FF de Mars
Registered User
Bergevin could have signed Radulov had he added that unsignificant 1% of his salary cap to the latter's contract.
Confirmed with Link: Habs sign Brett Kulak for 3 years 1.85AAV
- Thread starter neil2005
- Start date
Bergevin could have signed Radulov had he added that unsignificant 1% of his salary cap to the latter's contract.
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 29,378
- 30,802
Benn is worse than Kulak, but neither is top 4 material. That's also not by a lot. If I had to take one, I would take Kulak.
If you just started your statement after the first question mark and ended it with the other, I would have put Alzner and Benn as my answers.
Kulak is maybe a #5, but perfect as a number 6. Benn is an ok pick as a #6.
Neither are top 4 and anyone, or anything that says otherwise is completely and categorically wrong.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
I think Benn is better, plus he brings physical play and ge can play both sides.
dackelljuneaubulis02
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2012
- 11,510
- 6,819
MD thaivuN
Anime Music Hipster
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
I think they qualify him, but i hope they do it just so the door is shut on Benn
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
Wellp.
Brett Kulak, 57 games, 107 hits
Christian Folin, 45 games, 125 hits
Jordie Benn 81 games, 124 hits.
Feel free to "pro-rate" what our new bottom pairing for next year could of finished with with full seasons
Stop being tricked by Jordie's beard lol
FF de Mars
Registered User
Great signing. Very little risk here and potentially a fair bit of upside. He's not a sexy name and doesn't have any standout attributes, but it's hard to argue with the results. By any conventional or advanced metric, WAR models, xG, and just plain and simply gaining the trust of Claude Julien he had a great season and absolutely played like a top 4 defenseman. Of course Petry was a part of that, but that's only a problem if you overpay for "chemistry" (eg. Lindell being overpaid because he's good on a pair Klingberg carries). If he can replicate this year then 1.85M for a solid 2nd pair dman in his prime is a bargain, and even if there's some regression 1.85M for a solid 3rd pair guy is fine.
Their methodology is linked here. Basically there's two portions, one for cap hit percentage of a contract and one for the projected term. The most heavily weighted factors are essentially points and TOI, and the term projections factor in age as well. They don't use WAR because that's still generally out of whack with the actual NHL market and in general teams pay for TOI/role and points rather than defense (teams pay for "defense" in the sense they pay for Karl Alzners who play top 4 minutes in a defensive role). A contract model based on WAR would value defensive contributions regardless of ice time a lot more than real world GMs who aren't going to pay an elite defensive 4th liner much more than an average defensive 4th liner, because they're both still just guys that play 12 mins a night and score 15 points a season.
For Kulak the reason the model predicted higher than what he got is likely because most 25 year old Dmen playing top 4 minutes and scoring adequately have higher pedigree and would be more established NHLers that have worked their way up to that role, rather than a guy like Kulak who was considered (and paid like) a depth D who ended up having a great season in a top 4 role. The model doesn't care that he's "Brett Kulak" making 900k and not a guy with much pedigree, it sees that historically 25 year olds playing top 4 minutes who are alright scorers end up getting paid and locked in as core players.
Where did you see that Lehkonen projection? The figures they released that I saw predict 2 years at around 3M for Lehkonen which seems pretty likely.
Their methodology is linked here. Basically there's two portions, one for cap hit percentage of a contract and one for the projected term. The most heavily weighted factors are essentially points and TOI, and the term projections factor in age as well. They don't use WAR because that's still generally out of whack with the actual NHL market and in general teams pay for TOI/role and points rather than defense (teams pay for "defense" in the sense they pay for Karl Alzners who play top 4 minutes in a defensive role). A contract model based on WAR would value defensive contributions regardless of ice time a lot more than real world GMs who aren't going to pay an elite defensive 4th liner much more than an average defensive 4th liner, because they're both still just guys that play 12 mins a night and score 15 points a season.
For Kulak the reason the model predicted higher than what he got is likely because most 25 year old Dmen playing top 4 minutes and scoring adequately have higher pedigree and would be more established NHLers that have worked their way up to that role, rather than a guy like Kulak who was considered (and paid like) a depth D who ended up having a great season in a top 4 role. The model doesn't care that he's "Brett Kulak" making 900k and not a guy with much pedigree, it sees that historically 25 year olds playing top 4 minutes who are alright scorers end up getting paid and locked in as core players.
Last edited:
dackelljuneaubulis02
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2012
- 11,510
- 6,819
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
Just a fantastic post really. I cant stress this part your wrote enough.
Proves to me what most of us are all in agreement with, Total freaking bargain.
I’m not as high as others are in Kulak but he is 100 percent an NHL dman, and shoots left, so this is a great depth deal for us. If MB adds a first pair LD we are in pretty good shape with the guys we have coming up. Would be disappointed to see Weber have to play with Mete or Kulak again, we should pay whatever the cost is to get a true first pair LD.
Actually the context is Rads had to want to sign here. To think 1% was the difference maker is to not understand.....the context.
And bringing up Radulov on a Kulak thread is impressive. Any idea when you will be over Radulov choosing to take same money with a different team? Asking for a friend that wants to know when we can move on.
Harry Kakalovich
Registered User
Great AAV for a guy that showed #4 potential. I'd much rather have Kulak going forward instead of Benn.
Archijerej
Registered User
We still need to replace, or re-sign Benn if we're not able to bring a top 4 defenceman. He played a ton of PK minutes last season.
montreal
Go Habs Go
depends on their plans, they may feel Juulsen will be able to take over for Benn's ice time and would take his PK time.
Archijerej
Registered User
I think it might not work due to handedness. Benn-Weber was our main penalty killing pairing last season.
angusyoung
The life of..The Party
He improved as the season went along,last 10 games of the season was rather impressive for most of the Habs. Don't discount Richardson's ability to improve any of the D.Thought he would have received more than he did.
calder candidate
Registered User
The Great Weal
Phil's Pizza
- Jan 15, 2015
- 52,691
- 65,776
Nobody knows how Juulsen will play next season. If you aren't bringing Benn back, you need to find a replacement.
You would need one anyway because Juulsen and Folin are RD. We have 2 LD (3 if you count Alzner or Ouellet
) and 4 RDAd
Latest posts
-
Prospect Info: [2022 - 92nd] Adam Engstrom (SHL - Rogle BK)- Latest: _vivelequebec_
