Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Not picking on you but I see this ‘Ferland’s going to get paid’ justification a lot. If he gets paid it’s because he’s playing well enough to get paid and is worth it to some team. How different is that from Neal ‘getting paid’? Consistency you say....well if he’s inconsistent he’s not going to get paid. It’s like saying he will be too good for the Flames which makes no sense.
I’m not unhappy with the trade or the Neal deal but wouldn’t be surprised if we decide in a couple of years that the Flames paid the wrong guy.
|
They didn't decide to pay Neil instead of Ferland, they needed Ferland as a trade chip to get Hanifin and Lindholm. Neil hadn't even been signed then. If Ferland wasn't in that deal, then neither was Hanifin, and it would have been at best a 1 for 1 of Hamilton for Lindholm, which would have left the Flames without a 2nd pairing left D.
Whether Ferland > Neal is irrelevant, because Lindholm + Hanifin + Neal > Hamilton + Ferland, and having Lindholm + Hanifin + Ferland was never an option.
Now, if the Flames want to try to trade Neal in the off-season to free up the cap space to re-sign Ferland, I won't have a problem with that, although I do think that Neal brings a lower tolerance for losing that the dressing room really needs.