Quote:
|
Originally Posted by transplant99;7166229i am suggesting that bringing in a guy that cant play any more and with the worst possibly structured contract to get out from under is an even worse way to go. Again, [B
doubling down on the mistake[/B] in the first place. It smacks of a desperate GM trying to cover himself.
|
You've characterized the trade twice this way. If the Flames were at -N before (negative Neal, by whatever measurement) there was no way they could break even. Just as there's no way they're at -2N now. Maybe your expectations for fixing the Neal situation were off.
It's trading one problem for another, and there are arguably legitimate reasons why it might be important to rid the roster of Neal. If, as Bingo suggests in his article, that a buyout was extremely unlikely, then nothing has been lost be swapping out for a buyout proof player.
To me it comes down to the difference between having Neal, or Lucic, on the team. Plus or minus, it seems like the difference is relatively small. I think, though, that given where either would play (bottom six), it seems more likely we'll get a bit more value out of Lucic. But, whatever this difference is, and I think it's slight, it's hardly "crippling".