It's actually a pretty good article if you're able to read it. It's not so much about Kulak - it just uses him as an example that fits.
The article basically goes on about how outside of your top players and easy to identify blue chippers that you need to try to fill out the roster with players with potential upside, but little downside if they don't work out.
In this instance he goes on about how Kulak had almost none of the downside - cheap, easy to move on from if he doesn't work out - yet had enough positives (development curve, youth, cheap) that if he did work out it results in a win. Giordano is also referenced as this type of example, although he'd be at the extreme end of this sort of thing as I don't think many expect an undrafted guy to win the Norris one day.
I suppose that's why the GM is paid the big money though, it's up to them to make the bets on the right guy. Easy to say we should have kept him in hindsight. I liked Kulak, but I didn't pay much attention to him, certainly not enough that trading him away bothered me any. It seemed like a good way for him to get an opportunity, although maybe he would have gotten it here instead of us giving guys like Prout and Fantenberg games.
|