Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
Neal is not a particularly good hockey player. He is better than Lucic, and that's why Edmonton had to give up a player making quite a bit less cash than Neal to get Neal.
Calgary wanted the cash savings (and the small cap savings) and was willing to get the lesser player because Neal did not fit well with them and they hoped that Lucic would give them some small value.
None of that has really changed. Neal got off to a great start goal wise, but he still isn't a particularly effective player. he wouldn't be doing this with Calgary, and I think everyone knows that.
Treliving's bad decision was signing Neal in the first place. His decision tor trade him for Lucic was not something that really hurts Calgary; in fact, the cash savings continues to help them.
I think those who are roasting Treliving for the trade are really misplacing their criticism.
In magnitude of suckiness:
(1) Signing Neal.
(2) Keeping Neal.
(3) Trading Neal for Lucic.
Having committed Sin #1, Treliving did the best he could to get to #3. because staying at #2 was a very poor choice.
|
I generally agree with this, although the order of 2 and 3 are debatable. I can understand both parts of the argument. The goal scoring and production aspects of Lucic's game are unsalvageable IMO. Maybe Neal not so much, but there were obviously other factors that contributed to them wanting him off the team. Lucic gives you elements outside of goal scoring for sure.
Signing Neal was a gigantic mistake. Did they handle him the right way after signing him? To me that is an open question that we will never really know. It's 100% on him for being such a bad hockey player for the Flames, but surely the club had some idea of the personality that accompanied the player.
As for the cash savings being a big positive. That depends entirely whether that money gets plowed back into the organization. That is going to be hard to determine. Otherwise it's a big who cares for me as a hockey fan.