What “save the season” trade would you like?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think Calgary ownership would have allowed a 50% retained deal.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Split98

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.

Cost them what? What 7 forwards do the Oilers have to protect? I can think of two

[Flash Walken]

13 goals Vs. 0

1st in the Pacific or 5th?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

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

I could see a Gaudreau deal with the Sabres involving Cozens as a centrepiece.

Cozens obviously wouldn't be the only piece, or even the biggest. But recently-minted #7 OA picks with real #1C potential are not thrown into deals as sweeteners. They're core franchise assets.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

13 goals Vs. 0

1st in the Pacific or 5th?

Lol yeah it's all Neal up north

If Gaudreau and Mony were on pace for 160 points the Flames would be doing pretty damn good despite Lucic

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think Calgary ownership would have allowed a 50% retained deal.

I don’t understand how swapping Neal for Lucic is any different than a 50% deal from an ownership standpoint. If it was my money I’d much prefer to save the money on Neal and pay an actual NHL replacement than pay Lucic what he’s getting. If that is true it just goes more to my feelings about poor leadership and culture surrounding this team that starts right at the top and filters down.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

I believe I mentioned trades as well which would imply the pro scouting team. Buttons in charge of that to I would think. I'm not sold on amateur scouting either i'm looking at the whole body of work from 2001 to now and its really quite average. They aren't Oilers bad but they aren't knocking it out of the park either. Combine that with poor pro scouting and its an average team year in year out no matter who is running the team because the information being supplied to them is adequate but not great.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

13 goals Vs. 0

1st in the Pacific or 5th?

Yeah Neal is the reason they are 1st in the Pacific.

That's your summary? Good one!

Neal has been a tire fire for them, he's played poorly enough that he's below replacement value despite scoring 13 goals. That's tough to do.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Cozens obviously wouldn't be the only piece, or even the biggest. But recently-minted #7 OA picks with real #1C potential are not thrown into deals as sweeteners. They're core franchise assets.

Yeah I would construct a deal around Cozens.
Ideally an "Al Coates Special" with something for now (Reinhart) and something for late (Cozens)
I don't think you can do a strict 2 for 1, Flames would have to add.

But I think there are the right pieces there for the basics of a deal.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Cost them what? What 7 forwards do the Oilers have to protect? I can think of two

As terrible as their roster is, 1 spot going to Lucic would have meant that someone they coveted was going to be chosen

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think Calgary ownership would have allowed a 50% retained deal.

Why?

What difference would it make to them if they are paying "player X" 2 million and James Neal 3 million vs paying Lucic 5.25 million?

It makes no sense they would oppose who gets whatever money when that money is being spent one way or the other.

Also, I really really hope Edwards and company aren't making roster decisions and are telling management instead...here is your budget, now go make the best team you can. Cause if that isnt what is happening, this team is in even deeper feces than any of us could imagine.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah Neal is the reason they are 1st in the Pacific.



That's your summary? Good one!



Neal has been a tire fire for them, he's played poorly enough that he's below replacement value despite scoring 13 goals. That's tough to do.

Neal is a tire fire with 13 goals, which is how you win games. Lucic is a tire fire with 0 goals.

I really don’t get why you’re so hellbent on trying to obfuscate these basic facts when it comes to assessing player worth. They both suck, it’s just that one sucks everywhere and the other sucks everywhere except in one particular aspect that helps win games.

[Harry Lime]

Lucic isn't a black hole. He is getting paid 3M a year more than he is contributing. He would be a non-discussion point at 2.25M.

That is the extent of negatives on a 3rd or 4th liner.

Most teams have players on their books that are a waaaaaay worse value.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Split98

As terrible as their roster is, 1 spot going to Lucic would have meant that someone they coveted was going to be chosen

Like who? Oilers had/have no forwards to protect it wasn't an issue.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why?

What difference would it make to them if they are paying "player X" 2 million and James Neal 3 million vs paying Lucic 5.25 million?

It makes no sense they would oppose who gets whatever money when that money is being spent one way or the other.

Also, I really really hope Edwards and company aren't making roster decisions and are telling management instead...here is your budget, now go make the best team you can. Cause if that isnt what is happening, this team is in even deeper feces than any of us could imagine.

They're only paying Lucic $4.75M a season, plus they get $0.75 covered by the Oilers so out of pocket is $4M per season.

Neal at $5.75 covered 50% is $2.9M per season. So you'd have to replace the guy with a $1.1 player to make your point.

But to be honest I think Treliving's UFA gaffs have them just not wanting to pay guys not to play for the team anymore. If that assumption is true, they may have set a retention level at say 25% and no more.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah Neal is the reason they are 1st in the Pacific.

That's your summary? Good one!

Neal has been a tire fire for them, he's played poorly enough that he's below replacement value despite scoring 13 goals. That's tough to do.

No, it's not my entire summary. I've summarized it previously.

Here's part of your reply to that summary:

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neal will be judged on counting stats regardless of who he plays with because that's all he does.

So, using your post, it's 13 goals to 0 at this point.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Psytic

I believe I mentioned trades as well which would imply the pro scouting team. Buttons in charge of that to I would think. I'm not sold on amateur scouting either i'm looking at the whole body of work from 2001 to now and its really quite average. They aren't Oilers bad but they aren't knocking it out of the park either. Combine that with poor pro scouting and its an average team year in year out no matter who is running the team because the information being supplied to them is adequate but not great.

Nope, he is director of amateur scouting.

I think the amateur scouting has been really good actually, but they always seem limited in how many selections they have, particularly in the higher rounds, which limits how many guys he can produce.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Lucic isn't a black hole. He is getting paid 3M a year more than he is contributing. He would be a non-discussion point at 2.25M.

That is the extent of negatives on a 3rd or 4th liner.

Most teams have players on their books that are a waaaaaay worse value.

I'd say that Lucic at this point is a fourth line grinder, nothing more. He should be paid about league minimum. Guys who have zero production generally don't get more than that.

[dino7c]

Neal hasn't scored a meaningful goal since the first week....he has a couple goals since in blow outs. To suggest he is the reason they are doing better is ridiculous. I wouldn't have made the trade but no need to try and make it sound worse than it actually is.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Neal is a tire fire with 13 goals, which is how you win games. Lucic is a tire fire with 0 goals.

I really don’t get why you’re so hellbent on trying to obfuscate these basic facts when it comes to assessing player worth. They both suck, it’s just that one sucks everywhere and the other sucks everywhere except in one particular aspect that helps win games.

Disagree with me all you want, but don't be a dick about it.

Obfuscate - render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible

James Neal is a terrible five on five hockey player. We saw that all season, it was the eye test. He's repeating that this year.

We can argue all day about eye tests, but luckily some independent people have built models that track contributing factors to hockey players that can actually summarize what we are seeing.

Neal's data supports the eye test. That's not obscure, unclear or unintelligible. The fact that he's been so bad that he's actually considered a net negative player despite scoring 13 goals is hilarious.

If you're look at hockey is as deep as looking up goal totals in the stats page, that's on you.