The Athletic - The Brett Kulak miscalculation

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People are lamenting the loss of Kulak now?

He cleared waivers. For a reason.

He was, at the time, in the way of, and had far less upside than, Valimaki, Andersson and Kylington. If he has done well in Montreal, that's great - I am happy for him.

Would I trade any of Valimaki, Andersson or Kylington for him now? Definitely not.

So who gives a flying ####?

And for anyone that says 'wasted asset', again, he cleared waivers. And yes, regardless of motivation, or any imagined disagreement, Treliving still did him a solid by moving him.

There is zero story here. But of course, the usual arms up in the air.

This is what I keep coming back to. Who would he replace last year? Who would be replace this year. The fact that he is thriving in MTL tells you more about their D depth then anything. That said, good for him. I like Kulak and hope that he keeps his momentum rolling.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you keep Kulak, you play Kulak (and not, say, Valimaki or Kylington).

Kulak had cleared waivers and his salary could be completely buried. If Valimaki or Kylington were outpreforming him then you send Kulak to the farm until you need an injury fill in or playoff depth.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And for anyone that says 'wasted asset', again, he cleared waivers. And yes, regardless of motivation, or any imagined disagreement, Treliving still did him a solid by moving him.

The people talking about a wasted asset are referring to the pick that was spent to get Fantenberg who we wouldn't have needed if we had kept Kulak.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Owen15

I’m in this camp. I think Treliving has done some good work and some bad work. I think this falls into the bad work bucket.

I recall thinking Treliving was making an example of Kulak by putting him on waivers in advance of the arb meeting. Why did he do that? It certainly ensured Kulak would never return much in a trade. I think Treliving went hard on this relationship and in the end did not maximize asset value.

I also agree that in terms of the current roster this move was meh and not relevant.

But on the other hand, given what it seems like Kulak wanted in arbitration, there was a pretty good risk he'd be overpaid at $1.15M as a 7th or 8th defenceman, making him, again, untradeable. I think putting him on waivers may have been an attempt to lower the arbitration number, or perhaps get a favorable deal before arbitration. And hell, maybe Treliving even threatened it during negotiations (and then had to follow through).

[blender]

For the record, I've been arguing Wilson's point here today, but ultimately agree that the loss of Kulak was not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. But it is a very valid topic to discuss because it speaks to the greater issue of prospect and salary management in the cap era. I believe that Wilson raises a very pertinent and interesting point about how a team could choose to evaluate a fringe player with his concept of identifying low-downside players. Granted, not every player is going to be amenable to being buried on the depth chart when they think they should be in the show, but that's not news and shouldn't be a big factor in a team's planning their roster.
Ultimately I think Kulak was a good example of the type of player that has no real down side. I also think that if you look at the bigger picture of how Treliving has operated at the margins of the roster that there is something to be questioned about his decisions.
By and large I feel Flames management is doing an acceptable job, but the default to aging veterans at the expense of cap dollars and draft picks is a fair criticism.

[Robbob]

I would also think there was a need for the players the Flames got in return. They desperately needed Dmen on the farm. They had 21 players suit up and play at least one game on defense.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Kulak had cleared waivers and his salary could be completely buried. If Valimaki or Kylington were outpreforming him then you send Kulak to the farm until you need an injury fill in or playoff depth.



The people talking about a wasted asset are referring to the pick that was spent to get Fantenberg who we wouldn't have needed if we had kept Kulak.

It has been mentioned, but the asset given for Fantenberg had more to do with the freak Stone situation.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Kulak had cleared waivers and his salary could be completely buried. If Valimaki or Kylington were outpreforming him then you send Kulak to the farm until you need an injury fill in or playoff depth.



The people talking about a wasted asset are referring to the pick that was spent to get Fantenberg who we wouldn't have needed if we had kept Kulak.

You couldn't have buried quite all of it if his ask was awarded. But almost all, for sure. And after the $900K award sure. But IMO you definitely don't want Kulak whiling away in the minors anyway - what good does that do anyone?

At the end of the day, this was about trading a guy who possibly wasn't even going to make the team (and wasn't going to help the Heat if he was unhappy about a demotion) for two guys that weren't going to make the team and would help the Heat quite a bit. And I don't think it had any significant impact overall.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People are lamenting the loss of Kulak now?

He cleared waivers. For a reason.

He was, at the time, in the way of, and had far less upside than, Valimaki, Andersson and Kylington. If he has done well in Montreal, that's great - I am happy for him.

Would I trade any of Valimaki, Andersson or Kylington for him now? Definitely not.

So who gives a flying ####?

And for anyone that says 'wasted asset', again, he cleared waivers. And yes, regardless of motivation, or any imagined disagreement, Treliving still did him a solid by moving him.

There is zero story here. But of course, the usual arms up in the air.

/thread

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Kulak had cleared waivers and his salary could be completely buried. If Valimaki or Kylington were outpreforming him then you send Kulak to the farm until you need an injury fill in or playoff depth.



The people talking about a wasted asset are referring to the pick that was spent to get Fantenberg who we wouldn't have needed if we had kept Kulak.

If we had kept Kulak, he wouldn't be playing for Montreal right now, and he wouldn't be considered an NHL defenseman. So Treliving probably goes out and gets Fnatenberg anyway.

The whole discussion is based on hindsight, Wilson's bad takes, and an unfortunate injury.

[Bourque's Twin]

This is weird timing but I saw Stajan with Kulak today (in Calgary). Let the rumours begin...

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

This is weird timing but I saw Stajan with Kulak today (in Calgary). Let the rumours begin...

Kulak, Stajan and Warrener are all getting in to coaching. Old player coaches in Stockton

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If we had kept Kulak, he wouldn't be playing for Montreal right now, and he wouldn't be considered an NHL defenseman. So Treliving probably goes out and gets Fnatenberg anyway.

Kulak played 71 games for the Flames in the 2017-18 season and seemed reasonable but unspectacular doing it. It's not a stretch to say he was/is an NHL defenceman.

[Geeoff]

I mean I guess Kulak's ok but I feel like Alzner had played his way off the Habs anyway.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Kulak played 71 games for the Flames in the 2017-18 season and seemed reasonable but unspectacular doing it. It's not a stretch to say he was/is an NHL defenceman.

But would he be if he were still in the Flames' organization? That was my point. And I don't think he would have been - I think he would have spent last year in the minors. Which would likely have led to a disgruntled player.

It's a numbers game. Guys like Kulak fall through the cracks all the time, in every organization. There is no story here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I mean I guess Kulak's ok but I feel like Alzner had played his way off the Habs anyway.

Alzner played his way off the Habs the moment he stepped on the ice for them for the first time. We see really bad signings every year but that one never had a chance to succeed in any capacity.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Robbob

It has been mentioned, but the asset given for Fantenberg had more to do with the freak Stone situation.

It didn’t though

Not only do those two play different sides, the timing doesn’t fit your logic as Stone was out long before that and was easily replaced internally, and he was coming back by the time we made that trade. He played two weeks after the trade and I’m pretty sure he was practicing before it.

Treliving got Fantenberg because he wanted someone with more experience than Valimaki who could play third pair in the playoffs WITH Andersson. Kulak fits that perfectly.

So really it was two “miscalculations” by Treliving (don’t freak out CP!!!). One in that he underestimated Kulak and let him go for nothing, and then two because he thought Fantenberg was worth anything even though we really didn’t need anything he brought and ended up scratching him when it mattered anyways because he is just not that good.

This forum should wrap their head around the concept that just maybe the guy who took two full seasons to realize Glen Gulutzan wasn’t a good NHL coach is capable of making bonehead moves from time to time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by neo45

It didn’t though

Not only do those two play different sides, the timing doesn’t fit your logic as Stone was out long before that and was easily replaced internally, and he was coming back by the time we made that trade. He played two weeks after the trade and I’m pretty sure he was practicing before it.

Treliving got Fantenberg because he wanted someone with more experience than Valimaki who could play third pair in the playoffs WITH Andersson. Kulak fits that perfectly.

Wait.. so we had Stone coming back, we already had Prout, Valimaki was already in the AHL, but Brad wanted someone with “more experience than Valimaki to play with Andersson”?

I guess the timing or the roster doesn’t fit your logic either. Surprise.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

This is a whole lot of nothing imo. Replacement level player on a mediocre team. Same with Pauly Byron... I just dont get the love. I really dont think we lost anything that cost us a single win but people bemoan this stuff nonetheless. Good for Kulak and Byron, they found meaningful work on a ####ty team in the nhl... I'm genuinely happy for them.. I'm just glad they arent here, especially Byron at his deal. I would rather see what we have with a guy like Kylington than waste time with low ceiling guys like Kulak.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wait.. so we had Stone coming back, we already had Prout, Valimaki was already in the AHL, but Brad wanted someone with “more experience than Valimaki to play with Andersson”?

I guess the timing or the roster doesn’t fit your logic either. Surprise.

Do you really need the whole right shot/left shot thing explained to you?

Stone’s illness had nothing to do with Fantenberg being acquired. Not only was he back, they weren’t competing for a spot.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by neo45

Do you really need the whole right shot/left shot thing explained to you?

Stone’s illness had nothing to do with Fantenberg being acquired. Not only was he back, they weren’t competing for a spot.

7-8 defencemen who are signed to fill in sometimes have to play offhand.