@PurpleHippo @Tsmash

There's very little chance anyone would take on 1m of retention for 3-4 seasons for a 3rd and a 7th.

There’s very little chance anyone trades that much for a puck mover who can’t defend

I like it, it would still be a yes from my POV in EDM.
Only thing is it would be hard to find a team willing to take a 1M retention spot for 3 years, if a team does EDM would accept.

It's three seasons, and a 3rd for 3M is pretty good. And I'd be happy to raise the 7th to a bit better pick. But that's really not the main crux of the AGM. It's more about what EDM would say. And as I said, it wasn't my trade. I just tweaked it.

Would it? San Jose has all three slots wide open.

SJ is retaining Burns and EK65 rn, I don't think they'd take away their last spot.
A team like WSH might, all 3 spots open and they're probs going into a rebuild.

Oh hell, I was looking at the wrong box. Should have known those guys were retained. Dur.

I probably wouldn't give up both the 2024 first and Broberg for Faulk but I could definitely see one or the other along with another asset or two. Getting the money to work will be the challenging thing but I think it is certainly possible.

This still doesn’t work with Edm cap. Blues would have to take Ceci or Kulak but more than likely Campbell…

Can't defend is extremely disingenuous. He is capable, but sometimes mistake prone. It doesn't help when your primary defensive partner is 5'9 and not extremely quick. Certainly not a shutdown guy, but he would lean more towards two-way than puck mover.

In this whole scenario, it does. There were other EDM trades in that AGM. Ceci was moved elsewhere. And this tweak I've done actually gives them .5M more retention than the original trade idea.

And the Blues aren;t taking dog**** Campbell (or the other two, presumably). The most obvious non-starter of all time.

Except you're not just paying for Faulk. You're also paying to get him 2.5M retained. Which costs.

Does that cost a first? Because according to you 1 mil of retention cost a third and a seventh. I do not think it is way off but, definitely a hefty return for a D man long past his prime imo.

You always say non-starter. You honestly believe Edm would give up Broberg and a 1st to even get a retained Faulk because I sure as sheet don't. Blues would have to be taking back undesirables...If I was an Oilers fan, I would be pissed that the assets were used to get Justin F'n Faulk...this entire thing is a non-starter

First of all, this was not my trade idea. I'm tweaking the idea of an Oilers fan. And frankly, I was surprised that some Oilers fans were into it to some extent or another.

Secondly, I said that 3x1M would cost a 3rd+. Not just 1M one time.

Most to the point, yes, getting 7.5M in retention will absolutely, definitely cost a 1st. Maybe even slightly more because it eats a slot for three seasons. That's exactly in the price range used all the time.

(sigh)

1 - This was not my trade idea, I got it from an EDM fan. I only tweaked it to get EDM more retention. That's it.

And for the record, yes, I was surprised at that.

2 - In several years on CF, I have never said "non-starter" and had it come back to bite me. And trust me, I've said "non-starter" at least 100 times here. It would damn near cost a 1st and Broberg just to dump Campbell.

but the blues are not retaining all the 7.5....they are retaining 4.5 which is somehow worth a first to you when you said 3 mil(1 mil X 3 years) cost a 3rd.....see why i am confused?????

Who cares who is retaining what? What difference does that make? You're getting him 2.5M retained. You don't need to visit the sausage factory to enjoy a hot dog.

And at no time did I ever in my entire life say that retaining 4.5M is worth a 1st. No clue how you got to there.

I mean you act like at no time did you even propose this trade...the way you immediately say it wasn't you're idea on half these comments. Which is weird because you seem to be taking the criticism very personally.... Either way I think for Faulk half retained the blues would be lucky to get Broberg and a second.

Heh. I'm saying it wasn't my trade idea because it wasn't my trade idea. And I also said I was surprised an EDM fan was into it (the first tweak attempt was his). I can show you how it started and then progressed if you like. But I'm not taking anything personally, mostly because you're criticizing things that weren't my ideas (or were misread from what I said).

But obviously I came looking for more takes from the EDM side and now yours has been clearly registered. One firm nay. Your vote has been duly noted. Thank you.