Well played Treliving. Kulak is expendable at this point and we need every form of cap savings we can get over the next couple of years. Valimaki is likely already an upgrade...whether or not thats best for his development is undecided. But the way he plays, I could definitely see him developing nicely in the NHL starting on our bottom pair. He's as complete of a player as you'll find in a rookie, especially for a defensemen.
Confirmed with Link: All contracts settled. Buyout window open for 48 hrs
- Thread starter Mobiandi
- Start date
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I feel like Treliving is trying to model himself after Lamoriello. Valuing character, being a bit of a no-nonsense guy but always standing up for his guys and working hard for them.
Here, he's making sure Kulak knows he's the godfather and to tread carefully or he'll be sleeping wiff da fishes.
Here, he's making sure Kulak knows he's the godfather and to tread carefully or he'll be sleeping wiff da fishes.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,251
- 8,384
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,977
- 8,454
I meant I think he more found value than a specific Bartkowski replacement. We traded Kanzig for Lack, then Lack for Prout.
Last edited:
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,330
- 6,576
In this case, it's more like throwing under the bus than standing up for his guys.
but yeah this will make Kulak either tougher or turns into an alcoholic lol
Mr Snrub
I like the way Snrub thinks!
- Oct 12, 2016
- 5,713
- 2,410
Honestly, this is just pointless acrimony that could have been averted. Treliving's penny pinching now in an effort to both sign Hanifin longterm and avoid a Brouwer buyout or Stone trade.
I know it's high vs. low for negotiation purposes, but Kulak's ask is a lot closer to fair than the teams counter. A two-way offer is pretty insulting.
I know it's high vs. low for negotiation purposes, but Kulak's ask is a lot closer to fair than the teams counter. A two-way offer is pretty insulting.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I think it's justifiable for the Flames to try, because there is a reasonable chance that Kulak doesn't even make the top 6 out of camp with the young guys coming up behind him. If you can avoid paying real money to a guy who isn't going to play regularly, I think you go for it.
Mobiandi
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2015
- 21,058
- 17,496
Then trade him. Even if he is awarded a two-way deal, he's not clearing waivers a second time when teams wont have to prepare an arbitration case
Why not trade Stone? I mean Andersson is NHL ready at this point, and Prout is the #7D. We have depth in the AHL in case of injuries, and frankly its better than paying a guy 3.5 million to sit on the bench. We can acquire assets for trading him, and Hanifin can be acquired longterm. As for Kulak, the 650k offer is a lowball, but idk what this guy is expecting when he plays 8 minutes a night as a rookie...
crackdown44
Cold milk cools down hot food
- Dec 1, 2017
- 4,495
- 5,521
The only problem with trading Stone is if Andersson stumbles a bit you can’t really rely on prout to be your 3rd pair RHD. I could see them dealing Stone around Christmas time if Andersson proves himself capable during the first 2-3 months of the season
Then buy out Brouwer and bite the bullet now, or do it next year and bridge Hanifin. His contract isn't that bad, so maybe adding a pick (I know, we don't have a lot of those) to dump his contract to a team like Vancouver or Montreal could work as well?
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,251
- 8,384
People are actually bitching about the Flames offer? The guy is a replaceable #6 defenseman and since arbitrators always choose a number in between the two asks, the team offers low and the player asks high.
Also, keep in mind that Kulak was the one to elect for arbitration knowing that teams low ball players in arbitration. He also rejected a 1-way qualifying offer of $715,000.
Also, keep in mind that Kulak was the one to elect for arbitration knowing that teams low ball players in arbitration. He also rejected a 1-way qualifying offer of $715,000.
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,444
- 11,117
Didn’t see anyone bitching at all. Only post mentioning it says that this is a pointless exercise; in terms of contracts.
Dunno.
This’ll end up being a 800k two way or something lol. The 600k two way is a bit insulting for a guy that gave you a decent 6 role.
Mobiandi
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2015
- 21,058
- 17,496
Even if he gets shown up by all of Kylington, Valimaki, and Andersson he'd still likely get claimed by a team needing a cheap #6 guy. Literally no point to a two way
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,251
- 8,384
Fair enough, I guess bitching wasn't the right word.
As for it being insulting, look at all arbitration cases, all the team asks are insulting. They go low because they feel it gives them a better chance of getting closer to the real number they expect. The only way it is insulting is if that was all the Flames offered in negotiations after he rejected the QO.
As I just said to Volica, it's just what happens in arbitration, they offer lower than value, just like players ask for higher than value. Both sides know they won't get what they asked. The Flames likely know it won't be a two-way deal, just like they know he won't get just 650k and just like Kulak and his agent know he won't get 1.15m.
As for the two-way deal, this is why it is not pointless. When the arbitrator makes his ruling he is going to go somewhere in the middle. By asking for a two-way deal, the difference between Kulak's ask and the Flames ask becomes greater than the 500k we are seeing in the Friedman tweet.
The difference for the arbitrator is actually the difference between the AHL salary and NHL salary because by asking for a two-way deal, the Flames are saying to the arbitrator that Kulak is not a guaranteed roster player and by placing him on waivers and him clearing, they have shown he can clear waivers.
Since we don't know the AHL salary being offered, we don't know the actual difference, but if we assume that the AHL salary offered is say 250k (double his previous contract), the arbitrator sees a potential difference of 900k. If by chance he feels both sides laid out equally good arguments for their ask, he's now more likely to settle at 650k on a 1-way deal, than if the ask was 650k on a 1-way deal to start with.
Last edited:
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I could be wrong, but I don't think the offer submitted to arbitration is necessarily the best offer the Flames gave to Brett and his agent during negotiation.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,251
- 8,384
it's not their offer, it's just the ask submitted to the arbitrator
you are indeed correct, which is why an arbitration ask shouldn't offend anyone. It's when the team picks apart their game that it offends them
crackdown44
Cold milk cools down hot food
- Dec 1, 2017
- 4,495
- 5,521
Gotta think you need to move out/buyout 2 of Brouwer/Stone/Frolik to have room for tkachuk and Bennett extensions next year
In a perfect world a team gets desperate for some RW depth mid season and we can dump Brouwer. Stone can be moved easy for a 4th once Andersson is settled in. Allows us to keep fro for the duration of his contract.
More likely scenario: they move stone next summer and either buyout Brouwer or trade fro
Smith comes off the books too but I expect him to be resigned 1-2 years if he stays healthy this season
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $12,250.00Event closes- Updated: