Quote:
Originally Posted by Corral
Hard to see any positives on this deal for the Flames. Head scratcher. If you want to just get rid of James Neal, than do it and bring in some young brute to patrol the wings on a minimum salary. I don't buy the argument that there wasn't a deal out there for Neal whereby the Flames pretty much just give away a perennial 20 goal scorer for a pick or two.
Concerning that his worst NHL year was here. Its easy to blame it all on him, but that is unlikely to be the whole story.
|
Without having a serious rebound, no one was going to treat Neal like a "perennial 20 goal scorer". He most certainly had a negative value. Marleau had 16 goals and 37 points. The Leafs had to pay a 1st to get rid of him, and Marleau only had one year left on his contract. Marleau was coming off three 25+ goal seasons in a row prior to last year.
The only way the Flames were getting out of Neal's contract was by buyout or getting back an equally bad contract. That being said, the Flames did get back a contract that could not be bought out. That's the only reason I see this being bad.