Player Discussion Brett Kulak: Top pairing candidate #6

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
 

Vachon23

Registered User
Oct 14, 2015
17,970
20,715
Victoriaville
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
Personally, I prefer having Edmundson at 3,5 then Kulak at 1,85. Edmundson bring something to a team and he ca play a role. He's a useful NHLer
 

Hins77

Registered User
Apr 2, 2013
3,819
3,390
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
I understand your minding, but how manage edmundson contract? Most of playoff team are already close to the salary cap, so if they get a contract like edmundson, they will have to shed you a salary back. And these non playoff team don’t want to add a guy who will just help them to have a worst draft pick. Edmundson contract you will die with, at least, until his last year contract
 

Scintillating10

Registered User
Jun 15, 2012
18,754
8,354
Nova Scotia
What does this distinction even mean? We're "hardcore fans" only if we appreciate that Bergevin has done a good job rebuilding?

You mean, we need to contract amnesia about what he did in prior seasons? Is that what would make us "hardcore"?

We're all fans in here and I suspect most of us follow the team closely and appreciate that the early returns on Bergevin's moves from this past off season, are positive so far. I was always one to suggest that he provide a better asset mix and it looks like it's working. Just hoping it continues and don't want to read into it any more than I have to. I would just humbly suggest to simply enjoy this and not resort to unnecessarily divisive labels.
A lot of novice fans really ripped Bergevin too early. He was doing a good job
 
  • Like
Reactions: Habs Halifax

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
Personally, I prefer having Edmundson at 3,5 then Kulak at 1,85. Edmundson bring something to a team and he ca play a role. He's a useful NHLer
If you are saying that Kulak is not a useful NHLer, I think that's nuts. He;s as good in his own zone as almost all 3rd pair guys. but he passes the puck better than most. And he's very good supporting the foreckeck. he's good at holding the puck in, and makes good decisions pinching down. And he's surprisingly good when he gets the puck deep. Bonus is he skates pretty well. On the other hand, another guy that can play a physical role is wasted on this team.
 

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
If this was Bergevin's 3rd or 4th year as GM I would agree with you but this is year 9 and he finally gets it? You cannot write off the first several years of his ineptitude that easily.
but is he still the GM he was in those years, or has he developed?
 

Vachon23

Registered User
Oct 14, 2015
17,970
20,715
Victoriaville
If you are saying that Kulak is not a useful NHLer, I think that's nuts. He;s as good in his own zone as almost all 3rd pair guys. but he passes the puck better than most. And he's very good supporting the foreckeck. he's good at holding the puck in, and makes good decisions pinching down. And he's surprisingly good when he gets the puck deep. Bonus is he skates pretty well. On the other hand, another guy that can play a physical role is wasted on this team.

I'm not the biggest fan of Kulak but at least that is good analyse of him and you bought good argument that I can't say that I disagree. What I wanted to say is that Kulak doesn't have a role in special team and that he can only play in 5 vs 5, not that he's not useful.
 

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
I'm not the biggest fan of Kulak but at least that is good analyse of him and you bought good argument that I can't say that I disagree. What I wanted to say is that Kulak doesn't have a role in special team and that he can only play in 5 vs 5, not that he's not useful.
Yeah, he is only D that can't PK.And only Weber, Petry, and Romanov, can play PP. But he's still better than average 3rd pairing.
 

Vachon23

Registered User
Oct 14, 2015
17,970
20,715
Victoriaville
Yeah, he is only D that can't PK.And only Weber, Petry, and Romanov, can play PP. But he's still better than average 3rd pairing.

Personally I think he's an average 3rd pairing but I respect your point and I need to say that I agree that he's good for keeping the play a live in the Ozone with good pinch but I don't like the fact that he can't play in any special team, that he can't play the both ways (RD/LD) and that for his size, that he loose a lot of his puck battle a long the board and in front of the net. I like my bottom pairing D to have a speciality or to be aa young guy like Romanov.
 

A55P2

Registered User
Jul 14, 2009
2,231
2,276
Québec, Québec
If you are saying that Kulak is not a useful NHLer, I think that's nuts. He;s as good in his own zone as almost all 3rd pair guys. but he passes the puck better than most. And he's very good supporting the foreckeck. he's good at holding the puck in, and makes good decisions pinching down. And he's surprisingly good when he gets the puck deep. Bonus is he skates pretty well. On the other hand, another guy that can play a physical role is wasted on this team.

That's an excellent analysis. It's exactly what he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyson

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
Personally I think he's an average 3rd pairing but I respect your point and I need to say that I agree that he's good for keeping the play a live in the Ozone with good pinch but I don't like the fact that he can't play in any special team, that he can't play the both ways (RD/LD) and that for his size, that he loose a lot of his puck battle a long the board and in front of the net. I like my bottom pairing D to have a speciality or to be aa young guy like Romanov.
yes, he's not as good in puck battles as our other D. But our other D are very good at that. That he can't
play RD is the biggest problem on this roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vachon23

Vachon23

Registered User
Oct 14, 2015
17,970
20,715
Victoriaville
yes, he's not as good in puck battles as our other D. But our other D are very good at that. That he can't
play RD is the biggest problem on this roster.

I need to be clear, I don't want to trade him against a pick to have Mete and Ouellet as #6/7 and I'm totally fine if we keep him for the rest of the year, but if you can have a cheaper RD that can play on the PP to replace him, then that I would do it
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Great Weal

Tyson

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
44,580
60,390
Texas
but is he still the GM he was in those years, or has he developed?
I think he has gotten better but perhaps he should have learned about being a GM in the AHL...Should not have taken his apprenticeship in the NHL. He also should have hired the most qualified instead of surrounding himself with friends. He has done well since the Suzuki trade though and I give him serious accolades for the things he accomplished over the past 5 months.
 

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
I think he has gotten better but perhaps he should have learned about being a GM in the AHL...Should not have taken his apprenticeship in the NHL. He also should have hired the most qualified instead of surrounding himself with friends. He has done well since the Suzuki trade though and I give him serious accolades for the things he accomplished over the past 5 months.
 

Habaddict

Registered User
Apr 12, 2009
1,340
180
toronto
yeah, the people he hired was a problem .and his refusal to fire them, was a bigger problem. I hated him for bringing Therien (sp?) back. And then hated him for not getting rid of MT and Lafavbre for so long. still , to my surprise he has done a good job for the last couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyson

Tyson

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
44,580
60,390
Texas
yeah, the people he hired was a problem .and his refusal to fire them, was a bigger problem. I hated him for bringing Therien (sp?) back. And then hated him for not getting rid of MT and Lafavbre for so long. still , to my surprise he has done a good job for the last couple of years.
Yes I feel the same way. I know young players bare some responsibility for their development but the job of an AHL coaching staff is to teach and develop our coveted young prospects, the Habs and LeFebvre failed miserably. I saw prospects regress under LeFebvre and his staff.
 

Redux91

I do Three bullets.
Sep 5, 2006
45,033
38,676
Kirkland, Montreal
Some games he looks like an all star
Some games he looks like he should be placed on waivers

He's a peculiar one this guy, we need more all star games lol
 

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,735
24,111
Some games he looks like an all star
Some games he looks like he should be placed on waivers

He's a peculiar one this guy, we need more all star games lol

I was just checking his games played. He's played 220 regular sesaon games and 10 playoff games.

I think Timmins used to give a number around 200 games for the amount it took a lot of dmen to get comfortable in the NHL. Kulak may be hitting his stride.

At this point I consider him under-rated and under-paid, a luxury as a #6.
 
Last edited:

The Great Weal

Phil's Pizza
Jan 15, 2015
52,016
64,399
I need to be clear, I don't want to trade him against a pick to have Mete and Ouellet as #6/7 and I'm totally fine if we keep him for the rest of the year, but if you can have a cheaper RD that can play on the PP to replace him, then that I would do it
Absolutely. Colin Miller at 50% retained is my ideal target.

Kulak has some nice tools by being a big guy and a great skater, and he can do some nice things with the puck(although very inconsistent), but getting an upgrade would help us a lot. You'd ideally want your #6 dman to play more on a team that rolls lines as evenly as us.

If Kulak was getting less than a million, I would love to keep him. He's too overpriced for what he brings. It's not an urgent move, but it's really the main thing we can look at improving.
 

dackelljuneaubulis02

Registered User
Oct 13, 2012
11,393
6,599
From the games I've seen this year he's looked great. Even better than the bubble. Looks less awkward in the D zone. Provides some nice secondary/tertiary offense. As long as he's not an adventure in his own zone, he's a nice piece back there.

It's still early but it looks like our pro scouting has been pretty damn good the last few years. Along with the amateur scouting but again it's still early.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->