Scriptor
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2014
- 7,776
- 4,747
Kulak is not better defensively. Edmundson can play PK and he doesn't need to be sheltered to be effective. He has a role in a team what I can say about Kulak. He brings a lot more then what Kulak brings and Edmundson is at 3.5m not 4m.
I don't think we are comparing whois better between Kulak and Edmundson.
Edmundson s definitely more consistent, if nothing else. You know what you get from Edmundson and that make it easier to slot him into the lineup.
The comparison is the loss of value in Kulak over Edmundson VS the gain in Cap by shedding 3.5M for three more years beyond this and 1.85M for Kulak.
If losing Edmundson (being able to unload the contract, which is far from a sure thing, would be nice) over Kulak is the difference between a tangible upgrade to the lineup or not, I'm fine with losing Edmundson and keeping Kulak.
Still, part of me is also fine with losing both and 5.35M in Cap space (before adding replacement players) if it will provide a quality upgrade in the process.
For example, if Montreal added a minute-munching, puck-moving, point-producing veteran D as a rental at the deadline that could be an upgrade over both at D and could be re-signed short term (2-3 years) for 4M in the offseason, I'd go with that player + Fleury or Mete in a heartbeat.
The 1st or 2nd pairing improves so, more minutes on ice improve.
Veteran upgrade - Weber
Romanov - Petry
Chiarot - Fleury
Mete