We all know why this trade happened: urgent need for short term cap space and an unknown off-ice issue. It is especially difficult to speculate on the road not taken here because there would have been other consequences from keeping him. That said, I think it's still interesting to evaluate it through a few different lenses in a vacuum:
1. Ignoring contracts, how many NHL teams would prefer to have Neal over Lucic this year?
2. Ignoring other contract elements, how many NHL teams would prefer to have Neal over Lucic for the next 4 years?
3. How many NHL teams would prefer to have Neal over Lucic if it cost them an extra $500k/yr (ignoring other contract elements since each team would differently value a back-diving contract+NMC vs. straight-forward)?
4. What kind of return would Neal generate if traded today (including all contract elements)?
5. Assuming his play regresses to his 2 year average (ie. a bit better than his time as a Flame and a bit worse than his time as a Knight), what kind of return would Neal generate if traded this summer?
Goal scoring is probably the most difficult skill to replicate - for all of his flaws, I think the answers to #1&2 is almost certainly 30, and probably still close to 30 for #3. The answer to #4 and 5 is also certainly more than Lucic's contract +3rd.
IMO it is absolutely certain that the Oilers won this trade, because the asset they acquired is universally valued higher than what they gave up. It is still possible that the Flames didn't totally 'lose' the trade (trades are not a zero-sum thing), but initial outlook not so good.
|