Kulak On Waivers

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I disagree with this. This isn't cap management, it's budget management.

Kulak, statistically, doesn't have much going for him in an arbitration case. Lowest TOI out of all NHL regular defenders, 8 points, a minus player. Start looking at RFA comparables for him and I doubt you'll find anyone making much more than 750K.

The one thing he did have going for him was 71 games played, enough for an arbitrator to see that as an "NHL player" and potentially give him a one-way contract. Something I don't think the team wants to do.

Really?

Teams that spend to the cap have cap issues. Teams that don't have budget issues.

This is a cap issue.

They want to save 250K on their 6/7 dmen and their 12/13 forwards ...

I don't see a one way contract as an issue as he's proven he's done at the AHL level. They just don't want to start his contract on a process that escalates every 2 years by 300K

[Moneyhands23]

Hope he doesn't get picked up. But I understand the move.

[puckedoff]

You know its a slow news day when this gets a 4+ page thread so quickly.

I don't think this is necessarily to hurt his arb case. He won't likely get picked up by another team, and then he is clear of waivers in case Valimaki or Andersson outplay him in camp. Seems like a win-win for Flames.

[genetic_phreek]

I'm on the side of Kulak > Stone.

Stone is great at stapling players to the boards and is probably the best at it out of all our dmen. Also has a howitzer of a shot but outside of that, I think he's a pretty useless player and I've been wishing he was traded since we acquired Hamonic. Stone doesn't read the play very well, doesn't have great offensive instincts, skates pretty poorly, and gets beat on a regular basis.

Kulak isn't as physical, less experience, and doesn't have a clapper. But from my opinion, he's a great skater which is good for the new NHL and has really good offensive instincts although hasn't really put up points yet. Physicality isn't always needed if you have good positioning or good stick work (ie: Lidstrom/Niedermayer). I feel Kulak has more upside as last season was truly his first season and he's still relatively young.

At the end of the day if we lose Kulak, we still have Kylington and Valimaki on their way so I'm not concerned about that. But I do agree with the posters that would rather have Kulak over Stone.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really?

Teams that spend to the cap have cap issues. Teams that don't have budget issues.

Even cap teams can have budget issues. See Calgary Flames when we traded Kotalik. Easily could have buried him if the owners were willing to eat salary, but they weren't. Understandably as this is a business afterall.

Originally Posted by Bingo

This is a cap issue.

I think they are fighting over one-way and two-way contracts which has no implication on cap, only on actual salary. ALL TEAMS want to save on budget if possible, and if Prout and Kulak are both making 750K+, and one of them is playing in the AHL because Andersson made the team, that is not ideal (although not prohibitive).

Again, I'd be really interested in comparables to Kulak that his agent would be bringing up because I really don't see any that would have the Flames at all concerned about a cap of over 800K+. I think they just want a two-way contract to provide flexibility and save money if Kulak does indeed get beat out for his spot.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No they won't. Kulak is a dime a dozen player, every team has a couple of Kulak level D men kicking around. He is a decent #6.

Time will tell if Kulak gets picked up so there is no sense taking a hard stance. All the same 24 to 28 is prime time for D-men and picking up a cheap ( I am assuming less than 3M) NHL ready 24 year old, is a gamble I am guessing a few teams are willing to take. It won't cost any thing but cap space, and a few teams have plenty of that. Kulak is not a player in decline, he still has room for development.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

and then he is clear of waivers in case Valimaki or Andersson outplay him in camp.

I thought that when a player cleared waivers, he was only clear for 30 days.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Time will tell if Kulak gets picked up so there is no sense taking a hard stance. All the same 24 to 28 is prime time for D-men and picking up a cheap ( I am assuming less than 3M) NHL ready 24 year old, is a gamble I am guessing a few teams are willing to take. It won't cost any thing but cap space, and a few teams have plenty of that. Kulak is not a player in decline, he still has room for development.

It costs a contract spot too, which is something that other teams - still re-signing their own players - can be tentative to give up at this time of year.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

You know its a slow news day when this gets a 4+ page thread so quickly.

I don't think this is necessarily to hurt his arb case. He won't likely get picked up by another team, and then he is clear of waivers in case Valimaki or Andersson outplay him in camp. Seems like a win-win for Flames.

He would have to re-clear waivers at training camp anyway.

[Cheese]

So what happens if:


1. He doesnt get claimed. BT has a leg up on negotiations likely signing BK for <$1M and one more year to prove he belongs in some capacity as a 6 or 7 dman.

2. He does get claimed. We lose a low rated asset and the team that claims him must either negotiate a higher contract or face arbitrator with the fact that they thought enough of him to put in a claim. Dont think this will happen.

[Imported_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really?

Teams that spend to the cap have cap issues. Teams that don't have budget issues.

This is a cap issue.

They want to save 250K on their 6/7 dmen and their 12/13 forwards ...

I don't see a one way contract as an issue as he's proven he's done at the AHL level. They just don't want to start his contract on a process that escalates every 2 years by 300K

I agree, and I feel it may be a years issue as well.
With Giordano, Brodie, Hamonic, Hanifin clearly ahead and Andersson, Valimaki and Kylington as higher upside prospects nearing NHL readiness, Kulak does not look like a longterm fit in Calgary unless he proves to be more than a serviceable #6/7 guy.
If I am Kulak, I want more than 1 year deal for security and not having to shop around in a year if i get jumped over/demoted, and to me that is the holdup.

After losing Byron and seeing him develop elsewhere, everyone is paranoid the moment anyone hits waivers.

Timing is key here - if he clears, the Flames still have Friday afternoon through the weekend to close a deal, having gained a lot of leverage.

This is Treliving continuing his approach to RFA contracts and arbitration - avoid hearings at all costs, maximize leverage

Don't necessarily look at this as a negative to Kulak either, this could be Treliving saying to him - OK, we aren't finding a deal that works, lets give you the chance for another team to come in and make a deal with you, and if no one is coming in, we can go back to our discussions.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah - I don't like it either but I'm guessing they also think he's going to clear waivers - I doubt teams want to pick up a player with an upcoming arbitration case - and then once he clears his ask in arbitration will go down.

My guess is he's asking for $2M plus and this is a move by the Flames to knock that down.

So most agree this is a calculated gamble to strengthen Treliving's case and no one will claim him because the case is happening soon. Shouldn't Kulak's agent and arbitrator also be aware of this? So when Treliving says "see...no one wants him for free"...they can counter by saying that's not necessarily true?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Imported_Aussie

After losing Byron and seeing him develop elsewhere, everyone is paranoid the moment anyone hits waivers.

Not "anyone".


A player with strong underlying numbers who is just entering his prime, who is built for the modern NHL and has established himself as a useful, play-driving NHLer with upside, who we invested years of development into.

That's actually really similar to the Byron situation.


No one would be losing sleep if this were Garnet Hathaway on waivers.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I'm on the side of Kulak > Stone.

Stone is great at stapling players to the boards and is probably the best at it out of all our dmen. Also has a howitzer of a shot but outside of that, I think he's a pretty useless player and I've been wishing he was traded since we acquired Hamonic. Stone doesn't read the play very well, doesn't have great offensive instincts, skates pretty poorly, and gets beat on a regular basis.

Kulak isn't as physical, less experience, and doesn't have a clapper. But from my opinion, he's a great skater which is good for the new NHL and has really good offensive instincts although hasn't really put up points yet. Physicality isn't always needed if you have good positioning or good stick work (ie: Lidstrom/Niedermayer). I feel Kulak has more upside as last season was truly his first season and he's still relatively young.

At the end of the day if we lose Kulak, we still have Kylington and Valimaki on their way so I'm not concerned about that. But I do agree with the posters that would rather have Kulak over Stone.

I get this POV, but consider then we'd move out Stone and Andersson takes his place. I look at our defensive PK options and it'd concern me as a coach:

Gio - lock. Hamonic - lock. Hanifin - not a great fit. Brodie - nope. Kulak/Andersson - nope.

Stone does have his warts, but is best suited on the PK for all bottom pairing options. It gets awfully thin after Gio and Hamonic for guys that can be great defenders.

Stone doesn't warrant his price tag, but our depth would be pushed too far IMO with him out. It's not like he's Rhett Warrener either and can't move the puck. He's not the best of the group, but the core that's around him and he's more than shielded in that regard.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Imported_Aussie

After losing Byron and seeing him develop elsewhere, everyone is paranoid the moment anyone hits waivers.

Not even sure why people are even comparing this to Byron.

Byron was an impactful bottom six player. His speed on the forecheck, on the rush, and on the PK actually had a significant impact on the game. He didn't put up points while here, but you knew he was on the ice.

You always wondered, "if only Byron could finish", then we'd have a player here.

Not sure Kulak is in the same boat. He's been a servicable 6 defenseman, but I haven't seen anything in his game that suggests to me that he's on the verge of "popping".

I actually think Kulak would have been better served in the AHL last year to develop his offensive game a bit more.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Not "anyone".


A player with strong underlying numbers who is just entering his prime, who is built for the modern NHL and has established himself as a useful, play-driving NHLer with upside, who we invested years of development into.

That's actually really similar to the Byron situation.


No one would be losing sleep if this were Garnet Hathaway on waivers.

You've been way over-the-top on Kulak for some time. I like him as a #6 d-man but your "he might be better than Hamonic" take is up there with your "Monahan 2C' talk. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but this Kulak love puts you out on a limb.

As was stated earlier, this is a replacement level player. Every team has several guys in this spot and I'd be surprised to see him claimed.

Even if he was, I'd be more excited it likely opens the door for a player like Valimaki to be a better shot to make the big team out of camp, which I think we be a big upgrade.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I'm on the side of Kulak > Stone.

Stone is great at stapling players to the boards and is probably the best at it out of all our dmen. Also has a howitzer of a shot but outside of that, I think he's a pretty useless player and I've been wishing he was traded since we acquired Hamonic. Stone doesn't read the play very well, doesn't have great offensive instincts, skates pretty poorly, and gets beat on a regular basis.

Kulak isn't as physical, less experience, and doesn't have a clapper. But from my opinion, he's a great skater which is good for the new NHL and has really good offensive instincts although hasn't really put up points yet. Physicality isn't always needed if you have good positioning or good stick work (ie: Lidstrom/Niedermayer). I feel Kulak has more upside as last season was truly his first season and he's still relatively young.

At the end of the day if we lose Kulak, we still have Kylington and Valimaki on their way so I'm not concerned about that. But I do agree with the posters that would rather have Kulak over Stone.

I also prefer Kulak to Stone (especially on a per dollar basis). I feel like Stone isn't as physical as people assume - he look like he should be but I don't recall him hitting anyone near as hard as Gio or Hamonic did, and even remember a few hard plays by Kulak. I think Kulak has him beat skating and passing. Stone has a cannon, but it's not that useful.

[Bingo]

Not sure why every one keeps bringing up Stone and Hamonic.

The team has Giordano and Hanifin on the left side, then Kulak then two pretty interesting prospects in Kylington and Valimaki.

Given Hanifin's age and Giordano being the captain Kulak isn't about to move up the roster and will always be holding a space until he's made unneeded by one of the younguns.

If that's the case why let his salary get away when Valimaki could be ready in 10 weeks?

[Toonage]

Not sure Stone can play physical anymore. Doesn't he have an issue with his shoulder popping out?

[868904]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Stone doesn't warrant his price tag, but our depth would be pushed too far IMO with him out. It's not like he's Rhett Warrener either and can't move the puck. He's not the best of the group, but the core that's around him and he's more than shielded in that regard.

That's the other thing, they recognize that they had to overpay Stone a bit so they can't have his 3rd pairing partner being overpaid either. Ideally, they have to get a deal on Stone's partner relative to production.

Andersson's cap hit is $750,000 and he might bring equal or more to the team than Kulak. So if Kulak is asking for $500,000 more than Andersson's cap hit, the team will just let him go.

The only problem with Andersson on the 3rd pairing is the whole left-right thing, but I think they will just play the veteran Stone on the left side and have the rookie Andersson on his natural right.