It’s been widely reported that his physical and mental state coming into last year was poor due to 2 back to back cup final losses. This year he’s been training with Connor under Roberts.
I’m more thinking he’s going to be good with Nuge, and on the PP
Have they started making his stick again? Yes, that's right. When things were hard last year, he blamed a stick. And then when that excuse was played, we heard about how tired he is. I don't know what Neal you're going to get, but it doesn't take much for him to turn into a whiny little bitch. And every day in front of 6-8 rookies with Smith acting as an echo chamber. Have fun!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Major Major For This Useful Post:
Have they started making his stick again? Yes, that's right. When things were hard last year, he blamed a stick. And then when that excuse was played, we heard about how tired he is. I don't know what Neal you're going to get, but it doesn't take much for him to turn into a whiny little bitch. And every day in front of 6-8 rookies with Smith acting as an echo chamber. Have fun!
Yup if it doesn’t work out well buy him out. Couldn’t do that before. Lucic wasn’t any better tbh.
After sleeping on it, I see this as a loss from both teams.
Why would Edmonton do this? They are essentially paying 6.5 million for the next 4 seasons for James Neal.....
Why would Calgary do this? They get a guy making 500k less that has a less chance of bouncing back, but I guess he brings a physical presence if he's not contributing on the scoresheet? With a NMC..... I guess if they trade him again and retain salary, it's cheaper than a buyout with less of a cap hit.
I don't know who lost more. Weird trade.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CalgaryFan1988 For This Useful Post:
Yup if it doesn’t work out well buy him out. Couldn’t do that before. Lucic wasn’t any better tbh.
Yeah, Neal seems the better bet for a rebound. AND a buyout is more of an option for him. That's why the Flames should have received more for making this trade (the 3rd not be conditional for instance)
Yeah, Neal seems the better bet for a rebound. AND a buyout is more of an option for him. That's why the Flames should have received more for making this trade (the 3rd not be conditional for instance)
Flames should've received an unconditional 1st as the compensation for taking on the buyout proof Lucic. A 3rd rounder as the sweetner is a joke.
The Following User Says Thank You to Karl For This Useful Post:
we'll see how it plays out; i thought Neal had a higher chance of bouncing back prior to the trade and still believe that more now...both guys will have bounce back years but i think Neal bounces higher
what can't be argued, imo, is that Lucic's contract is a much bigger albatross than Neal's was...agree the conditional third round pick was a joke. If that gets triggered, calgary lost the trade
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 07-20-2019 at 09:01 AM.
And thanks for the advice, but im pretty comfortable sitting here watching golf and admonishing management for the worst trade in decades thanks.
Obviously neither team is going to buy either player out this year. So let’s say at the end of the year both teams bought out both players. Given that some of Lucic’s cap hit is owed to Edmonton, this is what the total would look like.
Lucic ($4.81, $3.5, $4.81, $0.44, $0.44, $0.44)
Total Cap Hit over 6 years to Calgary = $14.44
Neal ($1.92, $1.92, $1.92, $1.92, $1.92, $1.92)
Lucic ($0.69, $0.50, $0.69, $0.06, $0.06, $0.06)
Total Cap Hit over 6 years to Edmonton = $13.56
__________________ Go Flames Go!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rhettzky For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
No one is making the argument that we win anything because Lucic is younger.
We are simply correcting your attempt to suggest that they are the same age.
You can criticize the trade without being intentionally misleading.
Next year at this time...both guys are 32 years old...yes or no?
Both guys are 31 right now...yes or no?
But hey...and again...because one guy will turn a digit 9 months before the other guy...they are completely different...and thats a win!!!
Neal is done at 32 cause...age. Lucic is fine cause he isn't 32 for another 10 months. (Putting aside that Lucic has been horrible slow and bad at the game for literally 4 years now) 7 goals in his last 122 games played. Neal had 7 goals in 63 games last year playing horrible hockey. Think about that.
Yeah, Neal seems the better bet for a rebound. AND a buyout is more of an option for him. That's why the Flames should have received more for making this trade (the 3rd not be conditional for instance)
Agreed, I think we had better options than trade Neal for Lucic. Waving Neal for his lack of effort would have been a better option than taking on another bad contract. This almost looks like a trade for the sake of making a trade. BT maybe tried too hard to make everyone happy including Neal at the expense of making Edmonton better. If Neal's nose was out of joint while he was with the Flames I wouldn't be surprised if he rebounds.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for Calgary to trade Lucic again at 50 percent cap than it would be for Edmonton to buy out James Neal (in addition to the 750k retained on Lucic)?
Would cost Calgary 2.6 mil cap hit to trade Lucic @ 50 percent.
Buyout to Neal would cost Edmonton 1.916667 plus the 750k they are paying Lucic = 2.666667.
So buying out Neal would be more expensive than trading Lucic @ a 50 percent cap hit. Or am I wrong?
The Following User Says Thank You to CalgaryFan1988 For This Useful Post:
Ryan Kesler is the worst contract -- at least Seabrook is still a reasonably useful NHL player. Kesler had 8 points in 60 games last season and is at $6.8M for another three years;
Nope. Ryan Kesler will probably not play another NHL game and can be safely buried on IR until he fades away into the sunset. He's not even the worst contract on the Ducks.
Also, Brent Seabrook is not a reasonably useful NHL player. You could make the case for him as a third pairing guy, but he's probably only there because of his contract.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Wouldn't it be cheaper for Calgary to trade Lucic again at 50 percent cap than it would be for Edmonton to buy out James Neal (in addition to the 750k retained on Lucic)?
Would cost Calgary 2.6 mil cap hit to trade Lucic @ 50 percent.
Buyout to Neal would cost Edmonton 1.916667 plus the 750k they are paying Lucic = 2.666667.
So buying out Neal would be more expensive than trading Lucic @ a 50 percent cap hit. Or am I wrong?
And the buyout would be spread out for longer years while Lucic's contract will be over in 3 years if it is only retained.
The Following User Says Thank You to keenan87 For This Useful Post:
