Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Not really. Elliott, Smith, Stone, Lazar, Hamonic are bad trades. Hamilton arguably.

I don't think the Hamonic or (especially) the Hamilton trades were a bad trade at all.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by bax

We needed another steady defenseman and Hamonic was the best available via trade. A bit of an overpay for sure, but I haven't lost any sleep worrying about that trade.

Yeah biggest issue with that trade in retrospect is not getting some type of lottery protection.

Had we been able to keep the 12th overall pick in 2018 and shipped over 27th overall in 2019 then we'd probably all look back at that trade favorably.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Hamonic is kinda a wait and see thing, as to whether Dobson turns out to be a high-end player. None of the players taken in the Hamilton trade have amounted to anything, but unlike Dobson, the Bruins went off the board to pick Senyshyn. Had the Flames kept that pick, Barzal, Connor and Chabot (the next three guys taken) would have been more likely who they would have selected. So, while that's a bit of a "what if", there's an argument to be made. I'd argue that Barzal pretty much solves every problem the roster has.

[Vinny01]

How is/are the Hamilton trade(s) anything but a huge success for Calgary?

The first trade was done after a surprise trip to the 2nd round of the playoffs and acquiring a 22 year old coming off a 40pt year where he played in the top pairing was a fantastic move. It sold the fans that the team was not sitting by after their best season in over a half decade. The second Hamilton trade was another phenomenal move. While the fit with the team seemed off no one could question the production we got from Dougie. Couple that with selling high on Ferland and using an asset that was a year away from forcing himself to the Rangers and the Flames got 2 young core pieces that were 5th overall picks in recent years.

The Hamonic trade was not the best but also not really that bad. I was not a fan of Elliott but that was a low risk move and at the time made sense. Lazar was a complete bust as was Bollig. His selling moves for Russell, Glencross, Baertschi, Hudler were all nice returns.

It remains to be seen where this swap ranks but I am much more confident with Treliving making a deal over the last several GM’s we have had.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Looking at Neal and Lucic's stats over the last few years, I don't really see why people assume Neal has a greater chance to bounce back than Lucic. Lucic has really only had one awful year... he had 34 pts the year prior, 24 assists... and I'm guessing he wasn't gifted the minutes that Neal was.

You would be very wrong. Last season, Neal had 784 minutes 5v5 and 942 in all situations. In 17-18, Lucic had 1109 minutes 5v5 and 1309 in all situations. Lucic had about 20% more ice time.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You would be very wrong. Last season, Neal had 784 minutes 5v5 and 942 in all situations. In 17-18, Lucic had 1109 minutes 5v5 and 1309 in all situations. Lucic had about 20% more ice time.

Neal played 63 games last year to Lucic 79

Last year Neal's averages were 12:44 2:12 (ES / PP)
Lucic was 11:54 and 1:21

So Neal more time in both

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neal played 63 games last year to Lucic 79

Last year Neal's averages were 12:44 2:12 (ES / PP)
Lucic was 11:54 and 1:21

So Neal more time in both

The comparison was to Lucic's 17-18 season, but in that one he played 82 games (haven't looked up the minutes).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think the only "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic.

Elliott for 2016 2nd (Kyrou): Kyrou looks promising so that hurts but Elliott did lead a team to the playoffs before just collapsing. "bad" is probably a little harsh for sure. Worth a shot since Elliott was a proven starter at that point.

Smith for Hickey (Wasn't going to sign), Johnson (meh), 3rd: Really the 3rd was the only real piece of value here, and that's not a huge loss.

Stone for 3rd + 5th: The trade value was fine for a rental...extending to a 3 year deal here was probably the mistake.

Lazar, Kostka for Jokipakka, 2017 2nd (Formenton): Lazar was never worth a second and was a bad trade from the time it happened.

Hamonic for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc): Dobson looks like a blue chipper and that being an early first is what makes this trade bad. Iskhakov is okay but actually outperformed by Pettersen in NCAA year 1, Bolduc looks like he's okay but nothing special. Losing that Dobson pick hurts.

I think the Hamilton trade actually in the end probably ends up positive.

In the end that works out to Ferland, 1st (Senyshyn), 2nd (Forsbacka-Karlsson), 2nd (Lauzon), Fox (3rd - Not signing) for Hanifin and Lindholm...which is still a good trade.

Only reason that looks bad was Barzal dropping in that draft and getting selected after Senyshyn...however Hanifin himself was 5th overall in that draft. Plus Flames still got Kylington and Andersson in that draft in the 2nd anyways who are better than the guys they gave up.

So yeah I think the two "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic, with Elliott also being "meh"

Lazar, Hamonic, Elliott for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Kyrou), 2nd (Formenton), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc)...yeah that's not great as a whole.

Adding Dobson, Kyrou, and Formenton to this roster in the next two years would look nice for sure.

I don't think this is an effective way of judging the deals because it doesn't take into account the time value of picks and prospects. We all like to joke that Edmonton 2nd rounders are basically first rounders, but the 2nd Calgary gave up for Elliott was 35th OVERALL.

2015-2016 was still very much a rebuilding year. The Flames had finished 26th in a 30 team league. They had no business shipping out valuable picks just to 'take a run'. That's how horrible teams are managed. They had no business shipping out picks again the following year just to 'make a run' but did it again. In Fact, they should have been preoccupied with the opposite, accumulating more picks, in seasons when they had no business trying to compete.

The time value of trading those picks means not having them as prospects in their D+3-5 year when the team is actually in its winning window needs them. As in, right now.

The time value proposition here is that the Flames could desperately use a young ELC top 6 forward to start this year. Even better would be an 80 point ELC centre that probably would've pushed last year's calgary team over the top.

It's the critical strike for me against this management group. They simply are unable to resist the ownership mandate to do anything to win now, even if it's objectively bad.

The St.Louis blues drafted Vince Dunn in the 2nd round in 2015 and in 2018 (D+3) he was a 35 point elc player who was critical for them during the playoffs.

They drafted Barbashev in the 2nd round in 2015 who was an absolutely critical player for them this year (D+4)

The Flames are their OWN example of this. Look at the team this year.

Andersson D+3
Kylington D+3

This season will be D+3 for Dube.

After that....Pelletier better work out or things are looking rough.

In 2007-2010 the Flames could've REALLY used a good young ELC forward. But unfortunately they hadn't made a 2nd round pick in the preceding 4 years and that player never materialized.

Right in the middle of their contending window they were undercut by terrible management decisions made 3-5 years earlier. Things like shipping out 2nd round picks. Trading down to 'recoup' that pick.

It's not just the individual trades, it's the trades made in context of where the team is at and what their asset situation is.

In the last 3 years Treliving has traded an entire drafts worth of picks and the flames have won a single playoff game.

Absolutely Treliving has some home runs, but the sum total of his trade history is bad imo.

I think he'd probably be better in a situation he was allowed to actually build a roster in, but that situation isn't Calgary.

2 Years from now the flames are going to be paying big ticket money to Andersson and Valimaki and maybe/probably dube, while closing in on the twilight of Gaudreau and Monahan's contracts. They will be desperate for a Vince Dunn, Alex Formenton, Jordan Kyrou or Brandon Carlo or Ryan Donato at which point this board will look back and go "Maybe trading a 3rd round pick for Jim Vandermeer and a 2nd round pick to dump Wayne Primeau weren't very good decisions."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neal played 63 games last year to Lucic 79

Last year Neal's averages were 12:44 2:12 (ES / PP)
Lucic was 11:54 and 1:21

So Neal more time in both

True, but since we're talking about counting stats, the absolute totals are more relevant. Now, 17-18 Lucic did have much better ppg and pp60 totals than Neal in 18-19, but the fact remains that Lucic is trending down while Neal hasn't yet proven whether this is a trend or a blip.

[Vinny01]

One of the main reasons the Flames were so bad in 2015/16 was their goaltending was among the worst in the league. They had 3 picks in the second round and traded their best for a goalie with 5 straight years of a save% above .920. I was never an Elliott fan but the Flames made moves that summer to make the playoffs the next year which they did.

[GioforPM]

I think the Hamonic deal was fair. It wasn't a steal, but the player is just fine and worth what was paid, long time.

[Textcritic]

I am late to this whole thing, and am also pretty luke-warm on this trade—I don't love it; I think I understand it; I sure hope as hell it works out okay, but there is a risk.

Beyond all that, I wanted to focus on this...

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

Genuine question, not trying to be a smart-arse. When was the last time the Flames made a move that you immediately (not in hindsight) thought was a bad move (or mistake)?

Perhaps it’s been recently, I genuinely have no idea.

Why is immediacy of the response so important, here? Why does this matter at all? I don't know about anyone else, but over the years I have become much less enamoured and confident in my own immediate responses/reactions. This are usually purely driven by emotion, and do not benefit from careful thought and consideration. If anything, I have come to be practically completely dismissive of my own "gut" reactions, as well as those of others for precisely these reasons.

Just within the past year:
· I was sceptical about the Bill Peters hire when it was announced.
· I thought the Hamilton/Ferland/Lindholm/Hanifin trade was bad and had the potential to be a disaster.
· I loved the James Neal signing.

That's all without the benefit of hindsight, and I find that with the time to think things through, process, and evaluate my own developed opinions become more trustworthy than my "immediately (not in hindsight)" responses, which are almost always useless.

My immediate response to this trade is that I hate it. Some of the post-trade evaluation has given me pause to think that first response was reactionary, and I look forward to once again being quite wrong about it.

[Toonage]

You can absolutely make the argument the Hamilton trade was a bad one merely from the fact that management felt the need to move him out due to a number of alleged issues before his deal ran out.

Trades usually can't be judged in their immediacy. If its bad, it takes time to play out that way. Hamilton was thought to be a great deal when it occurred. A coup. Looking back, how can his time be looked upon as anything but a disappointment?

Edit: Holy crap I used a word that Textcritic just used. And I think I used it correctly. Thats a win.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but since we're talking about counting stats, the absolute totals are more relevant. Now, 17-18 Lucic did have much better ppg and pp60 totals than Neal in 18-19, but the fact remains that Lucic is trending down while Neal hasn't yet proven whether this is a trend or a blip.

I don't think the absolute totals are more relevant. I was making an assumption about the kind of minutes Lucic was getting, so an average per game would be more relevant... either way, I was guessing and being a bit lazy admittedly.

I don't know that I would call Lucic's production a trend, necessarily. He had 20pts last season and 34 pts the season before. If he got back to the 35 pt range while still being a physical force/deterrent on the ice then I think the trade is a win for the Flames. If Neal pots 20 and gets 45 pts, while doing nothing else, I don't know if that is much better... I guess my point is, if both players returned to the players they were in 2017-2018 I think you could consider this trade a win for both teams - and I think both of these outcomes are equally as likely.

[Oling_Roachinen]

If Neal gets 20 goals and 45 points while playing with McDavid it's a bust for the Oilers. We've seen how he can turn AHL players into 20+ goal players.

If Neal gets 20 goals and 45 points on the second line, especially with the 2nd PP unit, then the Oilers will have likely crushed in this trade.

However, I don't see the latter being achievable given how bad Neal was.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but since we're talking about counting stats, the absolute totals are more relevant. Now, 17-18 Lucic did have much better ppg and pp60 totals than Neal in 18-19, but the fact remains that Lucic is trending down while Neal hasn't yet proven whether this is a trend or a blip.

One could argue you are creating a 3 year trend based on two 1.5 season data points.

Lucic took a step down mid season 2 years ago. 27 points in the first half, and top 6 linemates. Then, in the bottom 6, production dropped.

So the result from 2 years ago was in between 1 and 3 years ago, but it’s not a steady trend. It was a step down mid year, if you look at season broken in to halves or quarters.

Now there is the chicken and egg argument
- was he demoted to the bottom six because he was not good enough ? 54 point pace, pretty normal for him career wise, I don’t know
Or
- is Edmonton no good?

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Toonage

You can absolutely make the argument the Hamilton trade was a bad one merely from the fact that management felt the need to move him out due to a number of alleged issues before his deal ran out.

Trades usually can't be judged in their immediacy. If its bad, it takes time to play out that way. Hamilton was thought to be a great deal when it occurred. A coup. Looking back, how can his time be looked upon as anything but a disappointment?

Edit: Holy crap I used a word that Textcritic just used. And I think I used it correctly. Thats a win.

It has to be looked at as a good trade, I don't know how you can see it any other way. We got 3 years of Hamilton, 2 years in which he was an important component of one of the best pairings in the league. We then traded him and Ferland (at peak value) for two cost controlled players. Lindholm, a fwd that went on to have a career season at 80pts, and Hanifin a very young, promising defenseman with a great pedigree. This trade was a masterclass on cap management.

The Hamilton trades, in my view, have earned Tre a ton of rope with ownership and the fans IMO.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't think the absolute totals are more relevant. I was making an assumption about the kind of minutes Lucic was getting, so an average per game would be more relevant... either way, I was guessing and being a bit lazy admittedly.

I don't know that I would call Lucic's production a trend, necessarily. He had 20pts last season and 34 pts the season before. If he got back to the 35 pt range while still being a physical force/deterrent on the ice then I think the trade is a win for the Flames. If Neal pots 20 and gets 45 pts, while doing nothing else, I don't know if that is much better... I guess my point is, if both players returned to the players they were in 2017-2018 I think you could consider this trade a win for both teams - and I think both of these outcomes are equally as likely.

While there might be a chance Lucic gets back to this point, he has been pretty terrible since Christmas of 2017. He only got 8 points after Christmas last year and contrary to the fancy stats he just looks terrible on whatever line he played on. He may bring toughness to the lineup for Calgary but if he is playing on anything but a 4th line he is hurting the team, and who is scared of 4th liners anymore? Its not like guys like McDavid didn't get their share of punishment even with Lucic out there.

I still feel at the end of the day though both teams will see this as a win, like many have said Calgary just didn't want Neal back.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If Neal gets 20 goals and 45 points while playing with McDavid it's a bust for the Oilers.

what? no.

...what?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hamonic is kinda a wait and see thing, as to whether Dobson turns out to be a high-end player. None of the players taken in the Hamilton trade have amounted to anything, but unlike Dobson, the Bruins went off the board to pick Senyshyn. Had the Flames kept that pick, Barzal, Connor and Chabot (the next three guys taken) would have been more likely who they would have selected. So, while that's a bit of a "what if", there's an argument to be made. I'd argue that Barzal pretty much solves every problem the roster has.

I really don't think you can judge a trade based on what the actual pick traded became as a player. You need to judge it on the value of the pick given up at the time it was given up.

We have zero idea who the Flames would have picked.

Picking Barzal wouldn't have solved the salary cap problem we have, only made it worse LOL.