Simplified Neal/Lucic trade Poll

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

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

I had to laugh. That is exactly the Brad Treliving equivalent of an angry outburst.

[ricardodw]

Not being able to buy Lucic out tips the scale into the dislike category. More long term cap damage.

Buying out Neal after a 2019-20 show me season, where he fails, leave the Flames with a 2 year slightly under 2M cap hit for 6 years.

Lucic is 4.8, 3.5, 4.8 for the next 3 yrs if he is bought out next summer.

[SportsJunky]

So the thrust of your opinion is that Edmonton won the deal?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

So the thrust of your opinion is that Calgary won?

Who are you addressing that to? Me? The Poll? Ricardo?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Not being able to buy Lucic out tips the scale into the dislike category. More long term cap damage.

Buying out Neal after a 2019-20 show me season, where he fails, leave the Flames with a 2 year slightly under 2M cap hit for 6 years.

Lucic is 4.8, 3.5, 4.8 for the next 3 yrs if he is bought out next summer.

If buying out Neal's contract was a possibility that is certainly a reason to tip the scales towards dislike for sure.

I don't think that was a possibility though, making the comparison much less of a factor.

[SportsJunky]

Why would I be addressing that to you? That was at ricardodw.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Why would I be addressing that to you? That was at ricardodw.

Sorry ... used to people being pissed at me of late. Jumpy!

[TheIronMaiden]

Honest question - has Treliving ever traded a player away who went on to have a much better (almost unexpectedly) season then the year before?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Not being able to buy Lucic out tips the scale into the dislike category. More long term cap damage.

Buying out Neal after a 2019-20 show me season, where he fails, leave the Flames with a 2 year slightly under 2M cap hit for 6 years.

Lucic is 4.8, 3.5, 4.8 for the next 3 yrs if he is bought out next summer.

With the trade the buyout isn't what you would do if you wanted to get him off the roster. With Oilers already retaining salary, you could retain 2.25M and trade him. Slightly higher than a Neal buyout cap hit, but only for 3 years. Lucic at 3m is very movable (NMC is a non issue, Lucic will not stay if he doesn't fit), especially when you consider the amount of real cash that the traded to team would have to pay.

After the trade if the Oilers buyout Neal, he is 2.75m for three (with lucic retained ) than 1.9 for three more years. Lucic if moved is 2.25M for 3 years. I think at the end of the day if both contracts need to be dealt with, Flames are in a better position now (over the Oilers).

[FlatLandFlamesFan]

Hate the Lucic contract soo much ,but like this trade

the more I think on it the more I like it
:Neal had to go , Can Lucic be our new Owen Nolan , or Chris Simon , maybe Big 'Ern
That is the presence we need him to bring nasty, tough , mean ,intense all the things we thought James Neal would bring and didn't

yah he's going to be over-payed for what he brings ,but I think Tre has identified a "spiritual" void in the locker room.

Two tries in (Brouwer/Neal) I think he's got the right guy .

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Honest question - has Treliving ever traded a player away who went on to have a much better (almost unexpectedly) season then the year before?

Seems most of the time he is trading picks or expiring UFA’s. Ferland and Hamilton were really the first regular roster players he has traded that I can think of. Unless you include some of the trades like Granlund and Sven who probably performed as expected.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If buying out Neal's contract was a possibility that is certainly a reason to tip the scales towards dislike for sure.

I don't think that was a possibility though, making the comparison much less of a factor.

I’m not sure buyouts are ever a good idea, but I suppose you could argue a buyout was off the table now but could be available in 2 years.

[Jeff Lebowski]

nm

[Robbob]

Buyouts have a cumulative effect. Having these 4 or 6 year buyouts on your cap will really start impacting your team. Look at Edmonton, they have been juggling dead cap space for multiple for half a decade. Sekera just got added for 4, adding Neal for 6 would be a mistake which puts them back into the same cycle they have been.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m not sure buyouts are ever a good idea, but I suppose you could argue a buyout was off the table now but could be available in 2 years.

Year turning two into four is certainly more palpable than four into eight.

That's true for the Neal contract, but also to some degree to the Lucic contract as well. If Lucic refuses to waive his no movement and the team seems the differential between the player they lose and the player they would have lost having been great you can always buy Lucic out then. Would main two years with an ugly cap hit, but then much less of a cap hit for two more when compared to Neal's contract.

But that gap has to be significant, and from what we've learned from Florida in the last expansion draft ... don't over think this!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Honest question - has Treliving ever traded a player away who went on to have a much better (almost unexpectedly) season then the year before?

Minorly improved:

Baertschi
Kulak

Majorly improved:

Same Projection:

Hamilton
Ferland

Minorly diminished:

Russell

Fell off Cliff:

Glencross
Hudler
Jokipaka
Jones

That's just playing moving out ...

[GioforPM]

Not a trade, but Treliving also saw Colborne as a declining player, it seems.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Robbob

With the trade the buyout isn't what you would do if you wanted to get him off the roster. With Oilers already retaining salary, you could retain 2.25M and trade him. Slightly higher than a Neal buyout cap hit, but only for 3 years. Lucic at 3m is very movable (NMC is a non issue, Lucic will not stay if he doesn't fit), especially when you consider the amount of real cash that the traded to team would have to pay.

After the trade if the Oilers buyout Neal, he is 2.75m for three (with lucic retained ) than 1.9 for three more years. Lucic if moved is 2.25M for 3 years. I think at the end of the day if both contracts need to be dealt with, Flames are in a better position now (over the Oilers).

My comparison was buying out Neal next year as a Flame as opposed to buying out Lucic next off season as a Flame.

If you want to worry/ gloat that Edmonton is worse off than the Flames it is a very low bar. If somehow the Oilers become competition that the Flames have to focus on chances are this trade will be as lopsided as Lindholm/Hanifin for Hamilton and a year of Ferland.

In what universe is Lucic a 3M player? What team would you imagine taking him on as a 3M player without dumping a $3M failure of their on on the Flames?

Having 3M on your 4th line / press box is a recipe for disaster? Are you planning on Lucic being more on the Flames than that?

[SportsJunky]

ricardodw, you must be pleased that the Flames massively upgraded their snarl quotient, no? Lucic is a hitting machine.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Minorly improved:

Baertschi
Kulak

Majorly improved:

Same Projection:

Hamilton
Ferland

Minorly diminished:

Russell

Fell off Cliff:

Glencross
Hudler
Jokipaka
Jones

That's just playing moving out ...

Not a big cliff for Jokipaka and Jones to fall from when they left the Flames.

NIk Backstrom and Lazar were basically in free fall having stepped over the cliff when they were traded to the Flames