He's now $6K more expensive than Valimaki and $170K more expensive than Kylington.
Hate to start this debate again, but that's agent fail in my mind.
The AAV between Kulak, Kylington, Valimaki, Prout and Andersson is not significant enough to make a difference as far as who earns the final spot on the blueline.
Pretty big win for Kulak's camp to force the 1-way deal.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
I think the 6 k less for Valimaki doesn’t out weigh buying an extra ELC year if they keep him in the AHL. That said I still think Valimaki forces their hand for a 9 game look.
Kylington is interesting though as I feel he could be much better and has a greater overall skill set versus Kulak and could steal that 3rd left side spot.
We could see a Byron moment after all and lose him via the waiver wire if they can’t find a mid to late pick for him.
Wouldn't you hold out for $250k? I would in his position.
No. I dont think I would. I would want to make myself as valuable and flexible to the team as I could manage because you're either convinced that its your job and you're going to take it and run with it, but the fact of the matter is that you cleared waivers.
He doesnt have a lot of options or leverage and hes basically taking the team for everything he can get, that doesnt show a lot of confidence in his ability to earn a significant contract afterwards.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The AAV between Kulak, Kylington, Valimaki, Prout and Andersson is not significant enough to make a difference as far as who earns the final spot on the blueline.
Pretty big win for Kulak's camp to force the 1-way deal.
It certainly isn't for Valimaki vs Kulak, I wouldn't ignore $170K for a 6th defenseman against Kylington though.
Bottom line ... if you're Kulak do you not want the advantage of being $250K cheaper than Valimaki for the next two years? I know I would.
Suggesting it's not significant is a fair comment, but it's also the only variable Kulak owns and he no longer has it.
He's now $6K more expensive than Valimaki and $170K more expensive than Kylington.
Hate to start this debate again, but that's agent fail in my mind.
Never really thought about the implications of this on a cap team, but yeah, for a player that's being pushed for his spot that could make him the odd man out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gallick For This Useful Post:
He's now $6K more expensive than Valimaki and $170K more expensive than Kylington.
Hate to start this debate again, but that's agent fail in my mind.
Still don't see how you can see it this way - they can send him to the minors and his cap hit will be $0. At least this way, he has personal protection where he'll make $900k even if he gets passed.
This was a clear win for the agent as he's guaranteed $900k...which may be the determining factor of him staying in the NHL, as opposed to paying him a ton to be in the AHL. If anything, if the owners are wanting to save money, this lessens the chance of our prospects coming up as they will cost much less playing in the AHL, so they will have to outperform him by that much more.
AHL years are still pro years with regards to FA years. Take for example, Hunter Smith who we just lost as a free agent without him playing a single NHL game
AHL years are still pro years with regards to FA years. Take for example, Hunter Smith who we just lost as a free agent without him playing a single NHL game
Not really sure what you're getting at but Hunter Smith was not qualified. UFA is 27 or 7 years in the NHL. You become a UFA if your team doesn't qualify you.
AHL years are still pro years with regards to FA years. Take for example, Hunter Smith who we just lost as a free agent without him playing a single NHL game
"Lost"
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Still don't see how you can see it this way - they can send him to the minors and his cap hit will be $0. At least this way, he has personal protection where he'll make $900k even if he gets passed.
This was a clear win for the agent as he's guaranteed $900k...which may be the determining factor of him staying in the NHL, as opposed to paying him a ton to be in the AHL. If anything, if the owners are wanting to save money, this lessens the chance of our prospects coming up as they will cost much less playing in the AHL, so they will have to outperform him by that much more.
If he gets sent down because he's making more money than Kylington, and passes through waivers he could be done.
His best bet is to get another 65 or so NHL games under his belt, and that avenue is best served by being less likely to get sent down and $650K would have done that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Not really sure what you're getting at but Hunter Smith was not qualified. UFA is 27 or 7 years in the NHL. You become a UFA if your team doesn't qualify you.
His 3-year ELC expired because he played 3 years in the AHL. You only bank a year if you send a player to junior
His 3-year ELC expired because he played 3 years in the AHL. You only bank a year if you send a player to junior
That's not true. Your contract slides with under 10 NHL games if you qualify for your contract to slide. Which is based on age, and with the AHL age requirements and CHL players it's a rarity.
Otherwise, yes, all contracts start and end based on the year they signed. Still, Hunter Smith would have been an RFA if the Flames qualified him, they didn't because he's an ECHL player. So not sure what you're getting at?
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
