Simplified Neal/Lucic trade Poll

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you are over reacting to the criticism here.

It’s reasonable and in fact important to discuss the reliability of polling information when using the results to support an argument.

I go back to the Olympic poll when the choices were Yes / plebiscite / NO or something like that. Then in the discussion a lot of people assumed that the plebiscite people were no’s based which is not supported by the question.

Overall It’s not a big deal just something to consider when building polls. The questions and answers chosen affect the results you will get and the discussion of those affects is reasonable

I literally asked for feedback on the poll before putting it up to make sure I didn't limit answers or sway the thing in any way.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

LOL!

Yeah scouting players is such a bizarre practice. I wonder why NHL teams even both to have an entire staff dedicated to it?

Dude, your posts in this thread are a joke. You broadly paint the entire board as homers basically insulting everyone here.

If you don’t like it here then don’t post. You certainly haven’t “contributed” anything useful or valuable to this thread.

Thinking as a fan that you are a better scout of a player simply because you watched more games than someone else is hilarious. And you are the worst poster in regards to that attitude.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Love fans that think that because they watched more of the games that they have a more valid opinion.

Anyhow, regardless of whether Neal bounces back, which I certainly do not think he does, his contract can be bought out. You just give him one more year and then buy him out. If that was untenable because of locker room issues, as has been alluded to from many sources, then you just buy him out now and be done with it. You don’t lock yourself into a worse contract for an equally bad player.

I don't like the trade but bounce back to what? Neal had 44 points and was -11 on a first place Vegas team. People act like he was actually a deserving all star in Vegas...he was okay, and that was two years ago in a year where Vegas got every bounce imaginable.
I think it's fair the eastern media doesn't actually grasp how bad Neal was last season...I keep hearing those clowns saying he never got a chance.

Much of the media is also Oilers fanboys from the 80s...they have been picked as contenders multiple times over the last decade.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Luckily you're not forced to frequent this site then. Cess pools, glass wearing.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

This trade is the worst trade in Flames history purely for what acquiring Lucic has done to the forum and the mood it has put you in.

Maybe Treliving should have waited until camp opened, before pulling the trigger on this deal, when there would be more for people to talk about.

The summer is too long and provides too much time for people to creep towards the edge of the cliff.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I literally asked for feedback on the poll before putting it up to make sure I didn't limit answers or sway the thing in any way.

Fair enough, i can see why that would be frustrating. I didn’t see those posts and had abandoned the thread after the first few days of discussion and only can back for the poll after it was up.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Thinking as a fan that you are a better scout of a player simply because you watched more games than someone else is hilarious. And you are the worst poster in regards to that attitude.

Thinking an entire site is crap because they don't agree with you is pretty rich too.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Locke

I hear this, but why?

I don't think that the conditions for the pick get met because the Oilers are not the team that can create the right environment for a Neal bounce back, in my completely biased opinion.

Once they see he can't keep up with the play of the three better players you speak of, the Oilers will have trouble finding a place he fits in their roster, and Neal's entitlement issues will go against the grain of the already entrenched and entitled there.

[kehatch]

I dislike it.

1. This is a great trade for the Oilers. Win, lose, or draw there is very little chance this makes them worse or puts them in a worse situation.

2. I think Neal has a better chance of rebounding compared to Lucic. That includes in Calgary (where he only had one year).

3. The NMC and payment structure limits options in the future and may put us in a bind at the expansion draft. We were ready to laugh our behinds off that the Oil needed to waste a protection slot. Now it's them that will laugh.

4. This doesn't address many of Calgary issues. We did get tougher. But we didn't clear much cap, address a position of need, add additional defensive skill up front, or most of all we didn't get faster up front.

I think Neal's issue was a matter of slotting. We couldn't put him with Monahan or Tkachuk because that would cripple the speed on that line. So he ended up with Bennett and Jankowski on the third line from the get go. That isn't a strong combination.

Lucic slots better in the third line. But I would have preferred moving Lindholm to C to open up three strong lines. A C depth of Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund would have provided a lot of options and likely would have got Neal to produce.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Thinking as a fan that you are a better scout of a player simply because you watched more games than someone else is hilarious. And you are the worst poster in regards to that attitude.

People’s scouting ability is a skill by itself.

However anyone who watched 60+ games of Neal closely last year certainly has a much more well informed opinion than anyone who watched Neal not closely in only a few games. That is pretty indisputable. Not really sure what you’re trying to argue here bud. The Flames fan base is more knowledgeable and well informed about James Neal’s recent play than any reporter not based in Calgary. Just because someone is a reporter does not mean their opinion is more valid than people who are more well informed about the subject matter.

So insulting the fan base here because we disagree with reporters who barely watched Neal play last year is a chump move imo.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Only on Calgary puck can you find a group of people that like a trade that is universally panned outside of Calgary and it’s butter soft media.

Two things here. First, the fact that the trade is being panned elsewhere is either indicative of a bias on Calgarypuck towards the flames (which obviously there is to some extent), or a bias around the league against Milan Lucic as a player because of how precipitous his drop off has been, or a general underselling around the league of how bad Neal has been because of the success of the teams he's played on in the past few years... or, almost certainly, some of each. The question is to what degree each is the case. Well, Kent Wilson's analysis suggests it's more the latter than the former.

https://theathletic.com/1086887/2019...nd-james-neal/

For now, Lucic is probably the better overall player, particularly if Neal’s personal shooting percentage doesn’t rebound (and maybe even if it does). The trade is a welcome change of scenery for two players who were likely to be malcontents had they remained with their original teams this upcoming season. The Flames and Brad Treliving also get something they’ve long been hunting for – a big, strong, nuclear deterrent.
[...]
Another issue for the Flames is the fact that $5.25 million for a third/fourth line winger (albeit a tough one who can apparently still drive OK) is a poor investment of cap space. Although it’s likely better than the $5.75 million they would have paid to Neal next season, it remains a sub-optimal outcome relative to, say, moving Neal in a straight cap-dump or salary retained trade.

The second thing, and this cannot be overlooked, is the suggestion that Calgary has a "butter soft media". That is hilarious, given that the Edmonton media is essentially a propaganda outlet for the team. You have managed to miss that shot by a few hundred kilometres, in other words.

[Heavy Jack]

Still firmly in the ‘like’ vote with ability to end up either ‘loving’ the trade or being ‘indifferent’ at the very least.

[amazing_oilers]

Voted, love it!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by amazing_oilers

Voted, love it!

Despite thoughts on the contrary we take all kinds. Even those that disappear for entire seasons when things aren't going well in Edmonton (which seems to be always)

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Two things here. First, the fact that the trade is being panned elsewhere is either indicative of a bias on Calgarypuck towards the flames (which obviously there is to some extent), or a bias around the league against Milan Lucic as a player because of how precipitous his drop off has been, or a general underselling around the league of how bad Neal has been because of the success of the teams he's played on in the past few years... or, almost certainly, some of each. The question is to what degree each is the case. Well, Kent Wilson's analysis suggests it's more the latter than the former.

https://theathletic.com/1086887/2019...nd-james-neal/



The second thing, and this cannot be overlooked, is the suggestion that Calgary has a "butter soft media". That is hilarious, given that the Edmonton media is essentially a propaganda outlet for the team. You have managed to miss that shot by a few hundred kilometres, in other words.

My issue with the trade still has little to do with the players and much more to do with the contract. The Neal disaster can be bought out. The Lucic one cannot.

And I really don’t see how stating that Calgary has a butter soft media, which it does, has anything to do with whether Edmonton’s propaganda machine is worse. It is. What’s the point? That two things can’t be bad at once?

[Bingo]

Interesting to watch ... getting close to 40% of the vote total in

The love is down 7.7%
The like is up 6.5%

Total favourable is close

Indifferent is down 4.4%
Dislike is up 5.4%
Hate is flat

Overall the change in wording has upped the don't like it categories by 5.5%

[Locke]

I mow my lawn and this place goes insane.

Next time one of you should do it and I'll go crazy.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Interesting to watch ... getting close to 40% of the vote total in

The love is down 7.7%
The like is up 6.5%

Total favourable is close

Indifferent is down 4.4%
Dislike is up 5.4%
Hate is flat

Overall the change in wording has upped the don't like it categories by 5.5%

I didn’t vote in the other poll, so there's that. Also people’s views evolve and while I could easily say indifferent, it felt like a cop out for me. Would I have made this trade at this time with what I know is how I voted and it was a close call but I said no.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I didn’t vote in the other poll, so there's that. Also people’s views evolve and while I could easily say indifferent, it felt like a cop out for me. Would I have made this trade at this time with what I know is how I voted and it was a close call but I said no.

Oh come on ...

Indifferent is a cop out? How are people supposed to answer if they don't consider this deal something that moves the needle?

[devo22]

internet polls ... surprisingly serious business.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

My issue with the trade still has little to do with the players and much more to do with the contract. The Neal disaster can be bought out. The Lucic one

That's a pretty reasonable position to take for why someone might dislike this trade. It of course overlooks the possibility that a buyout wasn't on the table, but it's a fair place to stand. That doesn't align with what you posted, though. There are a range of reasonable reactions to this trade, and the fact that this board doesn't universally dislike the trade for the reasons you do doesn't tell us much of anything about bias.

And I really don’t see how stating that Calgary has a butter soft media, which it does, has anything to do with whether Edmonton’s propaganda machine is worse. It is. What’s the point? That two things can’t be bad at once?

Of course they can, but the phrase "butter soft media" only makes sense as a relative statement. Calgary's media is about the same as Vancouver's and Winnipeg's (although I have a limited window into the Jets' media), probably a little less rose-coloured than Montreal's, and obviously not a complete embarrassment, which is what they are up north. Kind of have to leave Toronto aside, because there seems to be equal parts water-carrying optimism and garment-rending despair in that city, and all of it entirely over the top.