Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
This is a fan site after all, not the Athletic or some objective hockey analysis think tank.
It’s only hypocritical for those that like to mock other team’s fans for being delusional or seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I think that’s what all fans do generally, maybe some more than others.
|
I don't expect hockey fans to be objective. But I do hope we can be intelligent and consistent. I might be wrong, but I think a strong majority hated the idea of this trade before it was made. I don't think a fan should change their opinion because the trade was made. And I really struggle to see how this trade makes us better.
There are 3 reasons to make a trade. It makes business sense. It gives you the opportunity to get better. Or it makes you better directly.
From a business perspective this makes sense. It saves ownership money. But as a fan I don't really care about that. I do care about getting an opportunity to be better, but this trade doesn't do this. The cap savings are marginal, the pick is low and conditional, and the NMC/buyout protection reduces flexibility.
So this really comes down to Lucic VS Neal. You can argue that based on last season Lucic is the better player. You can also argue that he slots better on our bottom 6. But while possibly true, that's all baloney. The fact is both of these guys were incredibly underwhelming players taking up way to much cap space.
The better measurement is to determine which of these players has the best opportunity to rebound so they are actually functional NHL players, preferably in the top 6. And that is clearly Neal. He was an impactful player only a year ago and a huge catch in free agency. Meanwhile Lucic has been on a consistent decline for three seasons.
Maybe the Flames felt they absolutely had to trade Neal. Or maybe the dollars became the driving factor. If so, it is what it is. But in terms of making is better a Neal rebound was the smarter gamble.