Kulak On Waivers

[RedHawk12]

No, you cannot overpay your bottom end guys, but I believe the reason Kulak was put on waivers in the first place is because if we did accept his asking price, it would be overpaying a bottom end guy.

Speculation of course, because I don't know what Kulak is asking for. But connecting the dots it makes sense.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Kulak is 24...?

And Andersson/Kylington are 3 years younger and can fill the same role as Kulak

[djsFlames]

This is like Byron again but on defence.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

This is like Byron again but on defence.

And just like Byron, if he blossoms somewhere else, you say "good on you" and forget about it otherwise. But unlike the Byron situation there are several players lined up for the same spot.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

This is like Byron again but on defence.

When Kulak does something to make Joe Thornton look foolish, or generally looks ten percent as dangerous as Byron, then I'll be full of regret.

Until then, I guess I keep waiting for 'Brodie 2.0' to show up, and I simply don't see it.

[Heavy Jack]

Byron wasn’t in RFA contract demands when he was put on waivers he was the odd man out on the roster at the time and Tre wanted to get him playing but sadly he was claimed. If kassian doesn’t have his rehab moment at precisely the same time Byron clears IMO.

[CalgaryFan1988]

The Kulak situation reminds me a lot of Steve Montador. Very serviceable #6, but got pushed out due to depth.

My guess is Kulak doesn't get claimed, but either later this year or next he will be on another club. Too many guys knocking at the door and there is nothing wrong with that, for Calgary or Kulak.

[really?]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

No, you cannot overpay your bottom end guys, but I believe the reason Kulak was put on waivers in the first place is because if we did accept his asking price, it would be overpaying a bottom end guy.

Speculation of course, because I don't know what Kulak is asking for. But connecting the dots it makes sense.

Agree about salary on bottom end guys, but I would hold Stone as a bottom end guy and see his salary as more problematic than whatever Kulak will be making.

Of course it is important to manage all salaries efficiently, but the real reason the team has to nickel and dime younger guys is related to a handful of veteran's being paid well above assignment and production. That's not to imply Stone and others don't have value, they're simply not efficiently compensated in a cap sense.

Losing Kulak may not be the end of the world, if they lose him, but I'd take my chances with Kulak returning more production than Stone over the next three years, at a lesser salary.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Agreed. And no, no one is holding a gun to their head to sign a Brouwer or a Stone, even if they are UFAs they were not impact players even when they were signed.

TBF, Brouwer was a consistent 18-25 goal guy. That's $4.5M value. In hindsight obviously not.

To me, the Stone deal is a little harder to justify as of the day it was made - Treliving held a lot more cards - Stone is married to a Calgarian, had bought a house in Calgary and really wanted to be here. And he was going to be a bottom pairing guy in Treliving's LT plans. Three years at $3.5 doesn't seem like good value. Plus, the same guys who are pushing for Kulak's job were in the system, albeit a year further out.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

TBF, Brouwer was a consistent 18-25 goal guy. That's $4.5M value. In hindsight obviously not.

To me, the Stone deal is a little harder to justify as of the day it was made - Treliving held a lot more cards - Stone is married to a Calgarian, had bought a house in Calgary and really wanted to be here. And he was going to be a bottom pairing guy in Treliving's LT plans. Three years at $3.5 doesn't seem like good value. Plus, the same guys who are pushing for Kulak's job were in the system, albeit a year further out.

To be fair, after Stone left Arizona, I thought he played very well as a second pairing defenceman with Brodie. He was also a UFA coming off of a one year, $4.0M deal so $3.5M was probably very fair for the player.

I will agree that Treliving's decision to pay $3.5M for a #5 defenceman was questionable, especially having paid a kings ransom to get Hamonic. I'm guessing the "savings" on Hamonic's contract partly justified the "overpay" on Stone...

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

This is like Byron again but on defence.

Oh no.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Byron wasn’t in RFA contract demands when he was put on waivers he was the odd man out on the roster at the time and Tre wanted to get him playing but sadly he was claimed. If kassian doesn’t have his rehab moment at precisely the same time Byron clears IMO.

It was the October of "Why Are There Three Goalies, Brad?" and they had to move somebody to open up a spot for three goalies.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Byron wasn’t in RFA contract demands when he was put on waivers he was the odd man out on the roster at the time and Tre wanted to get him playing but sadly he was claimed. If kassian doesn’t have his rehab moment at precisely the same time Byron clears IMO.

Wasn’t Byron not qualified one summer and thus became an UFA? We ended up resigning him. But he was available for free to every team in the league even before he was put on waivers.

[sureLoss]

no surprise.

News Update

Elliotte Friedman
@FriedgeHNIC
Kulak (CAL) clears

[TheScorpion]

Kulak clears. Not surprising. Certainly won't have much leverage now.

[Vinny01]

Kulak getting a two way or a cheap one way

[Toonage]

Nobody loves you Brett. Now sign here for a modest AHL raise on this 2 way deal. Thanks.

[Yoho]

This is Tre’s world.

[heep223]

No surprise here. Every team has a Kulak or two.

Would Stone clear?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

To be fair, after Stone left Arizona, I thought he played very well as a second pairing defenceman with Brodie. He was also a UFA coming off of a one year, $4.0M deal so $3.5M was probably very fair for the player.

I will agree that Treliving's decision to pay $3.5M for a #5 defenceman was questionable, especially having paid a kings ransom to get Hamonic. I'm guessing the "savings" on Hamonic's contract partly justified the "overpay" on Stone...

I agree that Stone filled in nicely after being traded here. I might also agree that Stone probably gets $3.5 as a UFA coming off of a $4M contract (huge overpay by AZ). Looking at the signings around that time (Del Zotto, Gudbrandson, etc, it's not out of line, though guys like Chiarot signed for less. But on Brad's team he's an expected #5 guy, who really wants to stay here, and in a situation where there's upward pressure from Andersson and Kulak.