Simplified Neal/Lucic trade Poll

[Calgary4LIfe]

Loved the rumours, loved it when the trade went down, loved the old poll, still love the new poll.



We traded away an absolutely useless player who brings down everyone he plays with statistically (huge negative!) and who would most likely become a negative distraction for a player who fills a need on the team and who produced at the same rate. That's a win.


Besides, I would much rather the Flames retain 50% of what's left on his contract if you need to get rid of him than buy-out Neal. That term would be much shorter, and Lucic would obviously wave if he is not playing and contributing.

[Bingo]

update ... Poll total is at 71% of the original.

Love down 7%
Like up 4%
Indifferent Flat
Dislike up 4%
Hate Flat

Overall Like down 3%

No real change

[Itse]

Voted indifferent..

Sure there's arguments made back and forth, but for me it comes down to:
- Are the Flames better? Probably not. Lucic sucks even if he rebounds some.
- Are the Flames worse? Definite no. Neal sucked here and wasn't going to be a positive impact even if he rebounded some.
- Are the Oilers meaningfully better off with Neal? Gods no. Even if Neal rebounds, he's not that good, and the Oilers are terrible overall so what ever. If the biggest positive for Edmonton about Neal is the possibility to buy him out while still paying 750k to Lucic for playing in Calgary, there is no way that's a win.

Sure a Neal buyout option is now definitely off the table for Calgary, which is kinda sad, but again, if the best thing about Neal was the possibility to buy him out... And we did get 500k cap space in a time when we really badly need it.

So yeah. Meh. Bleh.

None of this s### is why I watch hockey.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

update ... Poll total is at 71% of the original.

Love down 7%
Like up 4%
Indifferent Flat
Dislike up 4%
Hate Flat

Overall Like down 3%

No real change

I would say "Love it" plummeted.

It's not a big deal overall, doesn't change the overall picture, but I'd call it a notable change that implies the wording did make a difference for people choosing between "Like it" and "Love it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

I would say "Love it" plummeted.

It's not a big deal overall, doesn't change the overall picture, but I'd call it a notable change that implies the wording did make a difference for people choosing between "Like it" and "Love it.

Well I gave the exact percentages so you can call it whatever you want.

Not sure I'd equate 7% to a plummet though.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I gave the exact percentages so you can call it whatever you want.

Not sure I'd equate 7% to a plummet though.

Oh this is definitely getting into semantics.

But to me a drop from 12.5 to 5 is a plummet in that category, even if it's not a big deal for the overall picture.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Oh this is definitely getting into semantics.

But to me a drop from 12.5 to 5 is a plummet in that category, even if it's not a big deal for the overall picture.

Fill your boots!

Don't think it changes the message much, the two polls are pretty similar.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Fill your boots!

Don't think it changes the message much, the two polls are pretty similar.

I’d agree though I do think you see a small shift to liking it less accords the board so it’s very possible that’s just sample noise with different people responding

The message is pretty clear, despite arguing for 50 pages on a message board people don’t have very strong feelings one way or another about this trade.

The amount and the tone of this discussion would suggest that this be was a meaningful event to flames fan however the data does not back that up.

Though I may be inferring things that aren’t actually shown by the poll.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Fill your boots!

Don't think it changes the message much, the two polls are pretty similar.

Oh absolutely.

Notable is not always significant

[Macindoc]

Like it. Lucic is no longer a good player, but Neal was no better and appears to have been disrespectful to his teammates and coaches. Neal will almost certainly score more than Lucic last year, but I expect that this will be a result of getting PP1 time and will result in no net increase in team scoring. Lucic’s contract was worse than Neal’s, but the retention effectively makes Neal’s contract equally bad (5.25M/year with NMC vs 6.5M/year that can be bought out but will cost about 3.5M/year to do so once you add the buyout amount, the salary retention and the cost of a replacement). Due to the NMC, Lucic is currently harder to move, but with far less actual salary due to be paid, Lucic becomes the easier player to move to a team with an internal salary cap once his modified NTC kicks in. Based on how Neal objectively dragged down everyone he played with, I do believe that Lucic will be a better fit in the bottom 6 than Neal would have been.

In the end, I see this as a trade of an aging overpaid player for a slightly younger slightly lass overpaid player who will probably be a better fit for the role he will be asked to play. As a result, we will be a better team with Lucic than we would have been with Neal. The Oilers will be no better with Neal, who at this point is a borderline NHL player. He will improve from his abysmal scoring last season, but this will be at the expense of other borderline players displaced from the top 6 and power play with no net benefit for the team. So I think the trade will improve the Flames but not the Oilers. Add in the cap savings and the fact that Treliving won’t be temped to bring in some other useless pugilist, and this looks like a small win.

Now, I understand that some people will be upset about not being able to tease Oiler fans about paying Lucic 6M/year to be terrible, but remember, the Oilers are now essentially paying Neal $6.5M/year to be terrible. Yes, Lucic had one of the worst contracts in the league, but from the Flames’ perspective, it’s a 5.25M/year contract, not a 6M/year contract. So is Neal worth 1.25M/year more than Lucic? I dislike having Lucic on the team, but I disliked Neal more. So if both players are bad but one is a better fit, while saving 500K of cap space that is more valuable than ever, then I can live with this trade.

[bubbsy]

i voted indifferent.


For the role (bottom 6 winger) and at the terrible salaries, Lucic provides at least something, which can't be said for neal who was brouwer'esque.


That being said, inspite of the retention, the lack of any kind of sweetner to take on a unmovable, un-buyout-able, risk, looks like a bad trade.


All things being equal, i'd take lucic for the role he is better suited to play. But it isn't equal, oilers can take this chance and just buy the bad contract out. Flames are stuck, and took all this risk without any kind of asset value in return.



Clearly, something forced treliving's hand here. Things had to have gone toxic in the dressing room, with the coach, something that made the GM feel they had to get this guy away from the team.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Itse

Oh this is definitely getting into semantics.

But to me a drop from 12.5 to 5 is a plummet in that category, even if it's not a big deal for the overall picture.

It is the same prospective pool of voters.

If 70 percent of the original people have re-voted, you don’t know which 70 percent that is, and the most meaningful way to interpret results would be to look for the deltas.

Who voted the same?
Who voted differently?
Who did not revote in round 2?
Who are the new voters and how did they vote?

When you understand the answers to those questions, you can better interpret the poll results.

[Jetfire]

I've come around on the trade quite a bit, I was pretty annoyed when it happened, however what good did Neal ever bring to the team? I think it's basically a lateral move, though I'm hoping Lucic being a nasty SOB makes him more valuable than Neal in at least that area. I'm also trusting Treliving has something figured out / agreed on for the expansion draft, which case I'm alright with this. I don't envision a Neal bounce-back with the Coilers.

[djsFlames]

Neal will get some tap ins, but that's all he'll bring.

He doesn't possess the puck much, can't skate, rarely hits, won't set up many goals, not good hockey IQ. Essentially the perfect guy to pencil in on an Oilers first line to keep things status quo.

They'll probably buy him out at some point and that will be the great 'victory" that it'll ultimately amount to for them. Shaving a couple mil off the cap down the road while paying lucic to play for the flames and paying neal to hang out on his couch for a several more years.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

It is the same prospective pool of voters.

If 70 percent of the original people have re-voted, you don’t know which 70 percent that is, and the most meaningful way to interpret results would be to look for the deltas.

Who voted the same?
Who voted differently?
Who did not revote in round 2?
Who are the new voters and how did they vote?

When you understand the answers to those questions, you can better interpret the poll results.

Sounds like we need another poll!

Kidding! It is amazing how much everyone can get worked up on this (I include myself). The players, the teams, the salaries all add to the intrigue, but the actual change from the end of last year is likely insignificant. This is Fantenberg for a 4th level trade.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Sounds like we need another poll!

Kidding! It is amazing how much everyone can get worked up on this (I include myself). The players, the teams, the salaries all add to the intrigue, but the actual change from the end of last year is likely insignificant. This is Fantenberg for a 4th level trade.

But that was an exchange of low level assets. This is different.

This is like BP trading the Macondo blowout to Exxon for the Valdez spill.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I get that the assets are different, but once you accept you have a Macondo on your hands, trading for a Valdez doesn't change the bottom line. The major write-off already happened. This assumes the clean up for either isn't suddenly going to get better.

[Strange Brew]

It’s a little bit like trading the early days of the Macondo blowout for a spill that has had a bit more time to be measured and quantified. Maybe it’s not as bad as you think, but you basically got to save a certain amount against the cap so the other party can take on potential upside/downside.

But to me the brouhaha was over the sudden realization of just how bad the Neal signing had become. It is a little shocking how badly they didn’t want him back. Or maybe they actually like Lucic.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ agreed. This trade basically said the team is not relying on the ‘give him another year here’ narrative. He flat out had to go.

When Brad says “For whatever reason, he wasn’t a fit here”, well.. man, I have never seen Brad so worked up

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

The message is pretty clear, despite arguing for 50 pages on a message board people don’t have very strong feelings one way or another about this trade.

But with 40% choosing favourable options, and 25% choosing not liking it options.

Very big indifferent though, which is rare