Quote:
Originally Posted by Dajazz
It’s still a #### trade no matter how you slice it.
The Neal signing was applauded 12 months ago. He bombed in Calgary, one anomaly in his whole career so far. Perhaps he would never be a good fit, perhaps he’d turn it around and score 30 while being a pest. Or he’d just score 20 goals on the third line and some PP.
Sure, so maybe Lucic is a better “fit” if we need physicality and “grit” (yea Brad, how are those gritty leadership signing going lately). But for >5 million dollars no thanks.
You re-sign Hathaway (or similar player) and keep a goon available and hope that Neal finds 80% of his game. Maybe he doesn’t, fine, THEN you trade or buy him out. Not after one year. Hamonic bombed the first year, Hamilton had difficulty to adjust - you give Neal one more chance.
There is no way Milan Lucic, entering his fourth year of decline with a degenerative back disease to boot, was a fair return. I refuse to believe it, there was something else about Neal that we don’t know about - trade request, locker room trouble, coach dog house.
The trade is considered a lop sided win for Edmonton league wide, while a few Flames’ fans are doing it’s best Jay “Smartest Man in the Room” Feaster impression saying Lucic > Neal and that buy out clause ain’t any problems...
C’mon - Lucic’s contract was the worst contract in the league. Maybe Bobrovsky beat it now, still, top 3 then....
TLDR; Traded Neal too cheap and too early, something fishy going on.
|
If you sign a similar player it's $3M a season ball park, because Hathaway at $1.5M isn't the same deterrent.
So Lucic at $5.25M is overpaid as a bottom six forward, agree 100%. But if he's an above average deterrent and doesn't get filled in defensively he's only overpaid by $2.25M