Former GM Bob Murray

"excel on the other (defensive) side of the puck"... 5th worst in xGA though... (Mostly the bottom 4 i would assume, but that's where Faulk would be playing sooo)

God Bless Ducks fans ?

Don't you worry about that, just give us Kase real quick

Anaheim is on Faulks no trade list? He'd have to waive his NTC to go there, And there's no guarantees he will.

Its been said that all he needs is an extension and he will waive to go there

Any ideas what he's asking for? Thought i read somewhere that he was seeking 6 x 6 on his next deal.

If there are any left. ??

not sure the term, but I have read 6mil. I think that is kinda accurate. Probably between 5-6 mil

Thanks, Anaheim would be the perfect fit for him.

I would think Rakell and a first is a good trade for Laine from ANA's side. arguably a steal

I got sources, who talk directly to GMS and players, saying 4.8x6y is what was offered to Faulk, he will waive by the weekend, he was waiting to waive because he wanted an extension. Currently talking to family I would assume

So he's essentially making the same money then $4.8M per over 6 years, That's probably the best he could do any ways. And Anaheim seems like a perfect fit for him.

I think he wanted 5.5-6 but could stick for that money

Agreed that's still decent money for him.

By Saturday Faulk will be a duck

I think so too, Like most of us have stated. Anaheim the best fit for him.

I thought CHI or PIT or a number of teams would've been a better fit personally, I mean he will play on 2nd pair either way

PIT would've been nice, And CHI i guess ANA would be the next best then.

before Maatta I saw CHI as a hotbed for a lot of defenseman, Gardiner, Brodie, Faulk, Hamilton I saw Chicago as a spot for nice defenseman to go, especially if its a Brodie to play with Keith, but I think they trust in Gustafsson, which is a wise move, I would've thought at the deadline Gardiner and offseason Barrie, a 1 year rental to ease in the prospects, they shoudnt have made they Jokiharju/Nylander trade they need as much as they can get on the back end

Okay?



Carlyle effect.

Anyway, that wasn't even the point. Are you telling me that Lindholm is an offensive D-man? How about Manson? or Fowler? At least for me, Lindholm and Manson are D-first D-men i.e. they "excel on the other (defensive) side of the puck". Fowler is more of a 2-way D-man, but he excels in transition. In summary, none of them are offensive D-man. So we could certainly use one and wouldn't have a problem loading his starts + minutes in the offensive zone.



I think you mean "half a season of Kase". Look, I love Kase when he's playing, but he's so injury-prone. While CAR fans may think they're the winners in a Kase for Faulk deal, Kase is one more serious head injury away from having to hang them up. He's had 3 concussions in the past 3 years. I think Despres quit after his 3rd NHL concussion.



I think the deal has stalled and that's why this information was leaked by CAR. I doubt it goes ahead now. Faulk doesn't want to play in ANA and we shouldn't be accepting players that don't want to be here.



Yep, we're still here.



"Sources" eh? No, no... tell me more.

Lindholm-Manson excel on the other side of the puck, but we don't really have another d man that does

So you want us to have another one instead of a point threat? I am not against getting another D-first d-man, but we need to address our lack of scoring threat from the point. Faulk does that.

the bottom 4 is Fowler Guhle MDZ/Holzer Larsson/Mahura, the only one of those guys that is competent defensively is Larsson, plus its not like Manson-Lindhom are incompetent offensively, id prefer to get a dfd to play second pair, drop Fowler to third pair with Larsson, and have the second pair dfd mentor one of the other kids

Huh? Fowler is competent defensively, especially against the rush. I would say Larsson is "solid" defensively. He's certainly not a liability, but he's young and makes the same mistakes all young players make.

I don't know who you have been watching, but both Manson and Larsson are D-first D-man. Sure, Manson can jump in on the rush every now and again and net us a goal, but he's not a constant threat offensively. Meanwhile, Larsson is a blackhole offensively and not particularly good in transition either. He was sent down to AHL for the past couple of seasons to improve his outlet pass and general offensive prowess. Sadly, based on the recent rookie tournament, he doesn't appear to have done that. I don't think either Manson or Larsson are competent offensively. Manson is good enough. Larsson needs significant work. I definitely wouldn't want Larsson in our top 4 this season. Both him and Guhle were less than impressive in the rookie tournament. They've got a few years of development to go, but, in terms of what they currently bring to an NHL team, neither comes close to Faulk.

So you want...

Lindholm - Manson
DFD - Guhle
Fowler Larsson

Looks like a pretty poorly thought out line-up to me. I mean, you're getting very little scoring out of all 3 pairings and there isn't a single big shot amongst all 6 of them. I mean, Lindholm and Manson are minute-munchers who you put out against the oppositions top line. Fine! DFD + Guhle though, what are they good at? Guhle hasn't looked that good and a DFD is going to do what exactly? We have Lindholm-Manson to take those tougher minutes and you're not putting Guhle out against the McDavid's of the league... so what's the point? What are you trying to achieve. Then you have Fowler with Larsson. Fowler excels in a pairing where his partner is willing to make the gritty plays and take the hits to get/keep possession i.e. Lovejoy. Larsson is a kid and not a particularly tough one. I don't see Larsson being the type of player to take those hits and make those plays. Also, Larsson can't do anything offensively and Fowler is only good at passing. Again, the pairings seem poorly thought out.