The Athletic - The Brett Kulak miscalculation

[dino7c]

people pay to read this garbage?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

The Flames organization wasnt happy with Kulak, for one reason or another, and I dont think it started with arbitration.

He was getting very limited looks and limited ice time, which I don't think reflected his on-ice performance.

I wasn't surprised when he elected for arbitration. I'm sure he felt he should be an NHL regular, and the Flames weren't treating or paying him as such.

Turns out he was right.

But I don't think it moved the needle much for the Flames either way.

Yes, it would be nice to have him as an asset, or speculate how it might have affected other contracts.

But the fact is that if he were on the Flames, Kulak would be going into Flames training camp this year battling for a bottom pairing spot. And even with Valimaki injured, Kulak would need to bump one of Kylington or Andersson to get on the ice.

Kulak also didn't make Habs out of camp. He played in the minors for a quarter of the season before getting called up. This sort of hindsight article is like giving ST Louis credit for sticking with Binnington when it is on record they were shopping or trying to find an AHL team to take him prior to the year he blew up.

If anything the miscalculation is on the other 29 teams who missed taking their shot on Kulak as he was waiver fodder. The angle that this is a Treliving miscalculation is laughable.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think this is pretty ridiculous to call it a miscalculation. Kulak would have been waiver fodder if we was in the Flames camp. He got bumped down the depth chart by Kylington, Valimaki, and Andersson. Would he have any value as a 7th?

Yes? Kylington was highly average, Prout was not good and didn't fight, Stone was hurt or bad.

The whole point of the article is that he was cheap and had a good season and you gave him away for nothing. Its not that he's got value or that he's going to drastically change the path of the team.

Its that you had a young, cheap NHL player who evidently was on the verge of becoming a guy who could play up and down the lineup and you gave him away. You can bury your head in the sand and say who cares or you can evaluate what you are doing to avoid it happening again.

[blender]

While it is understood that Wilson is using the hindsight glasses, he's not wrong to suggest that in principle it is a mistake to let players with no significant downside get away.
If the Flames had Kulak in the system last year there is no need to trade for Fantenberg. Also questionable if there was any need for Prout. Also would give them a good replacement for Valimaki today.
I can't fault Wilson for this article or call it garbage when it seems like a clear miss by Flames mangement to cut ties with a young homegrown player. Wilson does a good job IMO of describing the no downside nature of that type of player as well, which I found interesting and insightful.

[TheIronMaiden]

Some teams garbage is another teams treasure.

[Toonage]

But Wilson glosses over the real reason and thus misses the point.

The two sides didn't like each other. There was not going to be a keeping Kulak scenario.

[The Cobra]

Kulak is an acceptable bottom pairing d-man but hardly worth an article panning the Flames for losing him.

The Flames will lose guys like this again and again and repeatedly replace them with similarly skilled players cheaply.

You can't fall in love with these types of players. Don't put their names on your jerseys. In fact, try and not even know their names. Just like farm animals. Or simply call them all "Fungible".

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by blender

While it is understood that Wilson is using the hindsight glasses, he's not wrong to suggest that in principle it is a mistake to let players with no significant downside get away.
If the Flames had Kulak in the system last year there is no need to trade for Fantenberg. Also questionable if there was any need for Prout. Also would give them a good replacement for Valimaki today.
I can't fault Wilson for this article or call it garbage when it seems like a clear miss by Flames mangement to cut ties with a young homegrown player. Wilson does a good job IMO of describing the no downside nature of that type of player as well, which I found interesting and insightful.

Well, now Fantenberg is gone, Prout is gone, Stone is gone, Valimaki is injured, and I still wouldn't put Kulak on the Flames opening night roster.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You can't fall in love with these types of players. Don't put their names on your jerseys.

Is this a personal attack?

[blender]

The point about not falling in love with role players is well made, but this isn't Bouma or Hathaway on a multi year deal.
We are talking 850 k for a year last season.

[blender]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Well, now Fantenberg is gone, Prout is gone, Stone is gone, Valimaki is injured, and I still wouldn't put Kulak on the Flames opening night roster.

Right. Me neither, but the Flames have good depth on D.
That said, Kulak showed last year with Montreal that he is good enough to be on the roster. He might be a better option today than Kyllington although that would be contentious. Certainly if there is another injury or two he would be right in the mix.
Plus we haven't even seen if Treliving spends more assets to add D depth before the season begins. That is another factor that needs to be counted before the whole Kulak story can be evaluated.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Toonage

But Wilson glosses over the real reason and thus misses the point.

The two sides didn't like each other. There was not going to be a keeping Kulak scenario.

A good point.
Sometimes the relationship is broken and there is nothing to be done. Still have to ask why and how, though.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by blender

The point about not falling in love with role players is well made, but this isn't Bouma or Hathaway on a multi year deal.
We are talking 850 k for a year last season.

He signed a 3-year contract at $1.85MM.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by blender

That said, Kulak showed last year with Montreal that he is good enough to be on the roster. He might be a better option today than Kyllington although that would be contentious. Certainly if there is another injury or two he would be right in the mix.

But you can't keep 10 NHL d-men on the payroll and on the roster in case of injuries. At some stage, you need to promote minor leaguers to replace injured players.

[Knut]

Sometimes players need a change of scenery to blossom. He likely never would have taken this step in Calgary.

Think about Lindholm coming here last year when he had stagnated in Carolina.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He signed a 3-year contract at $1.85MM.

Exactly
Lance Bouma signed a four year deal at $2MM
Garnet Hathaway signed a four year deal at $1.5MM
Brett Kulak signed a three year deal at $1.85MM

Marginal players that turned a good season into multiple year deals.

[blender]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He signed a 3-year contract at $1.85MM.

Just this summer, I believe. Last season he was at 850 k.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blender

Just this summer, I believe. Last season he was at 850 k.

Right, but if the regret is not keeping Kulak, he'd be looking for that kind of contract now, right?

That said, I'd trade Frolik for a depth guy making that much, but not on a three year term.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Toonage

But Wilson glosses over the real reason and thus misses the point.

The two sides didn't like each other. There was not going to be a keeping Kulak scenario.

Curious if this was publicized somewhere/inside knowledge, or if this is just speculation.

[Flash Walken]

Trading away a guy for peanuts because you don't like him isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the deal either, btw.