The other teams thread
- Thread starter Axl Rhoadz
- Start date
Statue4Deano
Super Star
It seems early to me for a D-man. The Wild do get 3 UFA years in the deal but they’re paying him a premium near UFA market rate contract immediately. So maybe they’re saving $2M a year for those UFA season.
Clif
Super Star
I knew Faber would be special from his first interviews after being drafted. He was notably mature beyond his years on KOTP. He had an It factor that came through his calmness, articulation, and perspective. Making the Olympic team, rising to top pair D in World Juniors after being slated as 3rd pair. It was obvious he was going to be special.
I used to wonder how it was going to work with three minute munchers on the right side who all want the big moment in Doughty, Clarke, and Faber. Doughty will slide down and accept it as he ages, already alluded to it this summer. Big picture could have played Clarke and Faber both for their early years and jack their value up super high and cash in, but that would have required more patience. Instead an uncommon opportunity for a special talent in Fiala came available and Blake traded early for a player to be high impact for seven years, and hopefully an extension beyond.
End of day I don’t think there was room on this team for Clarke and Faber long term. Had Faber opted to leave college early and play in the 2022 playoffs for the Kings maybe things would have been different. But this team is going all in on Clarke as number one and that aint so bad either.
Statue4Deano
Super Star
My guess is Clarke would’ve been flipped for some wing help if it came down to it.
I would’ve loved to hang onto Faber and really build something special on the blue line but I understand why Blake made the deal. Fiala is a special talent and he’s locked into a below market long term contract for a 1st line winger. Truly was a win-win trade that made perfect sense for both sides.
Clif
Super Star
As succinct as it gets here.
I will say the idea of Faber even being a long term solution wasn’t real for me until Sultanic posted the actual link to an Athletic article where it stated how sad he was to be traded. Up until that point I was convinced he had always wanted to play in MN anyway so this trade was much easier for me to take previously.
All that said, the trade revisionism severely undermines what Fiala is and what he brings to this team. Absolute win-win. The permanently cynical act like it was a fleece.
Bollocks
Top Forward
At that point, DD had a 27, and a 59 and 40 point seasons under his belt, and proved to be a good PO performer. He was basically destined for stardom from the draft on out and based on all that he held out - because he knew he held the Kings' FO by their b****.
Brock Faber just finished his rookie season as a surprise overperformer. I'm not saying he's not going to be worth this contract, but there is some risk involved for sure. Considering he apparently really wanted to play in Minnesotta anyways you'd think his second contract wouldn't be so fat...but as I said, good for him.
As usual...hindsight.
I'm probably the minority here, but I still don't see Clarke as being a star that a team is able to build around. To me, he projects to be a very effective defenseman in certain situations. Not that he has the talent of Coffey, but using Coffey as an example there was a reason he was traded several times and helped his new team win a Cup during his career but was never really seen as "the guy" on a team. I see Clarke having a similar path.
Faber, on the flip side, projects to be a defenseman a team can build around - so if it came down to choosing between the two I think most franchises would go with Faber. It's a shame we lost him, but like others have said, Fiala is no slouch and we probably couldn't have carried both Faber and Clarke long term.
I do think it's true that Faber was sad when he was traded, but I feel it was more like a girl who he planned to break up with dumping him - his ego was bruised. Faber, and his parents, seem very business savvy and I doubt he was going to resign anywhere for cheap (so we probably couldn't have afforded both him and Doughty anyway even before Clarke earns his payday).
I followed him when Kings drafted and wasnt lost on me that as a prospect in big tournaments was always slated as a bottom pairing dman....but by the end of the tournament was always the #1 guy. Blake really screwed the pooch- should have bit the bullet and moved Doughty while he had tons of value. Could have traded Walker/Durzi for a comparable young LHD and the D corp would have been set for years.
Thats the other thing I find incredulous...Blake had crazy depth at RHD and not once ever considered a simple swap for an LHD and last season saw Englund as a 27 year old journeyman AHL borderline enforcer be the guy who earned the spot? The same Englund who cheap shotted Turcotte in the AHL that led to his 4tth-5th concussion Englund?
Clif
Super Star
I am 100 percent with you that the LD issue is mind-boggling. RD’s being more valuable it’s crazy he couldn’t swing one as part of a LD deal. Englund is one thing but I’m not comfortable with an already over-priced Gavrikov likely looking for a raise this summer.
Bollocks
Top Forward
Yes, from a teambuilding standpoint this might be all fine and dandy and make sense, trading DD while his value was still high. Except Rob is again the supposed scapegoat here while I'm pretty darn sure he'd light all the red lights and raise all the red flags in the office if he wanted to do that, unless DD actually wanted to leave (he already had a NMC after all) and posed a potential locker room problem or something. Add to that he'd have to justify to everyone else in the FO "trust me bro, Brock Faber is going to be a top pairing D-man in 2 years".
Hip, you've been a legit fan for way too long to still believe things like this are possible outside of fantasy hockey and video games.
Apart from DD being untradeable, at that point the Kings had a very clear right shot D logjam, with Walker and Roy being established options and Spence and Durzi knocking on the doors. At that point Brock was a very good prospect but no one in their right mind would predict this kind of outcome as D-men like him often take quite a few years to develop into what you hope them to be. Add to that the fact that his ceiling never really was a top 2 D-man and Rob IMO rightfully traded the player with the most value to Minnesotta who had a player the Kings wanted and actually needed, and who was willing to sign a very good contract. It was a very good trade for both teams.
Get over it lol.
Last edited:
hokiecat
Super Star
Here we are 48 hours later and the deal makes zero sense to me. Again, NHL GMs are stupid.
You could have signed Faber to a bridge deal. He's from MN right? So how about 3x5 or something like that? I can't imagine him being annoyed at a big pay bump on a bridge deal.
The thing that completely baffles me is paying a guy who you CONTROL HIS RIGHTS at a UFA contract value when they are RFAs? Woo hoo, you paid full price to get 3 UFA years bought when you just could have paid full UFA price a year from when the bridge contract expired. Faber had an amazing rookie year but the Wild are basically paying him a salary like Josi, Hamilton, and Makar when they didn't have to right now.
Byfield's deal already looked very good to me when it was signed. In contrast to Faber's deal, it is downright amazing. It is a win-win for both sides (like the Faber-Fiala trade was). Faber contract seems only to favor the player.
Statue4Deano
Super Star
I think a bridge deal makes the most sense in most cases. I guess if you’re Wild management you justify this extension by telling yourself that locking in Faber until he’s 30 adds stability to a franchise that’s been floundering for a little bit. Having him locked in to a firm cap number for that length of time allows you to build around him and not even think about him leaving.
All that said, I’m still giving him a bridge if I’m GM.
My guess is that they project that player salaries will begin to skyrocket quickly, with the upcoming Drai deal being a catalyst. Gotta think that past year 4, that contract is going to be a significant deal (provided Faber keeps up his level of play) and, like you said, it adds franchise stability as they likely intend to build around Faber on the backend.
Bollocks
Top Forward
Then again, building around a reliable, defense-first D-man who isn't supposed to be an offensive catalyst with one solid offensive season on an underperforming team isn't exactly something you want to do.
As I said - DD was destined for "stardom" as an undisputable #1 D-man from the draft on and never really showed glimpses of not delivering that in the 3 seasons before his second contract. Faber had one full season where he overperformed as a rookie and surprised everyone with his solid play on the offensive end. What happens if this proves to be an outlier season from an offensive standpoint?
IMO they could easily extended him for 2-3 years bridge deal and then sign him close to similar cap hit, max. length contract if he keeps up this kind of play...since I think it's unlikely that he'll elevate his offensive game considerably during his next few seasons. They exposed themselves to risk without gaining much at all...
(Said a fan of a team that signed Edmundson to that contract...so yes, I get the irony, but it's nice to be smart@ss about other teams' blunders, too.
)
DarkLeftHand
Super Star
No way Gavrikov gets a raise based on this last season of play. If he’s lights out this upcoming year, then possibly, but I have not seen much to merit a substantial raise for him on his next contract.
DoubleMinor
3rd Line Winger
I think the easy answer to why Faber got this deal now is that the Wild are indeed floundering, and hope the hometown boy can pacify a fan base that is getting restless.Then again, building around a reliable, defense-first D-man who isn't supposed to be an offensive catalyst with one solid offensive season on an underperforming team isn't exactly something you want to do.
As I said - DD was destined for "stardom" as an undisputable #1 D-man from the draft on and never really showed glimpses of not delivering that in the 3 seasons before his second contract. Faber had one full season where he overperformed as a rookie and surprised everyone with his solid play on the offensive end. What happens if this proves to be an outlier season from an offensive standpoint?
IMO they could easily extended him for 2-3 years bridge deal and then sign him close to similar cap hit, max. length contract if he keeps up this kind of play...since I think it's unlikely that he'll elevate his offensive game considerably during his next few seasons. They exposed themselves to risk without gaining much at all...
(Said a fan of a team that signed Edmundson to that contract...so yes, I get the irony, but it's nice to be smart@ss about other teams' blunders, too.
Bollocks
Top Forward
Yes, likely. And by doing that they are inadvertently raising a bar/setting a precedence for handing out albatross second contracts to almost rookies...which is what annoys me a bit. This kind of approach is ruining NBA, though that league has quite a few other problems tied to salary cap...
DoubleMinor
3rd Line Winger
The NBA salary cap is a farce. And you’re right to be concerned about the approach re the Wild and Faber.
With all pro sports it’s maddening to watch owners make ridiculous decisions, implement rules to save them from themselves, and then ignore those rules. And it’s really hard to accept when these rules come about from work stoppages.
It’s good to keep in mind that there are Owners and GMs who just can’t get out of their own way.
hokiecat
Super Star
Exactly. Faber was amazing but even the guys on NHL Radio (how bad am I that half the time I'm in the car I am listening to NHL chat on XM rather than music?) noted that Faber isn't really a PP1 guy. I get wanting to lock in your young hotshot player for the long term but I just don't know what Minnesota did in these negotiations like I highlighted in bold.Then again, building around a reliable, defense-first D-man who isn't supposed to be an offensive catalyst with one solid offensive season on an underperforming team isn't exactly something you want to do.
As I said - DD was destined for "stardom" as an undisputable #1 D-man from the draft on and never really showed glimpses of not delivering that in the 3 seasons before his second contract. Faber had one full season where he overperformed as a rookie and surprised everyone with his solid play on the offensive end. What happens if this proves to be an outlier season from an offensive standpoint?
IMO they could easily extended him for 2-3 years bridge deal and then sign him close to similar cap hit, max. length contract if he keeps up this kind of play...since I think it's unlikely that he'll elevate his offensive game considerably during his next few seasons. They exposed themselves to risk without gaining much at all...
(Said a fan of a team that signed Edmundson to that contract...so yes, I get the irony, but it's nice to be smart@ss about other teams' blunders, too.
I love looking at the average AAV for defensemen and you see guys like Rasmus Dahlin at 11M a season. Or Faber and Owen Power bracketing Miro Heiskanen.
Anyhow it just feels like another case of a NHL GM negotiating against themselves and overpaying the keep their own guy. Or maybe intentionally overpaying to try and sell the fanbase that they have players just as good as Makar and Adam Fox
Now Chirping
- No one is chatting at the moment.