Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I would agree that retaining some of Neal's deal would have been the best course over a straight trade with Edmonton. However I'm also assuming that was looked at and didn't work (other teams not willing, or the club ownership not on board with the ticket retained).
So if that's true then it's keep Neal for four years (they wouldn't let him buy him out by all suggestions) or take the Lucic deal.
Neal is drifting far below NHL worthy. If you look at evolving wild's WAR model he's literally the 21st worst forward in hockey (50 minutes or more this season). He's been so bad at five on five that he's below replacement level despite scoring on half his shots on the powerplay.
If you take that same model and sort it by five on five offensive contribution ... James Neal is the worst forward in the NHL. Worst!
Agree or disagree with the guy's model ... it's not mine. But it's not a Calgary fan building it, and it certainly matches with the eye test from last season.
Boat anchor.
|
I’m definitely not arguing that Neal is a good player, he is terrible. Totally agree. Still think he’s better than Lucic but at that point we’re debating who is more terrible which in the end who cares, they both suck. I’m just not going to give Treliving any credit for dealing with his terrible mistake by acquiring another terrible player with a worse contract. It is what it is but it’s just an exclamation on how bad the Neal signing was and he absolutely deserves to be heavily criticized for that.