Kulak On Waivers

[FlamesAddiction]

I'll be shocked if anyone picks him up.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by 868904

I think they will just play the veteran Stone on the left side

Stone looked awful on the left side last year.

[tvp2003]

Out: Kulak-Stone

In: Valimaki-Andersson

I like Kulak (and not just because he's the first defenceman we've draft and developed in 10 years) but if we legitimately think Valimaki and/or Andersson are ready, losing him would not be the end of the world...

EDIT: Brodie was drafted in 2008 and made the jump in 2011, so closer to 7 years instead of 10...

[Toonage]

That could very well be the plan. Going from $4.5M for the bottom pairing to a cost of $1.68M (thereabouts).

[TheIronMaiden]

Purely for fun, I am going to make a case for why the Philadelphia Flyers will pick up Kulak on Waivers.

Roster size: 20 Cap Space: 13,220,833 Number of Dmen on roster: 5.

Philly only has 1 RFA to sing this off season D man Robert Hägg, once he is signed they will have 6 d men. Additionally Philly has 4 Rd and only 1 Ld under contract ( 2 after Hagg is signed).

It doesn't appear that they have any cap problems looming in the next few years. In fact they are losing lots of their bad contracts.

Granted Phillies goals against last year was decent 14th in the league. Still, there is no reason why they wouldn't look to improve.

They have room they have a need. the move makes sense.

[keenan87]

I wouldn't put Valimaki and Andersson together though.

Giordano-Brodie
Valimaki-Hamonic
Hanifin-Andersson

[You Need a Thneed]

My Take on this:

That Kulak was waived is almost certainly indicative of Kulak asking for way more than the Flames think he’s worth. Waivers is one way of the Flames undermining the player’s case.

There are two results that can happen now. Either he’s not claimed, or he is.

If he’s not claimed, the Flames prove their point going into Arbitration.

If he is claimed, that would suck for the Flames to lose an asset, but he’s right around a replacement level player, with not a whole lot of upside above that.

However, any team claiming him not only would have to rush to prepare an arbitration case against him, but also would have just undermined their own case. Essentially they would have just said “We want this player, even knowing that his salary demands are high” - essentially telling the whole world that they think Kulak is worth the salary that he’s asking for.

The chances that he gets claimed are very close to 0, I think.

[Imported_Aussie]

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.

Or, to counter, this is a guy who has been an NHL regular for one season, playing 13 minutes a night. To put that in perspective: he is last in the NHL for usage among players who played more than 50 games. He sees next to no special teams minutes.

He is behind the team captain and a former top 5 draft pick who was just acquired and has a 1st round draft pick poised to usurp his spot.

Where is the incentive for the Flames to pay him for one/multiple years or at a figure much above NHL minimum? If it is about protecting the asset, one would have to think if he had value now, he would be able to be traded rather than waived. Also, if there is a low prospect of him being showcased in more minutes than he has been to date due to the depth this team has on the blueline, how will the asset grow in order to gain enough value to be worth retaining?

You have to look at these situations in context. He was our third best option on the left last year, and he is not moving up the chart, but has a risk of being jumped. Would you put considerable money into an asset that you cannot flip and may end up being redundant through the growth of other prospects? Or is it more like Bingo is suggesting, where you want to pay only the barest minimum because that is all it is worth?

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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

Injuries happen so it'd be safer having Kulak ready to jump in instead of our left side being Kylington, Valimaki, and the non-injured of Gio/Hanifin.

Let the youngters actually pass our established players before fast-tracking them to the NHL based on need. It's not like Kulak will be making $2M. Even if you don't want Kulak as our 7D, we can bury him in the minors with next to no cap hit penalty. I think this move would be a lot safer if we signed a more serviceable 7D, instead of pencilling in Prout due to toughness.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by keenan87

I wouldn't put Valimaki and Andersson together though.

Giordano-Brodie
Valimaki-Hamonic
Stone-Andersson

Hanifin

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Hanifin

oops.. you are right. Trade Stone so Hanifin can play.


Stone+Brouwer for 7th Round Pick --> Interested Potential Teams: Devils, Islanders, Senators


Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm
Tkachuk-Jankowski-Neal
Bennett-Backlund-Frolik
Czarnik-Ryan-Foo

Giordano-Brodie
Valimaki-Hamonic
Hanifin-Andersson

[Calgary4LIfe]

I doubt Kulak gets picked up, and of course this is a negotiating tactic by Treliving. However, Kulak I think is a bit above replacement-level.



I often found myself surprised and even wowed at times by Kulak's poise with the puck. He is often able to skate out of the zone calmly with the puck and make a solid pass, and even has the confidence to successfully evade forecheckers. I thought he showed a heck of a lot for a first-year player, and you have to assume there is more room to grow given his age and NHL experience. I would hate to lose him - I think he provides solid depth right now and the possibility of becoming a top 4 defencemen one day.


Again, I would be surprised if anyone picks him up. I guess we will see. If he was on a cheap contract already, I bet there would be a few claims. In the midst of an arbitration case? Not likely at all.

[868904]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Stone looked awful on the left side last year.

Doesn't he look awful period?

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by 868904

Doesn't he look awful period?

I thought he looked gulutzan'd last year. Stepped up when injuries happened

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Imported_Aussie

Or, to counter, this is a guy who has been an NHL regular for one season, playing 13 minutes a night. To put that in perspective: he is last in the NHL for usage among players who played more than 50 games. He sees next to no special teams minutes.

He is behind the team captain and a former top 5 draft pick who was just acquired and has a 1st round draft pick poised to usurp his spot.

All of those are things the player cannot control. If your best reason to let go of a guy is because he's buried behind better players or illogically played less than worse players, that's not a strong reason. The end goal is to put out the best Calgary Flames you can, and Kulak is certainly a part of that.


If you have actual justifications for why he wouldn't see more usage or special teams minutes elsewhere, I'd like to hear them.

Where is the incentive for the Flames to pay him for one/multiple years or at a figure much above NHL minimum?

We can safely assume any undesirable arbitration result would be for one year as it would be team-elected. What is the incentive? Let's see, the Blackhawks just got a 3rd round pick for Kempny last year at the trade deadline. So that's a good place to start. What is your discrete argument for 27yo Kempny being more valuable than 24yo Kulak?

If it is about protecting the asset, one would have to think if he had value now, he would be able to be traded rather than waived.

He wasn't waived because he got outplayed in camp. He was waived as a power play in contract negotiations prior to arbitration. The problem is that is a gamble, and an unnecessary one. A few years ago Kris Russell, a worse player than Kulak, was in a similar situation and cleared waivers. After arbitration he was traded and the team trading him got a draft pick in return. It's naive to think Kulak has zero trade value just because he's on waivers.

Also, if there is a low prospect of him being showcased in more minutes than he has been to date due to the depth this team has on the blueline, how will the asset grow in order to gain enough value to be worth retaining?

Even if the asset does not grow, it is obvious that asset is more valuable on the ice than Defensemen who are expected to be on roster next year - Prout and Stone namely.

You have to look at these situations in context. He was our third best option on the left last year, and he is not moving up the chart, but has a risk of being jumped. Would you put considerable money into an asset that you cannot flip and may end up being redundant through the growth of other prospects?

Define "considerable money". You're probably talking about not paying the guy 1.2M and instead paying him 800K. I do not consider this considerable money in the context of an NHL contract. I consider this Treliving-style low-balling, the same type of nickel-and-diming that gets people celebrating two less years of Johnny Gaudreau under contract.

Or is it more like Bingo is suggesting, where you want to pay only the barest minimum because that is all it is worth?

I think when you have a player that drives play, has upside, has all the tools to hang around in the modern game, is building a resume of experience, and at this point is your safest bet should Giordano or Hanifin get injured (or even this - Hanifin struggles in a middle pairing role and a pairing shuffle is needed), you pay the extra 200-300K to hang on to him until you get an asset back in return.

YMMV.

Originally Posted by 868904

Doesn't he look awful period?

He looks like a typical, replacement level one-dimensional #6 defensemen 99% of the time, but when forced to play the left last year he really struggled and the team suffered for it on the ice from what I remember. I hope there is zero plan whatsoever to play Stone on the left, even if that means Andersson has to be in the AHL.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'll be shocked if anyone picks him up.

But would you be flabbergasted?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Injuries happen so it'd be safer having Kulak ready to jump in instead of our left side being Kylington, Valimaki, and the non-injured of Gio/Hanifin.

Let the youngters actually pass our established players before fast-tracking them to the NHL based on need. It's not like Kulak will be making $2M. Even if you don't want Kulak as our 7D, we can bury him in the minors with next to no cap hit penalty. I think this move would be a lot safer if we signed a more serviceable 7D, instead of pencilling in Prout due to toughness.

For sure and that's how they are thinking too ... but not to the point where you increase his salary by 40% in order to keep him around.

[Oil Stain]

If they can get Kulak signed to league minimum I guess it's theoretically possible that BT could still bridge Jankowski and get Hanifin to a long term contract.

An arbitrator might do something crazy and give Kulak like $1.5 million.

If they got Kulak at say 0.7, Jankowski at 1.8, and Hanifin at 4.8 they could have everyone squeezed in under the cap and like 600k left in space.

That is still really, really tight.

Jankowski might be more in the 2-2.3 range. I would also be surprised in Hanifin signed something for 6+ years under $5 million.

Is Brouwer being bought out likely to happen? If not him, they would need a trade, or the Flames will probably be required to bridge Hanifin due to lack of cap space.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think Hanifin will basically sign a deal that takes him to 1-2 years before end of RFA. So then the next one the Flames would have to be buying UFA years from him - and it ends up being his big one.
So sorta a bridge I guess. 3 years?

[Rick M.]

Kulak would be on the first pairing in Edmonton. I wonder if they can afford him.