One year later: how do you feel about the Lucic/Neal swap?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by united

My take at the time of the trade was that on the ice it was a good trade for both teams, but factoring in that Lucic's contract has negative value associated with a buyout where Neal's doesn't, I hoped the Flames would have been able to extract an unconditional second-round pick or equivalent later picks. I suspected there would be a gentleman's agreement regarding the expansion draft but obviously that will remain unconfirmed.

I expected that Neal would flourish on the Oilers' powerplay but be a complete liability in all other aspects of the game, leading him to significantly outscore Lucic but have a net impact that was similar. Neal scoring over 50% of his points on the powerplay, though, is absurd and speaks to just how god-awful he has become. Neal was even worse than I expected (for the second straight season).

For Lucic, I expected him to continue his excellent and wildly underrated defensive play, have trouble driving offence, but come out as a net even or around there. The kicker with Lucic was his complete lack of discipline, frequently putting his team on the penalty kill with bone-headed penalties. I suspected there was a decent chance that playing on better-coached team with a far superior culture could lead to those problems completely disappearing and, if so, the trade would swing in the Flames' favour.

To my delight, Lucic was able to parlay his sneaky-good hockey sense into disciplined play and came out even in non-fighting/teammate protecting penalty differential. Lucic deserves so much credit for playing a smart brand of hockey and leading by example (please, Bennett, follow suit!). Aggression is great if it's channeled appropriately.

In Lucic's last season with the Oilers, he took 16 non-defending penalties while only drawing 6 for a differential of -10 - and it was even worse in previous years. Tough to swallow for bottom-roster players. With the Flames, Lucic took just 5 non-defending penalties while drawing 5, breaking even. A fabulous turnaround.

Cross-checking: 5 --> 0
High-sticking: 3 --> 0
Tripping: 2 = 2
Charging: 1 --> 0
Elbowing: 1 --> 0
Holding: 1 = 1
Hooking: 1 = 1
Interference: 1 = 1
Slashing: 1 --> 0

As trades should be judged based on what was known at the time, I maintain the Flames got slightly less than they should have, but also that Lucic had a much higher probability of improving his play than Neal did. After the first season of each, the trade is a clear win for the Flames assuming Lucic maintains his aggressive but disciplined play for the remaining term. Lucic is still a serviceable third/fourth liner and isn't showing signs of rapidly slowing down, plus bring the unmatched physical intimidation and apparent off-ice intangibles. At this point Neal is below replacement level in all aspects of the game aside from his shot and can't be deployed in any situation other than the powerplay.

Obviously any expansion draft issue would immediately be a disaster for the Flames, but all indications are not to be surprised when Lucic waives.

From the trade thread:

Spoiler!

For me the biggest strike against the trade is if the Flames had bought out Neal, Lucic would still be an unmoveable anchor in Edmonton.

Whether Neal rebounded or not, the Flames helped their arch nemesis improve their team by giving them a contract they could buy out in exchange for one that they couldn't.

Lucic has been better than I expected but he's still not a 4 million dollar player which is the equivalent difference of buyout or not.

That rippled through the lineup for Calgary and limited their ability to actually be competitive.

I don't think the standard for judgement should be whether Lucic has been better than advertised or not, the standard should be where does he rank as a 5 million dollar player vs. the 4 million dollar cap equivalent of a james neal buyout and I don't think there's any question that's a losing value proposition for the Flames.

[zamler]

I was so wrong it's embarrassing.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The article doesn't even account for the fact that Neal seems like a real dick, who is now complaining about the youngin's playing their video games, while Lucic seems like a great personality and seems to have found some chemistry as a mentor to a couple young players.

I've said it elsewhere, probably the Bennett playoff thread, and I have no proof whatsoever, but I really feel like Lucic is helping Bennett. Whether it is that Bennett is able to play bigger with Lucic out there or that he is helping Bennett learn what it takes to play that style of game at this level, I don't know, but I do think Sam is benefiting the most from having Lucic around.

Is that worth the money he's paid? Of course not but trying to look at the positives.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For me the biggest strike against the trade is if the Flames had bought out Neal, Lucic would still be an unmoveable anchor in Edmonton.

Whether Neal rebounded or not, the Flames helped their arch nemesis improve their team by giving them a contract they could buy out in exchange for one that they couldn't.

Lucic has been better than I expected but he's still not a 4 million dollar player which is the equivalent difference of buyout or not.

That rippled through the lineup for Calgary and limited their ability to actually be competitive.

I don't think the standard for judgement should be whether Lucic has been better than advertised or not, the standard should be where does he rank as a 5 million dollar player vs. the 4 million dollar cap equivalent of a james neal buyout and I don't think there's any question that's a losing value proposition for the Flames.

We weren't going to buyout Neal after just one season, so let's say we don't trade him, he stays here this season, and then we have to buy him out after this season.

That means the comparison is:

6 years of James Neal Buyout at $2M per season cap hit

vs

3 years of Lucic at $5.25M.

So the difference for the Flames is they took on $3.25M of cap space for the next three seasons to save $2M for years 4-6. And you still have a player for the next three seasons.

So the comparison is Lucic better than a $3.25M player the Flames could have brought in with that space? Maybe, he's actually been good in the playoffs for us and wasn't that bad this season.

Personally I'd rather just have Lucic for a couple more seasons, instead of stretching out the impact to cap for another 6 seasons. Plus I'm not sure Lucic plays out that contract, there have been multiple instances where he's mentioned contemplating retirement.

[Enoch Root]

it's not just having Lucic at $3.25M for 3 years though, there is also the other half to consider, being $2M a year for another 3 years for absolutely nothing.

So $12M for 6 years of nothing, or $15.75M for 3 years of Lucic

[Calgary4LIfe]

As soon as the initial rumours came out, I was fully on board.


I just didn't see any way that Neal could come back and not be a huge distraction given how the playoffs went for him. I saw him be a literal black hole (not figurative - I know the difference here) on every line he was put on. He was slow, disinterested in playing defence, couldn't generate anything offensively, didn't add toughness, and I don't know how one could say he was providing leadership - his argument with Peters during the playoffs proved it to me.


I saw Lucic as someone that at least could fill A hole, and I didn't think he was as slow as Neal was. Team needed to get tougher. At least there was that. I hoped for a resurgence from Lucic in some way, but I thought that even if that didn't happen at all, at least he would find a way to add to Calgary and hopefully not drag his line mates down. I hoped that the trade would go through, and was even happier that the Oilers retained on Lucic, and added a 3rd round conditional pick. That was all gravy.


Just so happy Neal didn't come back dragging every damn line he was on, offering absolutely nothing, and then complaining about his lack of ice time.

[3thirty]

Lucic seems to be high on the GAF meter, Neal seemed to pout when things didn't go his way.

The organisation and players always speak highly of his leadership and presence as well. Every STH conference call, to the point when at times it seemed like they were trying to justify the trade, but the playoffs have shown it appears to be correct as his line has been our best.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

it's not just having Lucic at $3.25M for 3 years though, there is also the other half to consider, being $2M a year for another 3 years for absolutely nothing.

So $12M for 6 years of nothing, or $15.75M for 3 years of Lucic

plus also a valuable third-round pick.

As awful as the Neal signing turned out to be, I find the bitter tase in my mouth has altogether disappeared after this season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I feel a bit better about it today as Lucic was at least a contributor against the Jets and Neal is really on the steep decline. Still not happy with the overall situation as that cap space would be really handy this summer with a bunch of defensemen hitting UFA and some retooling in the forward group required.

Good you're coming around.

But once again the question is how do you feel about the swap? That wouldn't include a look at how the current cap space could be utilized because it would be Neal or Lucic.

Are you happier with Lucic or Neal?

[agulati]

I initially thought that they should give Neal another year, to see if he finds his mojo, but I'm glad we made the move for Lucic.

His mentorship, physicality as well as his play definitely are a treat compared to the effort Neal brought all of last year (culminating in an elimination game scratch).

The concern ends up being about the NMC and having to be protected for expansion, but at least in the STH calls Treliving has not shown too much concern about the NMC being an issue, so maybe they already have an agreement/talks in place on him either waiving it (or potentially retiring?)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

We weren't going to buyout Neal after just one season, so let's say we don't trade him, he stays here this season, and then we have to buy him out after this season.

1) Absolving the general manager/ownership of not doing what they should have done isn't a legitimate narrowing of the discussion IMO. Just because the Flames weren't going to trade Iginla away in 2011 doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action

2) Acknowledging that a big reason WHY the flames wouldn't buy out neal was the ~3 million bucks they were spending per year on buyouts ALREADY augments point #1. AKA, the franchise was willing to buy out Brouwer's contract to the tune of 1.5 x 4 for a 3 million per year cap reduction in years 1 and 2. They were also willing to extend the Michael Stone cap pain for 2 more years at 1.1 to avoid a cap hit of 2.4 in the first year.

3) Not buying out neal doesn't mean that helping the team's arch nemesis and divisional rival was also their only option. Neal sucks, so I don't think there were many options available, but helping the Oilers is EXTREMELY low on my list of palatable options.

4) Hoping Lucic retires doesn't temper the value of the deal in the same way hoping Neal gets hurt for LTIR doesn't temper the badness of his deal.

What is the cost to the cap in NOT having that 3.25 available during the Tkachuk and Mangiapane negotiations? Will not having extended Mangiapane at a reasonable rate cost the team at least 2/3rds of that amount on his next deal? Does Mangiapane's next deal eat the entirety of that savings? Will it mean losing Tkachuk to free agency outright?

If either of those things occur then it is very clearly a bad move IMO and the example of why a buyout was in many ways the best possible option.

[Bingo]

Only July 2nd 2022 Lucic will have only $1M owed to him and a season to play.

Wouldn't be surprised if he retires shortly after.

Flames have two years of a cap hit to go in my mind. And that's the flip of it. If Neal gets through those two years without getting bought out he's sure to return and collect his $5.75M. No incentive to hang it up.

Plus you can buy Lucic out starting in a year.

At that point Calgary's total cap hit for four years would be $9.5M with two tough years and two easy ones. Plus it would trigger a buy out cost for Edmonton. If they bought out Neal at the same time they'd have $9M for the same 4 years, and only $500K difference.

[mrdonkey]

I guarantee Lucic has already done more for the Flames than the Oilers will ever get out of Neal. The 3rd round pick is jus the icing on the cake.

Hated the trade at the time, like absolutely hated, but after watching both players down the stretch it's not even close in terms of value to the organization. Lucic steps up while Neal, as he has been for his entire career, only appears to be in it for himself. I guess in that sense he fits in really well with the rest of that Oilers squad.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Only July 2nd 2022 Lucic will have only $1M owed to him and a season to play.

Wouldn't be surprised if he retires shortly after.

Flames have two years of a cap hit to go in my mind. And that's the flip of it. If Neal gets through those two years without getting bought out he's sure to return and collect his $5.75M. No incentive to hang it up.

Plus you can buy Lucic out starting in a year.

At that point Calgary's total cap hit for four years would be $9.5M with two tough years and two easy ones. Plus it would trigger a buy out cost for Edmonton. If they bought out Neal at the same time they'd have $9M for the same 4 years, and only $500K difference.

Uh, on july 2nd 2022 he will have 3 million owed to him in lump sum payout and 1 million owed to him in Salary.

If you buyout Lucic In july 2021 the cap hit penalty for the 21-22 season is 3.5, the cap hit for 22-23 is 4.885 and there is a cap penalty of ~500k for 2 years after that. That's significantly worse cap hit penalty than buying out Neal.

If you buy out Lucic in july 2022, the following season cap penalty is 4.6 with another year at ~300k

He's owed a 3 million dollar Bonus on July 10th of the final year of his deal, so even in a scenario where he decides to leave a million dollars on the table (which I think is exceedingly unlikely), flames ownership is still going to have to cut him a cheque for 3 million bucks on July 10th just for him to go away.

Because he has the full NMC through to the end of his contract, why would he retire and leave a million dollars on the table when he knows there's no chance he'll play outside the NHL and if his body is in such shape that makes him want to retire, he'll be able to collect that million dollars on LTIR and not play anyway.

[Flash Walken]

Even if Lucic were to waive his NMC, why the #### would Seattle take him?

you'd have to bribe them to do that, and that bribe would have to be freakin' massive for them to consider a 6 million dollar capspace waste in their first seasons trying to be competitive and establish a fanbase.

Him waiving his NMC doesn't accomplish anything for Calgary even if he's willing to do so, because you have to have another party willing to take on that Albatross in the first place.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Even if Lucic were to waive his NMC, why the #### would Seattle take him?

you'd have to bribe them to do that, and that bribe would have to be freakin' massive for them to consider a 6 million dollar capspace waste in their first seasons trying to be competitive and establish a fanbase.

Him waiving his NMC doesn't accomplish anything for Calgary even if he's willing to do so, because you have to have another party willing to take on that Albatross in the first place.

Except for the whole “additional protection slot” thing. Kind of important.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

1) Absolving the general manager/ownership of not doing what they should have done isn't a legitimate narrowing of the discussion IMO. Just because the Flames weren't going to trade Iginla away in 2011 doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action

But we are evaluating the trade made by the GM. Which was made because the owners wouldn't buy Neal out.
If you want to add a third option "buy Neal out" you can do that. But it is not a way to evaluate the trade.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

2) Acknowledging that a big reason WHY the flames wouldn't buy out neal was the ~3 million bucks they were spending per year on buyouts ALREADY augments point #1. AKA, the franchise was willing to buy out Brouwer's contract to the tune of 1.5 x 4 for a 3 million per year cap reduction in years 1 and 2. They were also willing to extend the Michael Stone cap pain for 2 more years at 1.1 to avoid a cap hit of 2.4 in the first year.

Also not relevant to the specific question being asked. Relevant to an overall evaluation of the GM sure, but not to the trade itself.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

3) Not buying out neal doesn't mean that helping the team's arch nemesis and divisional rival was also their only option. Neal sucks, so I don't think there were many options available, but helping the Oilers is EXTREMELY low on my list of palatable options.

How the heck did it help them? They have to spend more money on a worse player and give up a pick.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

4) Hoping Lucic retires doesn't temper the value of the deal in the same way hoping Neal gets hurt for LTIR doesn't temper the badness of his deal.

What is the cost to the cap in NOT having that 3.25 available during the Tkachuk and Mangiapane negotiations? Will not having extended Mangiapane at a reasonable rate cost the team at least 2/3rds of that amount on his next deal? Does Mangiapane's next deal eat the entirety of that savings? Will it mean losing Tkachuk to free agency outright?

If either of those things occur then it is very clearly a bad move IMO and the example of why a buyout was in many ways the best possible option.

Take it up with the Flames owners. It's irrelevant to evaluating the trade.

[TheScorpion]

It certainly does accomplish something for Calgary: it frees up a protection slot. Lucic waiving could be the difference between Sam Bennett being exposed or protected.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

It certainly does accomplish something for Calgary: it frees up a protection slot. Lucic waiving could be the difference between Sam Bennett being exposed or protected.

Yup no one has ever suggested Seattle would take him.

[Kipper_3434]

I feel bitter that we signed Neal at all . And that Brouwer had to be bought out to do it. I like Lucic but his contract is nothing to be happy about