What “save the season” trade would you like?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nope, this is wrong. The Flames are absorbing $5.25M a season (cap hit). Lucic was signed by the Oilers for a cap hit of $6M a season. The Oilers are retaining $750K, making the Flames responsibility $5.25M. This is the number that counts as it directly impacts the moves the Flames can make. Milan Lucic is a $5.25M player to the Flames. They are saving $500K off Neal, but the savings are negated by the absolute hole Lucic has been this season. No defense of this trade. It is one of the worst in the team's history, right up there with Savard for Zoolander, because it accomplished nothing and continues to hurt the team.

Try again.

I said actual dollars. If you want to have a cap hit conversation we certainly can, but I said actual dollars, and was not misrepresenting that in any way.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

When the most salient defense of the lucic trade is that is saves one of the wealthiest ownership groups in the league a few million bucks, you're signalling to the rest of us just how bad the trade is.

Kind of true, but if they re-invest it in the team then it could be crucial. Maybe bring in the best coach and scouting staff available.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zarrell

I agree with all your points on Neal, but if we are discussing a players worth and value to a team the only number that matters is cap hit. Real dollars only matter to cheap owners.

Not going to call them cheap, but I haven't said anything different.

I'm assuming they didn't want to buy the guy out or carry a big portion retained.

So if the owners wanted real dollar savings than that's what the GM was dealing with.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes i realize that....again i dont give a crap about actual dollars though. He counts 5.25 against the cap, thats all that matters.

OK but then you're ignoring the argument presented to you.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's not a defense of the trade, it's a reality of the situation.
If the owners weren't willing to send cap or buy Neal out - then that's their decision to make.
Keeps coming back to the fact that signing Neal was the mistake. The trade didn't make it much better or worse. But if they wanted Neal gone, and weren't willing to buy him out or send cap across, it was probably the only way to make it happen.

The trade made it worse because Lucic is even more immovable than Neal.

The Flames committed to a 4th line goon making the same amount of money as you'd pay a 2nd line player.

The flames are critically short of a 2nd line player.

Like, I get it, GAR, WAR, lockerroom problem etc etc.

But here we are 25 games into the year and Lucic has 0 goals and the team is sliding to the basement. The lockerroom problems look as pronounced as ever. The team has 19k in cap space.

And the OILERS are now first in the division, playoff bound, and Neal has 13 goals.

Because it saved murray 4 million bucks as a legitimate reason is actually a massive, massive red flag that this is the Bill Wirtz era for Flames fans.

I am out of Thanks right now but I would've thanked every post tranny's made in this thread twice if I could.

You and me both know that the problems of this franchise reside with ownership, and having the only thing to fall back on the legitimize why this trade was done being saving guys collectively worth billions of dollars a few million is so depressing as to have me and other long time die hards on this board questioning where they should be putting their fandom.

The post from AC about where his fandom is at this point is like a cage full of dead canaries.

Things are going to get worse before they get better here.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK but then you're ignoring the argument presented to you.

And it should be ignored. Don’t care about saved owner dollars and if that’s the argument being made then we should be talking about how ####ty the owners are and be advocating that the team gets sold to someone else.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Calgary has a top line problem, and a getting for games problem. They don't have a third line problem. Lucic has been as advertised as a bottom six forward.

I disagree with this. The Flames have a problem with a lack of scoring depth. Our top players are struggling mightily but that is why they are among the worst teams in the league but just take a look at that second powerplay unit. We clearly have a lack of talent in the bottom 6. Lucic has been as bad as Neal 4 pts in 20+ games is not as advertised. I think the expectation was a fresh start would see Lucic bounce back to being a 30pt physical force. The team is as soft as ever and he is not scoring.

The James Neal signing made sense last summer because this team needed scoring depth. The fact we had nearly 4 30 goal scorers and have guys like Backlund and Frolik score .5ppg and Hathaway and Mangipane chip
In with nearly 20 goals combined made it look like we had plenty of scoring depth. Regression this year shows we are lacking the necessary scoring depth they were trying to achieve with Neal.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Both the cap hit and the actual monetary amounts matter.

If the actual money being paid to the owners matters that much, this team is a world of hurt and no one is noticing. Seriously, if they didn't weigh out how much money they could possibly lose by playing short handed every game Lucic suits up, then they suck at business.

The cap hit matters most to fans

And matters to the team when it is trying to make a deal. The team has $5.25M in dead cap space. While the rest of the league is playing with $81.5M in space, the Flames are working with $76.25M. Then they are playing a man short every game. That is how bad Milan Lucic is. He does nothing out there.

But the owners appeared to have cared about the other.

See point one.

So both define the trade.

Not really.

I don't know how it can be considered a horrible trade when it's basically an exchange of terrible players. Savard for Zoolander was a quality player being traded for nothing.

It's a trade that made your rival stronger and your own team weaker. That is why it is a horrible trade. You can try and use all the ridiculous fancy stats you like, but the bottom line is that one team is eight points better than the other, and its the team that got the worse player. Yeah, I can see how you would try and make the argument that Neal is a terrible hockey player, but he has 13 goals to Lucic's goose egg. For a team that has score two goals in their last four games (two goals in four games!) anyone finding the twine would be an improvement. The fact that Lucic's $5.25M cap hit is immovable makes the situation that much harder to swallow. Horrible deal all around.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You are certainly allowed to assume and speculate as well ... I've never claimed any kind of authority on knowing what the owners are thinking. But the result of this trade seems to suggest the owners valued real dollars over cap space going forward.

Neal is almost shooting 50% on the PP, that's where 3/4 of his goals have come from. It doesn't take a huge leap to see a model that weights what he's doing on the ice would see what we all see ... and that's that he's lost five on five.

Calgary has a top line problem, and a getting for games problem. They don't have a third line problem. Lucic has been as advertised as a bottom six forward.

See...i dont think he is even that any longer.

7 goals in 145 games Bingo.

Thats far less than one should expect from a botton 6 forward and even more so when taking up 5.25 million dollars of cap hit or 4+ million dollars of real money.

He can't play any more. Yet this club HAS to play him because of the contract they traded attached to the guy. This, IMO, was doubling down on a huge mistake and the on-ice abilities of the group are going to pay for it.

[Flash Walken]

can someone give me 10000 more thanks so I can participate in this thread without posting?

[djsFlames]

Is there a potentially nhl ready center with top line projection available in this draft?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Try again.

I said actual dollars. If you want to have a cap hit conversation we certainly can, but I said actual dollars, and was not misrepresenting that in any way.

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK but then you're ignoring the argument presented to you.

Because the argument doesn't mean anything. If that is what motivated the team to make the move, then I understand why the players are not looking happy out there. It probably means they are paying for their own sodas and the owners are hoping for a losing streak so they get out of the lease and sell the team to a Florida interest (mixed three movies into that metaphor).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK but then you're ignoring the argument presented to you.

Do you honestly believe that ownership told their GM where and who he could spend his player budget on?

If not, then there is no argument being presented because it assumes that Edwards and company are hands off their GM's hockey decisions.

OR

They are not allowing BT to do what is best for the on ice product because they want to save 4 million dollars over the course of 4 years.

Again, looking at the timeline I believe/speculate, that BT made this deal in hopes of turning his worst mistake around because at the time he was without a job beyond this season, but instead he just made it worse and would never have made this deal if his extension was in place last July 1 instead of the middle of October.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

See...i dont think he is even that any longer.

7 goals in 145 games Bingo.

Thats far less than one should expect from a botton 6 forward and even more so when taking up 5.25 million dollars of cap hit or 4+ million dollars of real money.

He can't play any more. Yet this club HAS to play him because of the contract they traded attached to the guy. This, IMO, was doubling down on a huge mistake and the on-ice abilities of the group are going to pay for it.

All summer I said Lucic's offence has dried up. I wasn't expecting him to contribute much and was pretty up front about it. It would be a nice bonus but it appeared that part of his game was done.

I liked the fit better because he was a low event player against as well and wouldn't hurt the team five on five while providing a physical element.

I haven't changed my tune at all.

He's doing exactly that.

I'm not suggesting he should get more ice time, or that he's due to break out, and we need to be patient. But he is a decent five on five player which was all I was expecting.

He's 5th on the team in CF% and 5th on the team is xGF% ... this isn't a guy that can't play. Can't score but he's not hurting them at all five on five.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Do you honestly believe that ownership told their GM where and who he could spend his player budget on?

If not, then there is no argument being presented because it assumes that Edwards and company are hands off their GM's hockey decisions.

OR

They are not allowing BT to do what is best for the on ice product because they want to save 4 million dollars over the course of 4 years.

Again, looking at the timeline I believe/speculate, that BT made this deal in hopes of turning his worst mistake around because at the time he was without a job beyond this season, but instead he just made it worse and would never have made this deal if his extension was in place last July 1 instead of the middle of October.

No I believe they said no more dead money on the cap.

That's a far cry from telling him who to spend money on.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

No I believe they said no more dead money on the cap.

That's a far cry from telling him who to spend money on.

If that’s what ownership said then we have terrible owners.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you've worked with numbers to the extent that you get to call baloney? That's a pretty good perch you have yourself on there.



This isn't me ignoring all kinds of good stats on Neal and then finding one that is bad and trumpeting it. He's a huge minus (6th worst in hockey), his xGF% is falling nightly. He started with decent possession numbers but those are fading too.



A War model just weights and summarizes all of his game, and he's the worst five on five offensive contributor in hockey. Looking at Calgary he's worse than both Frolik and Jankowski this year ... two players that I think all of us would agree have struggled.



This isn't wand waving ... it's available information that easily matches the eye test. If you want to ignore those sources that's up to you, but don't accuse of others of trickery when Neal's struggles are in plain sight.



His goal production isn't enough to make up for his five on five play.

I can call baloney on anything, that’s the beauty of living in a free society where different opinions are allowed. I bring this up only as a means to explain that I’m not coming at this from a point of ignorance, but from a point of questioning the appropriateness of the approach.

I’m sure you’ve done plenty of homework on both players, my point is not that you’re cherry-picking. Let me put it to you another way.

What I believe you’re doing is akin to writing a very elegant report, in which you’ve outlined your methodology in great detail. You’ve observed something in the world that you wish to explain, and then you put it to the test using the best tools available. But then at the end of this report you disregard that basic observation altogether and create an elaborate model to explain why the sky is actually green. That’s fishing for something to fit a preconceived narrative, which in any professional community would land your very elegant report in the trash bin.

You said yourself that neither player passes the eye test. But Player A has 13 goals and has been directly responsible for at least two points in the standings for his team, even if his five on five play leaves something to be desired. Player B has 0 goals, and while he may not be as much of a problem as Player A 5 on 5, the difference does not result in anything that translates to winning a hockey game. Which is what any of us actually cares about.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

All summer I said Lucic's offence has dried up. I wasn't expecting him to contribute much and was pretty up front about it. It would be a nice bonus but it appeared that part of his game was done.

I liked the fit better because he was a low event player against as well and wouldn't hurt the team five on five while providing a physical element.

I haven't changed my tune at all.

He's doing exactly that.

I'm not suggesting he should get more ice time, or that he's due to break out, and we need to be patient. But he is a decent five on five player which was all I was expecting.

He's 5th on the team in CF% and 5th on the team is xGF% ... this isn't a guy that can't play. Can't score but he's not hurting them at all five on five.

I think this is where you and i go in completely different directions...haha.

I entirely expect a good five on five guy to contribute offensively, at least some. He doesnt. Like...nothing. Im not even blaming him, he played a really hard style for many years and it simply caught up to him. Add on the game has changed to more of a speed game the last few years and its a double whammy for his abilities.

So when I add up his offensive contributions, defensive abilities, and his cap hit....he is not, in any way, a guy that can play in the NHL any longer and most certainly does hurt the team because he taking up that spot and cap space that could be allocated to another player capable of doing way more for much less.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

He's 5th on the team in CF% and 5th on the team is xGF% ... this isn't a guy that can't play.

More proof fancy stats are garbage. To suggest Milan Lucic is top five in anything, for any team, other than worst contracts in the NHL, is preposterous. No one, not one other team, would take Milan Lucic on their roster. Even if we retained half his cap hit, that would still be a very hard sell.

Can't score but he's not hurting them at all five on five.

He's not helping them win games. He's boring as hell out there because he does nothing. He's contributing to driving fans away from watching the product. He's hurting them alright. In more ways than anyone wants to admit.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So when I add up his offensive contributions, defensive abilities, and his cap hit....he is not, in any way, a guy that can play in the NHL any longer and most certainly does hurt the team because he taking up that spot and cap space that could be allocated to another player capable of doing way more for much less.

Quoted for truth.