It will always be perplexing to me that Treliving refused to pay anything more than "market value" for guys like Gaudreau and Tkachuk which resulted in them signing contracts for less than the 8 year term limit, but on the other hand was perfectly fine carrying Lucic's dead cap hit of $5 million for years.
I still believe just buying out Neal would have served the Flames needs better in the short term and the long run.
Of course you do.
User name checks out. E=NG now and forerever. And decisions made by those who don't believe that are the same.
__________________
Hey...where'd my avatar go?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to taxbuster For This Useful Post:
It will always be perplexing to me that Treliving refused to pay anything more than "market value" for guys like Gaudreau and Tkachuk which resulted in them signing contracts for less than the 8 year term limit, but on the other hand was perfectly fine carrying Lucic's dead cap hit of $5 million for years.
I still believe just buying out Neal would have served the Flames needs better in the short term and the long run.
Well you guys did buy out Neal and paid for part of Lucic to do it. Ahahahaahhaahh. Oilers.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to memphusk For This Useful Post:
next two years when the Oilers are paying Neal 2M and the Flames are playing Lucic ZERO you might be singing a different tune
and "perfectly fine" is a stretch
Why would I be signing a different tune?
The whole point of a buy out is short term gain for long term pain.
IMO the Flames needed to take advantage of Giordano and Gaudreau being on sweetheart contracts when they had the chance. A Norris trophy D-Man and a dynamic forward on great contracts are pieces you could build a contender around.
They weren't able to do it, and Lucic making $4 million more than he was worth through that period was certainly part of the reason Treliving couldn't get the team over the hump.
Freeing up $4 million from the Neal contract for the last 4 seasons would have been more beneficial to the Flames than having an extra $2 million for the next 2 years IMO.
Maybe if the Flames make some kind of pivotal move that catapults them into contender status in the next couple of years that is a direct result of them having an extra $2 million dollars I'll change my mind on the issue, but unless that happens, I'll probably keep the same opinion that I had on the day of the Neal/Lucic trade.
Well said Oil Stain. The deal to dump Neal was a dumb one because it tied up so much money that prevented the Flames from addressing an immediate need to take advantage of an opportunity window. It was a mistake (the Neal contract) compounded by a bigger mistake (taking on the Lucic contract). Edmonton has $2.75M in dead cap space to deal with as a result, but the Flames received $4M in dead space because of having to overpay for a player not worth contract and being completely unmovable. That cost them in being able to bring in another player that could contribute up front and prevented possible success while we had players on good contracts. Both teams lost in the deal, but I still think the Flames took it on the chin harder. The Oilers also know how to school the system (see Mike Smith) and make that dead cap disappear which the Flames refuse to do, which only compounds the issue.
Well said Oil Stain. The deal to dump Neal was a dumb one because it tied up so much money that prevented the Flames from addressing an immediate need to take advantage of an opportunity window. It was a mistake (the Neal contract) compounded by a bigger mistake (taking on the Lucic contract). Edmonton has $2.75M in dead cap space to deal with as a result, but the Flames received $4M in dead space because of having to overpay for a player not worth contract and being completely unmovable. That cost them in being able to bring in another player that could contribute up front and prevented possible success while we had players on good contracts. Both teams lost in the deal, but I still think the Flames took it on the chin harder. The Oilers also know how to school the system (see Mike Smith) and make that dead cap disappear which the Flames refuse to do, which only compounds the issue.
Calgary saved a ton of real cash in the deal which was very important to the Flames. Treliving would have been restricted in going to the cap without those cash savings.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
Calgary saved a ton of real cash in the deal which was very important to the Flames. Treliving would have been restricted in going to the cap without those cash savings.
That doesn't change anything when looking at the impact to the on-ice product though. The move still handicapped the Flames with what they could do even if they had the money. If bringing in a player who is cheap but carries a high cap hit, it shows how bad a situation the Flames are in then, being more Arizona than Edmonton. Good teams will spend real dollars to and above the cap to try and be competitive. What you're suggesting is the Flames brought in a crappy player with a big cap hit and a low salary so they could claim to be near the cap but in actuality well under it. If that's the case it explains why the team is generating the results they are.
That doesn't change anything when looking at the impact to the on-ice product though. The move still handicapped the Flames with what they could do even if they had the money. If bringing in a player who is cheap but carries a high cap hit, it shows how bad a situation the Flames are in then, being more Arizona than Edmonton. Good teams will spend real dollars to and above the cap to try and be competitive. What you're suggesting is the Flames brought in a crappy player with a big cap hit and a low salary so they could claim to be near the cap but in actuality well under it. If that's the case it explains why the team is generating the results they are.
Like it or not 10-15$ million in real cash over 4 seasons is a large amount of money
And an argument could be made the Flames could have won the deal if they used that real cash to their advantage (which it did not seem they did)
Although it could have allowed them to front load the contract offer to JG for example
If the Flames had a new stadium and more revenue maybe they wouldn’t need to go looking for cash savings
The whole point of a buy out is short term gain for long term pain.
IMO the Flames needed to take advantage of Giordano and Gaudreau being on sweetheart contracts when they had the chance. A Norris trophy D-Man and a dynamic forward on great contracts are pieces you could build a contender around.
They weren't able to do it, and Lucic making $4 million more than he was worth through that period was certainly part of the reason Treliving couldn't get the team over the hump.
Freeing up $4 million from the Neal contract for the last 4 seasons would have been more beneficial to the Flames than having an extra $2 million for the next 2 years IMO.
Maybe if the Flames make some kind of pivotal move that catapults them into contender status in the next couple of years that is a direct result of them having an extra $2 million dollars I'll change my mind on the issue, but unless that happens, I'll probably keep the same opinion that I had on the day of the Neal/Lucic trade.
Where are you getting your numbers? Neal had four years left on his deal when traded. A buyout leaves money on the books for 8 seasons. And how would they save $4 million per year?
I guess you’re saying they could have trotted him out for two years and then buy him out. Maybe, but that’s not saving $4 million.
How did playing Neal for two seasons work out for the Oilers?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Lucic is certainly withering, there is no doubt. He's been pretty good in a Calgary uniform in total with decent third line metrics and stats for a couple of years making him only $2M or so over paid and not the replacement level cap hit.
Certainly some loyalty in play with Sutter, and I get the frustration with that.
Looked at ice time last year and this year for 4th liners though, and if anything they're playing a little less this season than last.
The big difference is Backlund and his wingers are stealing more ice time from the top of the list, which is different than the top line last year.
Last year's fourth line guys were getting 10.1 minutes per game this year 9.9 minutes per game.
Last year they had only 6 forwards at 12+ five on five minutes a night, this year that's 8 and soon to be 9 with Pelletier getting more ice.
Lucic's numbers are inflated for average ice time because he did 2 months in the top six (but I included them above)
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Treliving had a decent young core (Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett, Hamilton, Brodie, Gio, Backlund…) but was unable to fill out the roster due to critical mistakes like Hamonic, Neal, Brouwer…and now the core is gone
His quick fix (Huberdeau, Kadri, Weegar) looked good on paper but so far a disaster on the ice.
Wonder what they are going to do with him this summer. Seems like easy decision to me.
Well said Oil Stain. The deal to dump Neal was a dumb one because it tied up so much money that prevented the Flames from addressing an immediate need to take advantage of an opportunity window. It was a mistake (the Neal contract) compounded by a bigger mistake (taking on the Lucic contract). Edmonton has $2.75M in dead cap space to deal with as a result, but the Flames received $4M in dead space because of having to overpay for a player not worth contract and being completely unmovable. That cost them in being able to bring in another player that could contribute up front and prevented possible success while we had players on good contracts. Both teams lost in the deal, but I still think the Flames took it on the chin harder. The Oilers also know how to school the system (see Mike Smith) and make that dead cap disappear which the Flames refuse to do, which only compounds the issue.
Don't forget the Brouwer buyout in the final year of his contract. Just had to sign Neal who was a worse player for us.
The mid 2010s were a particularly stupid era for UFAs where talent evaluation consisted mainly of “did he score some clutch goals during the most recent playoff run”. I’ll never understand why our management and others were willing to commit multi years and multi millions to the smallest of samples sizes.
The mid 2010s were a particularly stupid era for UFAs where talent evaluation consisted mainly of “did he score some clutch goals during the most recent playoff run”. I’ll never understand why our management and others were willing to commit multi years and multi millions to the smallest of samples sizes.
Neal had a pretty big sample size of never scoring less than 20 goals in his whole career. The issue was no homework was done as to why Vegas was willing to let him go, and why he had been traded a few times despite his points.
Treliving had a decent young core (Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett, Hamilton, Brodie, Gio, Backlund…) but was unable to fill out the roster due to critical mistakes like Hamonic, Neal, Brouwer…and now the core is gone
His quick fix (Huberdeau, Kadri, Weegar) looked good on paper but so far a disaster on the ice.
Wonder what they are going to do with him this summer. Seems like easy decision to me.
I think Treliving is the one making a decision about them, not the other way around.
Every team has free agent signings that don't turn out. That's not unique.
The big issue was the Monahan/Gaudreau core not being what it needed to be to build a hockey team around.
A healthier Monahan might have made for some very different seasons.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
