What “save the season” trade would you like?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The Flames aren't trading Gaudreau for a guy not even in the league yet

Part of a package of talent the Sabres can put together. He could be a key piece of the deal.

[zamler]

I don't see how anyone can trust Tre to do anything after the Neal/Lucic debacle.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Part of a package of talent the Sabres can put together. He could be a key piece of the deal.

Not the main piece...you dont trade a guy who put up 99 points last season for an unknown

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Psytic

And this is the thing, the man behind the curtain so to speak is Button. His team is the real architects and they have never been questioned. The Gm is a Manager who signs off on the information given to him by the scouting team. He gives his specifications they come back to him with their best evaluations for trades and picks. It's been the same guys for 20 years. How are they not getting any blame for Sutter's, Feaster's and Brads mediocrity? The GM picks the best options with the data given to him by them. Maybe they are just mediocre evaluator's considering the information they have given to the Flames GM's hasn't amounted to any sustained successful teams. Its the same guys every management cycle feeding the data to the GM. When we get a new GM we expect different results when the under lying architects are the same.

I think you're getting things confused here.

The team's amateur scouting has been pretty good. It's the pro-scouting that has been awful.

I think Button has shown that if you give him actual picks to work with, he can make good selections, but he works for the GM. If the GM is going to trade away all the good picks and not bring any back, there isn't much the amateur scout can do to salvage that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Not the main piece...you dont trade a guy who put up 99 points last season for an unknown

This is what's funny about CP, and criticisms of the GM. The moves that are proposed are usually diametrically opposed; eg bigger and tougher versus smaller and faster) or right now but with no cap consideration versus totally 5 years in the future future.

Or we get ideas to pick up guys who were good once but are now on waivers or benched (Turris, Kovalchuk) and that's what's going to fix our team (and at the same time criticizing the moves to get Brouwer or Neal who were guys about to be in the same boat).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't see how anyone can trust Tre with UFA signings after the Neal/Lucic debacle.

Fixed that for you

Which I realize you wouldn't agree with. Just don't see the trade as the issue.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

a serious question. Has there ever been an example where a season is saved by a single trade?

The Joe Thornton deal for a bag of pucks was around this time of the season and season/franchise saving. There was also the franchise killing, dynasty creating #1 pick(Guy Lafleur) that that went from the California Golden Seals to the Habs.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Fixed that for you

Which I realize you wouldn't agree with. Just don't see the trade as the issue.

The main issue I have with the trade is not that we brought in Lucic.

I don't like that we helped Edmonton. Even if the trade didn't 'hurt' us, I don't like that we threw them a massive lifeline.

[nik-]

We traded for probably the worst contract in the league. It's totally that we brought in Lucic.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

The main issue I have with the trade is not that we brought in Lucic.

I don't like that we helped Edmonton. Even if the trade didn't 'hurt' us, I don't like that we threw them a massive lifeline.

I think they have the same record with Chiasson in Neal's spot. They just have been luckboxes on a lot of fronts. Including Smith and Koskinen playing OK.

I still expect neal to peter out and the goalies to play down to their expected levels. But like others have said, maybe they can maintain bad possession play all year and still get in, like the 2015 Flames.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

The main issue I have with the trade is not that we brought in Lucic.

I don't like that we helped Edmonton. Even if the trade didn't 'hurt' us, I don't like that we threw them a massive lifeline.

We didn't.

The Oilers are all about two players right now and Neal isn't one of them. He's been a net negative contributor including his PP contribution.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

The main issue I have with the trade is not that we brought in Lucic.

I don't like that we helped Edmonton. Even if the trade didn't 'hurt' us, I don't like that we threw them a massive lifeline.

I still maintain that the team would be better today with Neal than with Lucic. Neal didn't get along with Peters I get that but maybe Neal was on to something about Peters coaching given the way the team has played this season. While the coaching change in Edmonton has been a factor I fail to see Tippett being the major turning point after both McLellan and Hitchcock could get nothing out of that same roster last season. The other big change was sending out a player that could no longer play in Lucic for a player that is on the decline but can still light up the lamp on occasion. The trade was a massive win for them and seeing Lucic has done absolutely nothing for the Flames I fail to see how it's been a win for the Flames because my bet is Neal would have scored some goals for the Flames and if you haven't noticed this team has an issues scoring goals. Nobody will ever convince me that the trade wasn't horrible for the Flame as certainly Lucic has done nothing to convince me with his play as the guy is a non-factor and on nights like last night when a small player gets destroyed it has to be Andersson stepping up? I thought that was the only upside of Lucic? If he's not stepping up in incidents like this then what's the point of having him on the team?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is what's funny about CP, and criticisms of the GM. The moves that are proposed are usually diametrically opposed; eg bigger and tougher versus smaller and faster) or right now but with no cap consideration versus totally 5 years in the future future.

Or we get ideas to pick up guys who were good once but are now on waivers or benched (Turris, Kovalchuk) and that's what's going to fix our team (and at the same time criticizing the moves to get Brouwer or Neal who were guys about to be in the same boat).

There is also shiny new toy syndrome...people love prospects but very few of them turn into 100 point players. Trading Gaudreau during the worst stretch of his career for unknown prospects is dumb

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I still maintain that the team would be better today with Neal than with Lucic. Neal didn't get along with Peters I get that but maybe Neal was on to something about Peters coaching given the way the team has played this season. While the coaching change in Edmonton has been a factor I fail to see Tippett being the major turning point after both McLellan and Hitchcock could get nothing out of that same roster last season. The other big change was sending out a player that could no longer play in Lucic for a player that is on the decline but can still light up the lamp on occasion. The trade was a massive win for them and seeing Lucic has done absolutely nothing for the Flames I fail to see how it's been a win for the Flames because my bet is Neal would have scored some goals for the Flames and if you haven't noticed this team has an issues scoring goals.

Oh I don't think the trade has been a win for us. It's doubtful that Neal would be the answer to our goal scoring woes though.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I still maintain that the team would be better today with Neal than with Lucic.

You ignore the financial implications of the large amount of cash money saved on the deal.

It gave Treliving some flexibility on future contracts that he didn't have before.

[zamler]

Defending the Lucic trade has become embarrassing at this point there's a reason we all endlessly mocked the contract when he was in Edmonton.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We didn't.

The Oilers are all about two players right now and Neal isn't one of them. He's been a net negative contributor including his PP contribution.

If we're committed to $6Mish wasted on the roster in Neal or Lucic... I'd take Lucic. Neal is absolutely not who they think he is rn, I agree with all of that.

But the part of the trade that bugs me the most is that we helped the Oilers. They were stuck with Lucic and they were going to protect him in the expansion draft. That was hilarious, and that would have cost them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I still maintain that the team would be better today with Neal than with Lucic. Neal didn't get along with Peters I get that but maybe Neal was on to something about Peters coaching given the way the team has played this season. While the coaching change in Edmonton has been a factor I fail to see Tippett being the major turning point after both McLellan and Hitchcock could get nothing out of that same roster last season. The other big change was sending out a player that could no longer play in Lucic for a player that is on the decline but can still light up the lamp on occasion. The trade was a massive win for them and seeing Lucic has done absolutely nothing for the Flames I fail to see how it's been a win for the Flames because my bet is Neal would have scored some goals for the Flames and if you haven't noticed this team has an issues scoring goals. Nobody will ever convince me that the trade wasn't horrible for the Flame as certainly Lucic has done nothing to convince me with his play as the guy is a non-factor and on nights like last night when a small player gets destroyed it has to be Andersson stepping up? I thought that was the only upside of Lucic? If he's not stepping up in incidents like this then what's the point of having him on the team?

Dunn hit Mangiapane. Rasmus didn't fight Dunn. Rinaldo launched himself at Dunn and got the penalty. Lucic wasn't on the ice.

Andersson fought Schenn because Schenn took a little run at Lindholm. I don't even know if Rasmus wanted to fight - he has jabbbing at Schenn with his stick and Schenn dropped the gloves. Lucic wasn't on the ice.

Neal wasn't traded because of anything to do with Peters, from what I understand.

[transplant99]

The trade was a small win for ownership, but a massive loss for the team overall.

I absolutely refuse to believe that a 50% retained Neal could not have been moved somewhere for something/someone that isn't a complete and total boat anchor on the salary cap with no way out.

It smacked of desperation that day, and is playing out exactly that way now. Truly crippling the franchise for 4 years including this one.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

Defending the Lucic trade has become embarrassing at this point there's a reason we all endlessly mocked the contract when he was in Edmonton.

Just let it go man.

I'm happy to see you disagree, but don't call those that disagree with you embarrassing.

Neal was a black hole, I'm glad he's gone. Lucic is on his last legs and isn't going to contribute much, but he's been as advertised when it comes to his five on five play generally being without much give on the defensive side.

Neal is literally the worst five on five contributing forward in hockey in WAR models. Agree or disagree with the model it's an interesting take, and one that certainly matches my eye test.