bottom part of the blue until de Haan and van Riemsdyk return.
Why Justin Faulk and not someone else?
Over the past year and a half or so, every time that Faulk’s name comes up in trade rumors, a contingent immediately suggests trading one of the other defensemen. Quite often, Brett Pesce and Justin Faulk seem to be discussed as if they are equal, interchangeable parts. I do not see that as even remotely close to being true. First, if one assumes that Faulk’s next contract comes in at $8 million per year, that is double Pesce’s $4 million salary.
But more simply than the financials, Pesce is just a better defenseman than Faulk and also three years younger.
More directly, I would not consider swapping Pesce in Faulk’s spot. Pesce’s contract is just too advantageous, and he is just a better defenseman too.
The potential return
As a player who is an unrestricted free agent next summer, it seems unlikely that Faulk by himself would return a higher-end forward. More likely, I could see the Hurricanes packaging Faulk with some futures to land a higher-end forward with term on his contract.
The burning questions are twofold. First, is General Manager Don Waddell looking to unload Faulk why he still has value? What is the accessible value for Faulk in a trade?
What say you Canes fans?
1) Which you consider trading Justin Faulk? And if so, how aggressively would you be pursuing a deal?
2) Would you instead consider trading a different defenseman and then keeping Faulk?
Go Canes!
It simply comes down to the return.
It’s most likely that trading Faulk will weaken the team in the short term. The short term might only be a matter of months but it could be the difference between making the playoffs and staying out of them.
If the return is a second round pick and a castaway prospect, I’d rather keep Faulk, have him play out his contract (he’ll be motivated in his last contract year) and reap the rewards.
Maybe he’s fond of this place and would sign a hometown discount deal. Maybe not.
In the latter I’d rather get another top 4 defenseman year out of Faulk than a second round pick and a weakened defense next season or at least trade him at the deadline if the team, even with Faulk onboard, doesn’t make it.
If Faulk can be traded or packaged in a trade that addresses another need and strengthens the team, then it’s a trade worth exploring.
Admittedly, I was in the ‘trade Faulk’ camp for awhile. Last year curbed some of those feelings because he once again showed capable of playing top 4D with a solid veteran partner. He should not be on the 1st PP, has average speed, but is a slight notch above average in other facets of his game. He leaves you with more desired offensively and frankly his interviews make you wonder if his heart is here, but that may just be his odd style. That said, he uses his body, can drive offense from the backend, and has been durable his whole career which is of value.
Pesce on the other hand is a different type, an excellent defender and penalty killer. His game is not built to drive offense, but his underlying numbers are outstanding which serves his partners well. That said, whereas Faulk is the Batman to every pairing, Pesce is the Robin to every pairing he is on. If the Canes deal from surplus it may be Pesce for a few reasons, notably contract value and having a surplus of defenders who can play defense without needing to carry offense (McKweon, Fleury, etc.).
Now, before Pesce fans whip out the data points trying to prove otherwise, I’m not saying he is easily replaceable. Just saying he is more replaceable given the fact the Canes have more ‘Robins’ in their defensive pipeline, so if the team decides to deal to upgrade top 6F, other teams likely return greater assets for Pesce given his contract.
I think Pesce’s value is also that he has shown he can play left or right side effectively. Pesce was something like a +32 this season. I would only move Pesce in a trade if the return was massive.
Faulk’s next contract should absolutely be a reason for a trade. Look at Skinner’s contract – even with the disappointing return, that was the right move. I’m very worried that he could suddenly be a step slow in the NHL and then he’s a $7mil a 3rd pair D.
Almost as important, would force RBA to use Dougie on PP1.
I will preface my comments by saying I (and others I am sure) like to play armchair GM without having to make any hard decisions. Acknowledging that, I am going to try (and likely fail) at being as objective as possible.
1) I wouldn’t trade Faulk, for two reasons.
I. The surplus on the blue line is on the left side–because Pesce was the Canes best defenseman playing on the left I wouldn’t move him back.
II. Paired with Pesce, Faulk was part of a pairing that was better than any the Canes have had in many years–that includes Slavin/Pesce. Some will say they didn’t “see” it that way. But results are better proof than visuals–Pesce/Faulk were almost exclusively on the ice against Crosby’s line when the Canes shut out the Penguins, against McDavid/Draisaitl when McDavid had ZERO points (the only goal was due to an errant Williams’ pass that led to a Draisaitl breakaway goal–the one area where Pesce is merely good not elite is defending 2-on-1), and against Benn/Seguin/Radulov when Dallas was shutout. Think about that, 60 minutes of hockey against elite centers/lines and one goal given up due to an error by a forward. Will Faulk play at that level for the next 5-6 years, likely not. But paired with Pesce he is more valuable than the return he likely nets.
2) As mentioned, the surplus is on the left and the replacements favor LDs 2-1 (Fleury and Bean with only McKeown on the right). Given that fact, de Haan would be the objectively correct player to include in a trade. However, his current injury and history of injuries makes it unlikely he would return fair value. That leaves Pesce or Slavin. Trading one of those two in a deal similar to Jones for Johansen is what an unemotional GM should consider. However it is hard to think of any young centers currently available–Slavin for Draisaitl would be hard to pass but I just don’t see Edmonton doing that. There are some possible young forwards (Kyle Connor if Winnipeg commits to Laine? maybe others) but none that are surefire equal values.
The point is that there is not a “big” trade around Faulk and most of us wouldn’t be happy with any involving Slavin. No one should be any happier trading Pesce. He was drafted a year after, is 6 months younger, and outperformed Slavin last season for $1.275M less.
How was that for objective?
You offer every reason why it makes sense to trade Faulk and I agree with both premise and reason. He is just not a $7M/year D-man.
I would certainly try to move him before the season starts – he has played his way last season to a slightly higher return, but it will take the package you describe and we probably still won’t get a top-6 forward – people know what they are trading for in terms of his future contract.
I think Pesce would probably net a much higher return but he is more valuable to the team, as he would be more valuable to any team with this high skill and low cost.
We should never trade Pesce or Slavin! Faulk was a different player this year for new coach RBA. Faulk wears a letter and RBA considers him part of the core as evidenced by playing Faulk against Ovechkin (Hamilton was over-matched). We need to sign Faulk to an extension.
de Haan is solid but is overpaid in a 3rd pairing role. My guess is he could be the odd man out, especially given his injury history.
Do you really think he is worth $7+M (and probably with term)? How does the team not avoid cap/salary crunch in 2-3 years?
Trading Faulk is about the timing more than the player. (It will take giving up quality to get quality in return). Scarcity in the market for right handed dmen, our depth at defense and recency bias of having just had a good year make him a logical trade candidate. Since he is in a contract year a hockey trade for an offensive player in a similar situation seems logical. Taylor Hall anyone?
(Note: Karlsson’s new contract has changed the value of 2 way defenseman forever. Faulk signed @ anywhere near $50million/for 7 years will be a bargain.)
I have always been a Pesce fan (as lfod noted). So I am going to provide some very basic statistical information. This is the 5-on-5 (both goalies in net) numbers when only one of Slavin or Pesce were on the ice. The best information I can find (on Hockeyviz) indicates that Slavin and Pesce faced similar level of competition.
I don’t think even the most observant Canes fans realized how good Pesce was in 18-19. I am not arguing that Pesce will be this good his entire career. We all agree that Slavin is fantastic, but I do think this demonstrates that for those who think Slavin is untouchable while Pesce is very valuable they are missing the fact that with Pesce on the ice the Canes were a better team.
Slavin w Martinook 229 minutes 6GF/11GA
Pesce w Martinook 213 minutes 12GF/7GA
Slavin w Williams 325 minutes 8GF/13GA
Pesce w Williams 308 minutes 19GF/10GA
Slavin w Aho 327 minutes 13GF/12GA
Pesce w Aho 327 minutes 23GF/7GA
Slavin w Staal 274 minutes 9GF/10GA
Pesce w Staal 159minutes 10GF/4GA
Slavin w Teravainen 344 minutes 15GF/10GA
Pesce w Teravainen 238 minutes 14GF/2GA
That last set also should give pause to those who question Teravainen’s defensive prowess. Pesce and TT were on the ice the equivalent of four games and the GAA was 0.51.
The data is from NaturalStatTrick.
There seem to be three options with Faulk: let him play out his contract this year; trade him either this off-season or in-season sometime before the Deadline; or, do neither and extend him sometime this off-season. Among these three options, the third seems to make the least sense now. Let me explain.
Letting Faulk play out his contract gives us the most optionality. He will continue to be highly motivated to perform next season for two obvious reasons: to earn a big contract as a UFA and to help the team take the next step forward. If we get the performance next season from Faulk that we got from him this season, I would be quite happy even if he walked as a UFA for nothing, which would only happen if we believed either Fleury or Bean was ready to step into a much larger roll – and we’d probably know that by watching their play as the season progressed.
If we traded him this off-season, we would certainly be selling “high” on Faulk relative to last off-season, but I’m not sure we’d get much more for him than WIN just got for Trouba – a bottom-pairing D and a 1st. That’s not a Top-6 forward and it wouldn’t solve an immediate need. Maybe we’d package him up in a larger deal to get a Top-6 forward but the general value for Faulk would be roughly the same. I’m not overwhelmed by that return and would rather have him for one more season and defer a decision into the future.
If we extend Faulk now, at whatever price and term, we lose the optionality of a trade – I’d have to believe he’d insist on more trade-protection than he has now – or the ability to walk away. I’m just not sure I want to be on that side of the long-term gamble on him now and would rather defer that decision into the future.
I actually believe that our primary issue this off-season is goaltending and not offense. Our younger high-end offensive players are still on the steep slope of their upward trajectory and we have more offensive talent that will be promoted next season from Charlotte. We are going to be better next season offensively just from natural player development. I don’t see a trade for a Top-6 forward as a must-do; it’s a nice-to-have at the right price but not a necessity at any price.
To me, like this past season, the strength of the team next season is probably going to be our defense and I would be fine to roll forward with the same general group including Faulk, especially if he has not been extended and is motivated to perform. I’d advocate for staying patient – unless I’m wrong about the return in a trade.
Let me modify this a bit – it’s tough to edit longer posts – Letting Faulk walk means we’d keep him for a Cup run ala Ferland this season AND one of Fleury/Bean is ready. I left the Cup run part out.
And again, it’s much more important to solve the goaltending puzzle than to add a Top-6 forward.
This makes a lot of sense. And the own-rental (Ferland) approach is so much better than than throwing out high draft picks to rent a player in February.
One thing that plays into this a bit is the Hurricanes pipeline on defense.
I think some put the cart a bit in front of the horse in projecting Canes prospects into the NHL lineup. I am higher on Fleury than some, but as of now he projects as a serviceable 3rd pairing defenseman. Bean’s trajectory coming out of a strong 2018-19 season in the AHL is high right now, but he is unproven at the NHL level and his strengths are more that of a great offensive #5 defenseman than an every game top 4. McKeown is interesting. He always plays up when given even a chance to win NHL ice time, but I actually think his weakness is similar to Fleury’s in the sense that he plays a passive style (opposite of Slavin and Pesce) that stays out of big trouble but can still be problematic at the NHL because it gives good NHL scorers too much time and space. And that really is it for near-term help from the system.
Long story short, I like the potential to fill out the 3rd pairing from the system. The possibility of netting another top 4 is always there as young players develop, but I am not sure what the Hurricanes have right now necessarily projects to that level. Seeing where Bean is come regular season hockey in October has the greatest chance to change that.
Agree that we don’t quite know what we have yet with Fleury and Bean. I’m in the optimistic camp still with Fleury and have no idea other than what I read about Bean, though he seems to have come a long way since camp last season.
I think both should see more time in Raleigh next season and we should have a much better idea of what their development paths and/or ceilings look like as the season progresses. I think this judgement factors into the Faulk decision. I guess this is what I was trying to say.
I believe that dmilleravid is spot on. Let’s not tinker with the defense (unless we can acquire a big, strong and mean stay-at-home d-man via UFA). Let’s not tinker with the forwards (except to replace Michael Ferland, if necessary). I would like to see us use our 1st round pick on Spencer Knight, if he is still available by then.
I would like to see the Canes keep Justin Faulk, but the market rate for defensemen makes that unrealistic. $7-8M per for a #3 or #4 defenseman is just out of the Canes market. IMO that’s what it will take to sign Faulk, and with the big number Dundon is going to have to pay Aho, that won’t happen.
The Canes will have to trade Faulk, but when is an interesting question. The Canes could hold on to Faulk and try to unload him later in the season when both Van Remsdyk and de Haan are back, but that is risky. If a good deal appears they should take it. I don’t expect a top 6 forward in return. Hopefully a usable player plus a prospect/draft pick.
If Spencer Knight is available to the Canes, which I doubt, they should snap him up!
The Rangers won the Truba trade in a big way. If that sets the market for the return for Faulk then there is little reason to trade him.
However if he is really a 7 mil dollar d-man then maybe it was just a bad deal by the Jets and the Canes can get a good return. Then maybe I would trade him – I wouldn’t resign him at this time at anything close to the term and salary people have been talking about.
The canes can be patient on this. The goaltending needs to be priority 1, replacing or resigning Ferland and Aho’s contract are next.
The 10 picks should be used to get more d-men prospects(at least half the picks).
Waddel was talking recently about the Canes being a budget team so I wouldn’t expect a trade for someone like Taylor Hall or Leon Draisaitl.
TD put 250 million dollars into his NFL hobby league, I hope he got a few million to spare for the Canes.
Eklund claims the Jets are interested in Faulk (after trading Trouba, doesn’t make much sense to me, but most of what Eklund says doesn’t, but it’s amusing).
I agree that Eklund’s prognostications are not usually on target. Getting rid of Trouba was mostly a necessity because of bad blood. Faulk is likely being coveted by Paul Maurice.
Who knows. Could be.
Holy cow, there is so much to unpack here and I’m not sure I have the intestinal fortitude or the time to address all of it….but let me try.
First of all, for all who have made statements like, “….if that’s all we can get for him, then let’s keep Faulk”, for whatever reason, you’re ignoring the fact that is just poor asset management. In no world is Faulk worth $7 million, so please just stop. I think that Don Waddell has done an admirable job this year with his moves, etc. But keeping Micheal Ferland as an “own rental” was one of the most egregious asset management mistakes a team could make. When a guy is clearly not going to sign with you, move him for whatever you can get…those picks/prospects are assets that can be used in many ways. Understand that Ferland had 5 points and no goals after March 1 to close out the regular season. His 1 point in the post-season was inconsequential. Good teams don’t make that mistake twice. For God’s sake Zuccarello was traded for a 2019 2nd and a 2020 3rd…a guy who contributed something like 11 points in 13 playoff games. Give me “soft” MZ over “warrior” Ferland “1 playoff point in 7 games” any day.
I say all of this to reinforce that fact that keeping Faulk without an extension (barf) would be the exact same scenario. This past season was the first “+” season in Faulk’s NHL career. Yes, I know that’s a garbage stat, but given that he’s had a 49 point season and seasons where he’s scored 17, 16, and 15 goals, one would think he could have stumbled to something better than a cumulative minus a billion.
But back to the defense situation….as Matt said, we have 5 top 4 defenders, and for what it’s worth, I think we’ve got 7 or 8 NHL caliber defenders either on the roster or in the system. Anybody who argues that our 4 best defensemen aren’t Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton, and de Haan probably needs to watch some more tape.
Yes, Justin Faulk had a bounce-back season and played his best defense in a long time, perhaps his NHL career. Yet, he was likely our 6th best defender. He still got beat wide. He still muffed passes that led to break-aways. He regularly brain-farted coverage down low. He’s got a cannon of a shot that seems to have lost all semblance of accuracy. He’s an average to poor passer and his mobility remains suspect. While he has a mixed reputation across the league, now is the time to move him….for whatever return you can get. The Justin Braun return would be perfect! Pick #20 and a 3rd pairing guy would easily yield a 50 point guy. That’s what our Top 9 needs, another dependable secondary scorer.
However the real value in Faulk is as part of a package. Faulk plus one of our 2nds should yield a return like Ehlers and Roslovic…but that’s just an example. We are a better team if we can clear some of the defensive logjam. Yes, there might be issues early in the season until we see how de Haan and TVR recover. But that’s not a reason to keep Faulk who is at his highest value. All of the other RHDs should be off the table.
Dude (to me the word “dude’ is gender neutral, just in case).
Zuccarello was traded at the deadline from a team that had no chance at the playoffs, the return was respectable.
I am not saying don’t trade Faulk at all, I’m saying trade him for max value.
There is no way in hell that Skinner could not have been taded for about 6 times as much as we got for him, e.g. by waiting until the deadline. Same with Faulk. Don’t trade him on a firesale for a signed ppuck, guage his value to the CAnes and to the other teams and then let him play.
Sure, there’s the risk that he’ll start the season playing awful and his trade value will diminish (from, if we did ntot get a decent offer for him diminished from something pretty meager to begin with), but those chances are fairly low in my opinion, seeing as he is playing for his big shot at a big contract.
And, no, I would not have signed skinner to that monster of a deal, no way, but neither can we let players with everything to play for walk for nothing when they could boost their value while helping the team.
Dude (see what I did there)….the Zuccarello comment was about Ferland not Faulk. But both are related. You get what you can for your asset, even if it is perceived as a bit less that some might think is “value”.
Skinner’s value was 100% determined by his NMC more than anything else. Waiting until the TDL was something that the FO decided was, in aggregate, a net negative on the broader team and team’s goals. I’m not commenting on whether I agree with that or not, but I will let the results speak for themselves.
With regard to holding on to players if you don’t get what you want for them, that has to be balanced with what your season’s goals are. If the team thinks that keeping Faulk and potentially losing him for nothing in free agency because of what he would bring in that last season of his contract, then that’s the decision the FO can and should make. All ramifications should be considered….the potential return, the opportunity cost of having another player in the line up, and the contribution of the potentially traded player.
As much as I felt the Ferland situation was handled poorly, the results were what the organization wanted, so the loss of the asset has to be considered in that context.
In the end, I like Justin Faulk and Micheal Ferland, but they are assets to the org and need to be managed as such.
This is why it’s so fun to be an armchair gM< you can just consider the obvious and ignore all the difficult parts. 😉