Quote:
Originally Posted by fleury
100% right. I think everyone wants to justify what was done, but what's apparent was Neal was dealt at his lowest point possible, and it was unnecessary to go to deal him in favour of dead weight. So the question is why did management deem Neal unreturnable to the Flames at essentially any cost? I think it really comes down to it was the coach and/or upper management did not want him back at all, when this should have been a reclamation project and then you deal him. I don't think dealing Neal was the problem. It was the cost for doing so and that was far worse. Dealing guys at their lowest because a coach or someone didn't like them has never worked out for getting a good return. There was no upside with getting Lucic. This was a bad trade from day 1 and is just as bad as it looked on that day. No worse, no less.
|
No, it was clear that Neal forced a trade by making a grand total of zero effort for the entire season, sulking after it became clear that he wasn’t the best fit for either of the top 2 lines. He was obviously deliberately tanking, probably because he felt misled about what his role with the team was expected to be when he signed.