Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkaupp
You are right, regardless of whether you like or hate the Lucic/Neal trade all the debate does is take away from the real issue which was the Neal signing, such a bad move that it should cost the person who made it his job and not an extension.
|
The really painful what-if from that summer is the Flames had a deal with Reaves first - a deal that would have made it unlikely they could sign Neal too. Reaves figured he was on his way to Calgary, but Vegas matched. Then Treliving, with that cap space burning a hole in his pocket, signed Neal.
I like Lucic. But Reaves + $2.5 mil cap space >>> Lucic.