Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Was it? By all accounts Neal was embarrassed for his performance last season and has been working out hard with Gary Roberts. Sounds like a guy that was putting in as much effort as possible in the offseason to ensure he performed better next season. So lets say in year two he rebounds nicely to the point where even if he's not a great fit with the coach that that everyone is a pro about it and with three years left on the deal coming off a bounce back year that contract is maybe more admissible for another team to accept in a trade where the Flames retain some salary and take on some salary back. There's little doubt if all else fails Lucic would still be available next offseason and by then maybe Holland is even more desperate to unload him to the point were Treliving can dictate the return.
I just think once you sign a player for 5 years you owe it to the process to at least give it a 2nd season before declaring it a failure. I keep coming back to believing that the GM felt the coach and player could not coexist and this was in his mind the player had to go and if that's the case I guess I can understand it but then shame on him and his pro scouts for handing out that contract to a player that really didn't see eye to eye with the coach from day one. There needs to be some evaluation with pro scouting department with the Brouwer and Neal contracts being immediate poor fits in the locker room. It's one thing to sign players that don't live up to their contracts but bringing in square pegs for round holes tells me some people aren't doing enough homework.
|
For sure.
But one of my assumptions in doing this was that they wanted Neal gone. Period.
A combination of
a) not being sure he can rebound
b) not being sure he will have the role to rebound
c) not being a fit in the dressing room
d) Peters wanting him out
e) player requesting a trade
had this whole thing down to take the only option available and make the most out of it.