James Neal Buyout

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Best forwards in Vegas? Not so much. In one dimension only, could you make a case.

But Smith, Reilly and Marchessault were all above +30. Neal was -11

James Neal got off to a hot start in Vegas with 6 goals in 4 games. He ended the season ice cold with 1 goal in 17 games

While he built a reputation for scoring, he accomplished it with HOF caliber centers such as Modano and Malkin doing the heavy lifting (while Crosby also took a lot of tough matchups which didn’t hurt)

Nashville let him go for a reason, and he was double digit minus in his last year in Nashville and also Vegas

Brad made a terrible judgment to pay for a guy who was producing well below his peak with his overall game falling off

Good to see the Oilers have him on the books for years to come

Yes. But at least he quickly recognized and rectified that mistake by getting rid of the player. Many GMs feel the need to stand behind their moves even if they are terrible. BT could at least swallow his pride and try to to the best he could with the boat anchor he saddled himself with. Pawning it off on the Oilers for an overpaid player who is seeing a rebound here is just plain juicy.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Best forwards in Vegas? Not so much. In one dimension only, could you make a case.

But Smith, Reilly and Marchessault were all above +30. Neal was -11

James Neal got off to a hot start in Vegas with 6 goals in 4 games. He ended the season ice cold with 1 goal in 17 games

While he built a reputation for scoring, he accomplished it with HOF caliber centers such as Modano and Malkin doing the heavy lifting (while Crosby also took a lot of tough matchups which didn’t hurt)

Nashville let him go for a reason, and he was double digit minus in his last year in Nashville and also Vegas

Brad made a terrible judgment to pay for a guy who was producing well below his peak with his overall game falling off

Good to see the Oilers have him on the books for years to come

Can't argue how it turned out, for sure. Complete bust, and you'd hope they took a look at their pro scouting department as a result.

But it's not like Vegas was pushing him out the door ... they had a similar offer less a year on the table to bring him back.

His warts couldn't have been too obvious if the team that was witnessing the plus minus disaster was still on board.

[Vinny01]

I am super guilty of loving the Neal signing when it went down. I thought it capped off an unbelievable offseason for Treliving who was able to make the big trade with the Hurricanes and was able to add Ryan and the Czarnik signings which were applauded.

I thought with Ferland out and Lindholm in the Flames improved their top 6 but they needed another top 6 forward. Rumors Neal wanted the 6x6 so when the Flames for him for less than that without any clauses I thought it was a great move.

Obviously it was a disastrous signing that Treliving was able to get out of and provide the team with a much better fit albeit overpaid in Lucic. Going back to how that offseason could have been so much better the Flames should have been offering Bennett+Jankowski+ to get RoR instead.

[Firebot]

The Neal signing was never supposed to be so horrendous. It was perfectly sound at the time. Neal may have been regressing a bit and overpriced as all free agents tend to be, but we could expect at least a few years of serviceability out of that contract.

Instead he totally mailed it in which is what made his contract infamous. That he got benched in the playoffs by both the Flames and Oilers despite being a goal scorer is all we need to know.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am super guilty of loving the Neal signing when it went down. I thought it capped off an unbelievable offseason for Treliving who was able to make the big trade with the Hurricanes and was able to add Ryan and the Czarnik signings which were applauded.

I thought with Ferland out and Lindholm in the Flames improved their top 6 but they needed another top 6 forward. Rumors Neal wanted the 6x6 so when the Flames for him for less than that without any clauses I thought it was a great move.

Obviously it was a disastrous signing that Treliving was able to get out of and provide the team with a much better fit albeit overpaid in Lucic. Going back to how that offseason could have been so much better the Flames should have been offering Bennett+Jankowski+ to get RoR instead.

Except that would have cost assets, was at a higher cap hit, and for a player who had a similar PPG to Neal for the previous 3-4 seasons but was just coming off a season in which his +/- was -23. Neal just fell off a cliff, while RoR went on to have his best season. Treliving made the wrong choice, but many other NHL GMs were also chasing after Neal, and it certainly looked like a much better deal at the time than giving up assets for RoR. Admittedly, Treliving is no fortune teller, but I don't think the signs were there that Neal was about to fall off a cliff.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am super guilty of loving the Neal signing when it went down. I thought it capped off an unbelievable offseason for Treliving who was able to make the big trade with the Hurricanes and was able to add Ryan and the Czarnik signings which were applauded.

I thought with Ferland out and Lindholm in the Flames improved their top 6 but they needed another top 6 forward. Rumors Neal wanted the 6x6 so when the Flames for him for less than that without any clauses I thought it was a great move.

Obviously it was a disastrous signing that Treliving was able to get out of and provide the team with a much better fit albeit overpaid in Lucic. Going back to how that offseason could have been so much better the Flames should have been offering Bennett+Jankowski+ to get RoR instead.

That offer wouldn’t have gotten ROR. I think you’d have needed to send Backlund+. And maybe you could have done a Backlund/Bennett for ROR/Reinhart at the time (Reinhart was seen as close to a bust back then, and ROR was seen as too expensive).

[ricardodw]

It would be interesting to have the background on the training regimes... fitness levels , recovery rates, reaction speeds, cognitive ability of the UFAs that you sign at 28/29 for 5-6 years.

If you are going to sign a UFA maybe you should have them fitness tested before signing them to 30M contracts that run into their 30s.


How did Gio, Marleau, Spezza, Chelios, Perry, Iginla, Chara, Wheeler, Paul Statsny, Pavelski compare to Neal, Lucic, Karlsson, Brouwer. at 28/29?

Some has to do with style of game and hockey smarts and attitude but there should be more of a scientific projection of what the expected fall off level is for players into their 30s.

Neal was done as a 30 year old . if you look back what sort of shape was he in when the Flames signed him?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That offer wouldn’t have gotten ROR. I think you’d have needed to send Backlund+. And maybe you could have done a Backlund/Bennett for ROR/Reinhart at the time (Reinhart was seen as close to a bust back then, and ROR was seen as too expensive).

RoR was traded for cap dumps, Thompson and a 1st and 2nd

Replace cap dumps with Jankowski, Thompson with Bennett and keep the picks as they were (19 1st, 21 2nd) and it is a better deal than the Sabres got.

I would have been more than happy with your 4 player swap however but feel that is unrealistic

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

RoR was traded for cap dumps, Thompson and a 1st and 2nd

Replace cap dumps with Jankowski, Thompson with Bennett and keep the picks as they were (19 1st, 21 2nd) and it is a better deal than the Sabres got.

I would have been more than happy with your 4 player swap however but feel that is unrealistic

The ROR trade happened a year or so after my “proposal” and the price went way down. The parameters were a lot different then. And Calgary seemed like they needed a C a lot less.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

It would be interesting to have the background on the training regimes... fitness levels , recovery rates, reaction speeds, cognitive ability of the UFAs that you sign at 28/29 for 5-6 years.

If you are going to sign a UFA maybe you should have them fitness tested before signing them to 30M contracts that run into their 30s.


How did Gio, Marleau, Spezza, Chelios, Perry, Iginla, Chara, Wheeler, Paul Statsny, Pavelski compare to Neal, Lucic, Karlsson, Brouwer. at 28/29?

Some has to do with style of game and hockey smarts and attitude but there should be more of a scientific projection of what the expected fall off level is for players into their 30s.

Neal was done as a 30 year old . if you look back what sort of shape was he in when the Flames signed him?

Just guessing but I think almost impossible to measure genetics are a huge factor in it; that and what makes the player good in the first place.

I'd assume a strong majority are in good shape, otherwise they'd be called out at the testing in camp one with the new team.

But if a player lives on speed and loses said speed he's done. A guy like Perry just adapted his game. Spezza the same way. That takes other assets to happen, but also the humility to adjust a role and not have to be the guy you used to be.

The averages say players decline at 29 but like almost anything in life a small percentage beat the average.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just guessing but I think almost impossible to measure genetics are a huge factor in it; that and what makes the player good in the first place.

I'd assume a strong majority are in good shape, otherwise they'd be called out at the testing in camp one with the new team.

But if a player lives on speed and loses said speed he's done. A guy like Perry just adapted his game. Spezza the same way. That takes other assets to happen, but also the humility to adjust a role and not have to be the guy you used to be.

The averages say players decline at 29 but like almost anything in life a small percentage beat the average.

By all accounts Gio is a beast in the gym. That helps.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

By all accounts Gio is a beast in the gym. That helps.

What would you do if you were Neal?


Me.... this would be a wake up call and I'd be hitting the gym like mad, and changing my attitude while I'm at it. I may never get my speed back, but I'd be getting ready for a prove me contract or PTO.

[neo45]

The org actually did an awful job recognizing how bad Neal was.

He shouldn’t have been in the lineup for our series vs the Avs based on how he was playing, let alone on the ice in overtime. Full blame on the brain trust for even having him out there at that point. He hadn’t back checked all season

The Avs series really exposed Bill Peters. Don’t think the team respected him much after that. He had no answers

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by neo45

The org actually did an awful job recognizing how bad Neal was.

He shouldn’t have been in the lineup for our series vs the Avs based on how he was playing, let alone on the ice in overtime. Full blame on the brain trust for even having him out there at that point. He hadn’t back checked all season

The Avs series really exposed Bill Peters. Don’t think the team respected him much after that. He had no answers

Vegas offered Neal a contract, and they watched Neal every day. I don't like the signing, but if Vegas wasn't recognizing what was coming, I'm not sure Calgary could have. Hopefully the Flames have added some metrics/analysis to their pro scouting since though.

Peters ... his story is well known, certainly not going to defend the human. But he had a team that was backing in on their goalie because of fear of Avalanche speed. You don't coach that. In fact you coach against it, but if your team is fragile they do things to avoid being embarrassed against what the coach is preaching.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Peters ... his story is well known, certainly not going to defend the human. But he had a team that was backing in on their goalie because of fear of Avalanche speed. You don't coach that. In fact you coach against it, but if your team is fragile they do things to avoid being embarrassed against what the coach is preaching.

Is it just me, but I liked how exciting the Flames played under Bob Hartley - I'm not sure why they thought he wasn't ready for the next step especially when he won a cup coaching. But under his coaching, the Flames were never really out of a game and you could sense them coming back from almost anything - it was exciting and I saw a few comebacks live that year at the Dome - so fun. I find Rod Brind'Amour, the coach that replaced Peters in Carolina exciting to watch as well, I was watching their games this past playoffs and was excited.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Vegas offered Neal a contract, and they watched Neal every day. I don't like the signing, but if Vegas wasn't recognizing what was coming, I'm not sure Calgary could have. Hopefully the Flames have added some metrics/analysis to their pro scouting since though.

Peters ... his story is well known, certainly not going to defend the human. But he had a team that was backing in on their goalie because of fear of Avalanche speed. You don't coach that. In fact you coach against it, but if your team is fragile they do things to avoid being embarrassed against what the coach is preaching.

I’ve seen this argument a couple of times.

Vegas reportedly offered Neal 5x5 at the TDL, and I believe this was reported in fact by the Calgary Sun (fwiw). I didn’t see the Calgary Sun report, but it was claimed by the Las Vegas Review Journal. Thought that was interesting.

Neal was supposedly looking for 6.5-7 x6

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...olden-knights/

Knowing Neal had 10 x 20 goal seasons and had reached the finals, Vegas had to know that there would be some demand

Obviously Vegas didn’t value Neal as highly as Calgary, be it in terms of dollars or term. He was north of 30 after all. There were people questioning what that deal was going to look like in year 5. Obviously surprising to all that looking downright horrible happened in year 1

From an asset management perspective, it would still make sense for Vegas to put pen to paper rather than let the UFA walk for nothing

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I’ve seen this argument a couple of times.

Vegas reportedly offered Neal 5x5 at the TDL, and I believe this was reported in fact by the Calgary Sun (fwiw). I didn’t see the Calgary Sun report, but it was claimed by the Las Vegas Review Journal. Thought that was interesting.

Neal was supposedly looking for 6.5-7 x6

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...olden-knights/

Knowing Neal had 10 x 20 goal seasons and had reached the finals, Vegas had to know that there would be some demand

Obviously Vegas didn’t value Neal as highly as Calgary, be it in terms of dollars or term. He was north of 30 after all. There were people questioning what that deal was going to look like in year 5. Obviously surprising to all that looking downright horrible happened in year 1

From an asset management perspective, it would still make sense for Vegas to put pen to paper rather than let the UFA walk for nothing

You should see this argument a few times ... it's a good one!

Calgary out bid them for sure, but that's not the point.

How hard can we be on Calgary's assessment of the player if his existing team was willing to do say $5x5 with him prior to the trade deadline?

[dino7c]

To get a free agent to change teams, especially from Vegas to Calgary you need to offer him a little more.

I would say Calgary and Vegas (and other teams I'm sure) had a similar value on Neal. They were all wrong but to just single out Calgary is just piling on. Not to mention the fact they were 2nd overall that season. No thanks to Neal obviously.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The only positive thing about Neal was that he seemed like a good luck charm in the recent seasons before that, having been to the Finals with Nashville (2017) and then with Vegas (2018). He was supposed to be the good-luck charm for the Flames to start making some noise.


I personally had reservations about him. I thought the contract was too long given his age and how he seemed to always be injured every season (which made me more worried about the long-term deal). I didn't think he would flat-out suck in every way possible, however. I don't event think I voted, as I was pretty much on the fence the whole time.


I was much more comfortable with Brouwer coming in (and he was WAY better, but still under-performed enough to be bought out). I didn't think Brouwer would have been that bad.


I liked the Hamonic deal at the time (though not a UFA of course)- though I thought it was expensive for a defensive defencemen. However, I remember a number of Islander fans saying that Hamonic was really the product of Calvin de Haan, and I think they were partly right, and partly sour grapes. I was enthused about getting Hamonic as I thought he was Regehr-lite.



Still, I am sure that there were questions organizationally with pro-scouting over the last few years. Brouwer, Neal, Raymond - buyouts (or buyout-worthy), plus a continual 'forgettable cast' of depth that usually doesn't move the needle much (though they were positive in that they didn't become a negative beyond the season - Simon, Leivo, etc).


I will say this right now - there was a sense of 'purpose' to this year's crop of UFA signings, at least to me. Over the last 5 years, the Flames seemed to just be trying to sign guys to fit various roles, but without any real structure to it. Some guys worked out (like Frolik!), most have been forgotten about mostly due to their lack of impact either positive or negative, and others like Brouwer and Neal were awful. It just looked like the Flames trying to fill-up spots.


This year there is a philosophy to the signings (and Zadorov trade), and I think they will really help this team this year.


My hot take: Flames finish ahead of Vegas, and Neal doesn't get signed on whatever PTO he ends up getting.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You should see this argument a few times ... it's a good one!

Calgary out bid them for sure, but that's not the point.

How hard can we be on Calgary's assessment of the player if his existing team was willing to do say $5x5 with him prior to the trade deadline?

First, with the full benefit of hindsight, we can be hard. That 1 goal in 17 games to end the season, and a -11 on a team where other forwards are between +30 and +46 should lead to questions

Second, there is an old saying - Two wrongs don’t make a right


Plus, it was a Calgary media source supposedly reporting the offer of 5x5. Wonder where they were getting their info? Didn’t see any evidence of it reported anywhere else