[Rumour] UPD: Flames are done for the day. Zucker deal does not go through

[Yamer]

Is Central Registry on deadline day the sports equivalent of Superstore on the weekends?

Call in a few more cashiers, dummies.

[Beninho]

I’m still fine with keeping the first round pick if that was in the deal for Zucker. Would’ve been a good add but I’m not a fan of not drafting in the first round for 2 straight seasons. Zucker would’ve been nice but he’s not exactly a premier forward. I’m fine with rolling the dice with Neal, he’s been playing better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

$1.9 million until 2027. Save $3.8 million for the next 4 years and then hit of $2m for the next 4. Doesn't seem outside the realm of possibilities.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-c...eal/2019-06-15

So slightly better annual cap hit at $2m per. But still forking out $15.3m for a player to not dress ever again as a Flame.



I dont see it happening.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Beninho

I’m still fine with keeping the first round pick if that was in the deal for Zucker. Would’ve been a good add but I’m not a fan of not drafting in the first round for 2 straight seasons. Zucker would’ve been nice but he’s not exactly a premier forward


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree if we were dumping Neal in the deal it would make sense for sure. Zucker is not really worth his cost treat either but he just turned 27 and has blazing speed and still much better numbers than Neal.

[Nelson]

To me, Jason Zucker looks like a much better player than James Neal over the last three years. I understand the idea that James Neal is a playoff performer, though.

https://public.tableau.com/shared/22...play_count=yes

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Nelson

To me, Jason Zucker looks like a much better player than James Neal over the last three years. I understand the idea that James Neal is a playoff performer, though.

https://public.tableau.com/shared/22...play_count=yes

They have fairly similar numbers. Zucker is younger though. Neal is bigger and has vastly more experience especially post season. Zucker is a LW, so there would have to be some adjustments.

I'm with others - this deal may not be dead as far as next year.

[Matty81]

I wouldn't want Stone on that kind of term. He's peaking this year for me, I see him as a great player but I don't think he'll produce like this in the long run, he's so smart but he doesn't have a huge shot and the lack of footspeed, by the 4th or 5th year I think that will be a tough contract for them.

Zucker would have been interesting depending on the pieces going back, can't imagine it was a big cost with his remaining term/contract and just 30 points this year. Too bad it fell through, I think it wasn't necessary but would have added some more excitement down the stretch.

I think the Flames have plenty of bullets this summer to add a 2nd line RW and a backup goalie, maybe a tough guy for the 4th line who can play. Too bad they couldn't the RW done this year for the playoffs but confident it will happen.

Expecting Brodie and Stone to be gone and Kylington and draft picks to be used as bait. Frolik, I wonder if they just keep him as a utility 3rd line player if he improves his attitude and his loudmouth agent shuts up. Right now with the volume of dmen they have it's almost a certainty that at least one significant defenceman will be moved and it's great that they have so many young guys waiting in the wings because I think moving Brodie will allow them to restock the farm and pick up a young asset or two that is expansion exempt.

[Flash Walken]

Is Neal for Zucker the deal for two underperforming vets FlameaAreOne was posting about?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is Neal for Zucker the deal for two underperforming vets FlameaAreOne was posting about?

Now that you've suggested it, they will probably say yes.

[Enoch Root]

James Neal's contract did not deter the Flames from any of the deals they were looking at yesterday. None.

They were aggressively pursuing Stone, who was - by far - the most expensive asset available, but refused to pay the acquisition price (Valimaki). How on earth is that the fault of Neal's contract?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

James Neal's contract did not deter the Flames from any of the deals they were looking at yesterday. None.

They were aggressively pursuing Stone, who was - by far - the most expensive asset available, but refused to pay the acquisition price (Valimaki). How on earth is that the fault of Neal's contract?

Maloney basically said one of the factors they couldn’t go through with the big deal that fell apart Sunday night was ensuring they could keep the player they were bringing in. The Flames did not have the cap space to bring in Stone without the Sens keeping money or taking money back unlike Vegas.

Had the Flames been able to see a clear path to signing Stone while not facing other cap constraints with their RFA’s they may have paid that price

[Sylvanfan]

It's easy to be disappointed when a team doesn't do a lot on Trade Deadline day, but my first hunch is that these big time acquisitions usually don't have that huge impact. Last year Paul Statsny did help the Jets, but they didn't even make the cup finals. Washington didn't make any real major deals...they finally broke through. So do these impact Deadline deals really help teams achieve that extra success? I tend to think that Draft trading although more risky can yield more value as you can find those longer term pieces for Deadline rental prices.

I think back to the 05-06 Flames who were the last 100 point team that the Flames had. They really didn't do anything at the deadline. They added David Hale, Cale Hulse (which was worth it just for the poster I Hate Hulse's reaction), Jaimie Lundmark, Mike Leclerc, and Brian Boucher in deals leading up to deadline but didn't really part with any notable assets in that tinkering. In fact they dealt Steve Reinprecht in that series of moves who was probably the best NHL player that season. Ultimately that team died off in the first round of the playoffs, and likely did need to be bolstered. That group was never that good ever again as the game changed.

Than you have the 08-09 Flames who after getting embarassed in San Jose made a committment to play differently for awhile and were like this current team where they went on a real run and were a top team in the league. That team did push in the trade chips at the deadline to acquire Jokinen, and Leopold. But injuries had caused Giordano to go down, than eventually took out Regehr, and Phaneuf was at the beginning of his fall from grace. Result the team finished terrible, were out assets and that group never saw the playoffs again.

This current group is a bit different. It's essentially playoff appearance 3 in 5 years and should be the first home playoff team since 06, and only the 2nd time since the end of the 1995 season that this has been the case. It would appear to be an up and coming type of team that has finally establishing themselves as being more than a fringe playoff team. But it does have some cap dancing to do next year, but survive that they should be in good shape in the next two years. Did they miss an opportunity to add for today when they may never have this chance again? I hope not. I think this Group will still be in the hunt in coming seasons.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Maloney basically said one of the factors they couldn’t go through with the big deal that fell apart Sunday night was ensuring they could keep the player they were bringing in. The Flames did not have the cap space to bring in Stone without the Sens keeping money or taking money back unlike Vegas.

Had the Flames been able to see a clear path to signing Stone while not facing other cap constraints with their RFA’s they may have paid that price

I highly doubt they would want to commit 9.5 for 8 years. I bet term was a huge issue and the determining factor. Typically in UFA you over pay in term and salary. with it being a sign and trade, the term is probably 2 years too many.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Maloney basically said one of the factors they couldn’t go through with the big deal that fell apart Sunday night was ensuring they could keep the player they were bringing in. The Flames did not have the cap space to bring in Stone without the Sens keeping money or taking money back unlike Vegas.

Had the Flames been able to see a clear path to signing Stone while not facing other cap constraints with their RFA’s they may have paid that price

Pure speculation on your part. And pretty bizarre speculation if you ask me, considering A) they were pursuing Stone (I mean, why bother if you don't think you can afford him), and B) by all accounts, the stumbling block was Valimaki.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The cost to sign mark stone is the equivalent of what the flames are paying Mike stone and Neal this year.

All of those tremendous contracts at the top of the lineup completely negated.

It's possible a knights fan will say this about stone's contract in 5 years.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I highly doubt they would want to commit 9.5 for 8 years. I bet term was a huge issue and the determining factor. Typically in UFA you over pay in term and salary. with it being a sign and trade, the term is probably 2 years too many.

Yeah I would not have been surprised at all if the Flames were unwilling to go 8 years but as opposed to the RFA contract the years is how you bring the price down on a UFA deal.

If the Flames did not have the $5.75M for Neal their cap sheet would look pretty solid and clean to take on a big money deal. In hindsight the Neal signing looks brutal but i also see a scenario where that Stone contract could also look brutal with 4+ Years left on it

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Agreed

Fenton did a nice job of ruining his reputation over the past few months.

Nino Nideritter for Victor Rask -> already looking like a huge loss
Charlie Coyle for Ryan Donato+5th -> initial thoughts this was a bad trade
Mikael Granlund for Kevin Fiala -> initial thoughts this was a bad trade
Jason Zucker for ? -> good chance we would have been pumped as Flames fans.

This is why I was excited about a potential deal - Fenton has been making poor deals and it's possible the Flames could have gotten in on him just gutting the roster.

https://public.tableau.com/shared/SQ...splay_count=no

Zucker is very much a poor man's Mark Stone. They are the same age but he's signed for 4 more years at $5.5M opposed to the 8 years at $9.5M requried for Stone.

If they could have somehow moved Neal/Frolik, and a 1st to get Zucker I would have been all over that.

Personally I hope it's re-visited in the off-season.

[Bingo]

Guys it's Dreger.

He said it could be Minnesota, it could be internally and it could be the league.

That's like me saying it could be heads or it could be tails or the coin could roll away and we can't find it.

[Toonage]

Maybe we were going to swap Smith for Dubnyk in the deal

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I highly doubt they would want to commit 9.5 for 8 years. I bet term was a huge issue and the determining factor. Typically in UFA you over pay in term and salary. with it being a sign and trade, the term is probably 2 years too many.

Not only that, I think Tre probably would rather have Tkachuk signed before hand if anything. For all we know Tkachuk is going to be in the 8.5+ Mark.

I doubt Neal's contract was the linchpin to the deal falling through.