Simplified Neal/Lucic trade Poll

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Re: Bolded

The cap hit is lower (5.25M for Calgary vs 6.5M for Edmonton) and the total money owed by Calgary is less as well (Flames owe Lucic $13M, Oilers owe Neal $23M).

Yeah, people keep saying the Flames traded for the worst contract in hockey. Except that now Neal is paid more (plus the retained salary), the actual dollars to be paid are far far less, and the only negative difference is the NMC, which most people think will not be any kind of impediment. It's still not a great contract but how is it the worst, compared to Neal's?

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

It’s still a #### trade no matter how you slice it.

[snip]

TLDR; Traded Neal too cheap and too early, something fishy going on.

I think you got it. We have already heard that Neal may have asked to go to Edmonton, but there does seem to be more to it than just appeasing Neal. The cost of moving him should not have been this high.

No one is saying the contract we just took back is a good one. I doubt anyone is arguing that it's even better than the bad one we shipped out.
Something fishy indeed. Treliving is by all accounts a shrewd negotiator.
If nothing else this adds another story to this upcoming season. Looks bad on the Flames now, but I am curious how it plays out.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, people keep saying the Flames traded for the worst contract in hockey. Except that now Neal is paid more (plus the retained salary), the actual dollars to be paid are far far less, and the only negative difference is the NMC, which most people think will not be any kind of impediment. It's still not a great contract but how is it the worst, compared to Neal's?

Realistically, once its all boiled down with the retained money we essentially traded the new 'Worst Contract in Hockey' for what is now effectively 'Runner-Up Worst Contract in Hockey.'

James Neal. Long live the King.

Then people say "well James Neal wont have the worst contract in Hockey because hes going to rebound and score 20 goals again!"

Which may well be true. But again, all things considered the player himself may bump his stats up and make that contract look all rosy, but all hes going to be doing is taking goals away from other players.

So James Neal and the Oilers will look good for 'resurrecting' James Neal's career, but its not going to actually help the team.

What remains to be seen is if Calgary, swallowing Lucic's unlovable contract, become better with his inclusion.

Lucic for what he brings or may bring has a terrible contract. Even with the retained money.

What we should be looking at is: Money/contract aside (sunk cost, money is spent) which player would be better for the Calgary Flames? And nether one is a slam-dunk and within the current context, its probably Lucic.

[VladtheImpaler]

I have not commented on this so far (I am sure the whole board has been waiting with baited breath ). I voted "like" for a few reasons:

1) I hate James Neal and what he brought (or rather the nothing he brought) last season. I kept thinking "anytime now, he will start scoring; the playoffs, for sure, he will finally bring it..." Fool me once, etc.
2) I have a neanderthal weakness for the face puncher. In particular, I think having the toughest, meanest face puncher brings a certain swagger to a team. I loved having Oliwa/Simon in 2004. I loved having McGrattan. I hated having nothing last year and seeing Hamonic get beat. Yes, fighting is on the way out, concussions, etc, etc, etc, but hockey is still a primitive game and toughness matters and we had none.
3) I was pleasantly surprised by Lucic's positive underlying numbers, which makes me think there is a bit more there player-wise than I thought.
4) If Lucic gives us Reaves level hockey, that is much better than Neal hockey, plus cap savings, plus better roster fit, and I think Lucic might just be a little better than Reaves - we shall see.
5) Again, back to my neanderthal thoughts, Lucic (or Reaves, as I was hoping for last summer) instead of Neal, will make a number of other players more effective.
6) Doesn't excuse the horrible Neal signing, but you know, this does make a bit of chicken salad out of the huge pile of chicken s***...

[Split98]

^ Better than Reaves is a brave statement - but damn exciting if true.

I remember there was a point last year where having Washington on your schedule was terrifying. Unless you were Vegas... and Reaves nullified that fear pretty handily.

If you ignore what happened in Edmonton, 'Lucic could be better than Reaves' wouldn't be too odd of a statement at all. Will be very interesting to see what effect playing in Edmonton had on him.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Split98

^ Better than Reaves is a brave statement - but damn exciting if true.

I remember there was a point last year where having Washington on your schedule was terrifying. Unless you were Vegas... and Reaves nullified that fear pretty handily.

If you ignore what happened in Edmonton, 'Lucic could be better than Reaves' wouldn't be too odd of a statement at all. Will be very interesting to see what effect playing in Edmonton had on him.

That might be optimistic, but I was surprised by the underlying numbers and I have not watched the Oilers, so I am prepared to be open-minded, and there seems to be a lot to this post-Oiler renaissance thing...

[Mass_nerder]

I haven't really followed this thread, or the previous one much, but it's crazy (to me) that almost 40% of us like or love the trade. Not judging of course; I don't expect it, but I could see him coming in and bringing more than what Neal brought last year.
I'm curious though; for those that like (or love) this trade, is it because you like Lucic and expect him to be a difference maker, or because you just hated Neal?

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Well you have a really funny way of showing your for the trade from reading your posts about it CanadaMatt. Many posts you make about it seem to be trying to outline how posters who are saying Lucic numbers aren’t as bad as they seem didn’t hold that opinion a month before... it just doesn’t seem like you have a positive slant on this trade which I can understand to a degree as I wasn’t a Lucic fan prior to the trade either but I hate Neal and after crunching all the fancy numbers and conditions of the trade I am optimistic Lucic can fulfill a role here. To your point though I haven’t read all your posts so it’s true I wrote that without knowing your full perspective on the trade and didn’t know you were actually for it; sorry about that CM.

No worries mate.

Look, this trade is a complete disaster. But the situation would be a complete disaster even if the trade wasn’t made.

While I do subscribe to the usefulness of Corsi, it has its limitations. I’ll dig it up if needs be, but I read that Lucic has a better Corsi than McDavid. Come on, there needs to be a human element to the analysis as well.

This trade has the potential to blow up in BT’s face though. I repeatedly stated last year that Neal might not be bad at hockey, but is just not a good fit in Calgary. If Neal finds his scoring mojo in Edmonton (even if on the top two lines or on the PP) most people are dismissing this achievement as ‘taking points away from Chiasson”. While I agree, I see an additional outcome being a 25-goal contract that’s now much easier to move (perhaps with 25% retained) next season. This scenario would be a big win for Edmonton, IMHO.

Ideally we would have packaged Neal with a pick or a mid level prospect to Ottawa (or similar rebuilding team needing to reach cap floor)

I also don’t buy the ‘bad in the room’ comments, as these rumours happen every time a flames player moves (Brouwer, Hamilton, Neal)...it’s number 1 in the PR playbook and served up to casual fans as a water cooler talking point. Folks on this forum aren’t the target audience for this PR message.

I am for this trade because the fit with James Neal was always going to be wrong. Lucic can’t be any worse (as a Flame) although the fit is still pretty putrid. If Lucic fails, this trade isn’t the issue, it’s the initial signing Neal that’s the issue.

I’ll cheer #17 as much as the next bloke. As everyone here will, even those that think he’ll fail. Predicting failure does not equal wanting failure....or having that inference thrown your way.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I haven't really followed this thread, or the previous one much, but it's crazy (to me) that almost 40% of us like or love the trade. Not judging of course; I don't expect it, but I could see him coming in and bringing more than what Neal brought last year.
I'm curious though; for those that like (or love) this trade, is it because you like Lucic and expect him to be a difference maker, or because you just hated Neal?

Likely both and neither.

I, like Vlad, loved the Neal signing and was among the many who just thought 'The Real Deal' would eventually figure it out.

But despite opportunity after opportunity he just didnt. And at some point you have to just decide that hes not a good fit on this roster period and move along.

I dont hate Neal and never have but he was worse than useless and signs of improvement were non-existent, which for an expensive roster player is intolerable.

So he had to be moved, but a useless and expensive player isnt going to garner much return.

I dont love Lucic and never have and I dont think hes going to be a significant difference maker.

But if he does something, anything at all and fits on this team in a suitable role he will be a less-expensive (but still expensive) improvement on this roster than just holding on to James Neal and continuing to hope.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by AC

Hmm?

If you go along with Jokipaka and Jones falling off a cliff then you have to say that Hamilton's minor decline in stats was the same thing.

No one expected anything from Jones or Jokipaka. they did not perform any worse than expected.

I am pretty sure that Carolina thought that Hamilton would be at least as good as he was in Calgary, and maybe he might be in coming years.

All 3 guys did pretty much as expected when they left the Flames. All over the cliff or all doing as expected.

A matter of classification.

[Heavy Jack]

Fair points for sure; my stance is I look at 32 YO Neal and don’t think that he is going to be the player to help push Edmonton back into the playoffs whether he finds his scoring touch or not with gifted minutes alongside McDavid or Draisaitl yet that’s the expectation here from Edmonton’s POV, they think they’ve hit paydirt with Neal and finally have that top 6 winger who’s going to score boatloads for them. Whereas Lucic is joining a team where he can go about his business and try to add an element that he has in spades that’s been sorely lacking in the Flames line-up for much of the current crop of young stars duration here thus far. To me this trade has a bigger chance of blowing up in Edmonton’s face than Calgary’s strictly because of expectations. Are we expecting Lucic to be a top 6 saviour here?? God no, but Edmonton is expecting that from Neal and they are paying 6.5 mill for that hope now which is ludicrous to me.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Or does his hit total plummet because hit totals have more to do with who's counting them and being on a terrible team that never has the puck?

Valid point about counting stats.. same as SOG and goalie save % and Shots attempted (driving Corsi and possession stats) all being subjective.

Does your watching the Flames play support a theory that they are not a soft non-physical team and that the home town stats counters are not counting their hits to the same degree as the rest of leagues hit counters?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Fair points for sure; my stance is I look at 32 YO Neal and don’t think that he is going to be the player to help push Edmonton back into the playoffs whether he finds his scoring touch or not with gifted minutes alongside McDavid or Draisaitl yet that’s the expectation here from Edmonton’s POV, they think they’ve hit paydirt with Neal and finally have that top 6 winger who’s going to score boatloads for them. Whereas Lucic is joining a team where he can go about his business and try to add an element that he has in spades that’s been sorely lacking in the Flames line-up for much of the current crop of young stars duration here thus far. To me this trade has a bigger chance of blowing up in Edmonton’s face than Calgary’s strictly because of expectations. Are we expecting Lucic to be a top 6 saviour here?? God no, but Edmonton is expecting that from Neal and they are paying 6.5 mill for that hope now which is ludicrous to me.

Oh, not a snowball's chance in hell!

[Matata]

Isn't it possible for a NMC to waive it? Would it be that hard to convince Lucic to waive it to make his team stronger? No team in the NHL takes that contract for free, so why insist on taking a protected spot for yourself?

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh, not a snowball's chance in hell!

I’m saying that I don’t think that..? Edmonton fans and their pundits do think that though and it’s quite sad.

Edit: I get it

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Fair points for sure; my stance is I look at 32 YO Neal and don’t think that he is going to be the player to help push Edmonton back into the playoffs whether he finds his scoring touch or not with gifted minutes alongside McDavid or Draisaitl yet that’s the expectation here from Edmonton’s POV, they think they’ve hit paydirt with Neal and finally have that top 6 winger who’s going to score boatloads for them. Whereas Lucic is joining a team where he can go about his business and try to add an element that he has in spades that’s been sorely lacking in the Flames line-up for much of the current crop of young stars duration here thus far. To me this trade has a bigger chance of blowing up in Edmonton’s face than Calgary’s strictly because of expectations. Are we expecting Lucic to be a top 6 saviour here?? God no, but Edmonton is expecting that from Neal and they are paying 6.5 mill for that hope now which is ludicrous to me.

Absolutely, there will be egg on the faces of the apologists in Edmonton if 2018/2019 Neal turns up in 2019/2020. I’m not ready to gloat just yet though.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I personally believe a deterrent at $3 million is not very good value. Yeah Reaves makes close to that but I don’t look at that as a good deal. Could just as easily compare to Engelland. Are the Bruins, Blues, Lightning paying $3 million for that dimension? I can’t think of who it would be.

Maybe Dillon for the Sharks?

Agreed, but that's a whole other discussion.

I do think Lucic from a deterrent stand point is well up the list, so the $3M price tag makes sense for that type of player.

Wanting that type of player is discussion in itself though. I don't love the idea, but I also don't like the idea of sitting productive players for guys that can't even play and fill a spot in your 12 forwards (Peluso)

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

I think you got it. We have already heard that Neal may have asked to go to Edmonton, but there does seem to be more to it than just appeasing Neal. The cost of moving him should not have been this high.

No one is saying the contract we just took back is a good one. I doubt anyone is arguing that it's even better than the bad one we shipped out.
Something fishy indeed. Treliving is by all accounts a shrewd negotiator.
If nothing else this adds another story to this upcoming season. Looks bad on the Flames now, but I am curious how it plays out.

I've been thinking it for a while, but don't want to make up rumours, I wonder if James Neals injury last season was actually a symptom of a more serious chronic problem. Pure speculation of course, but it would make sense on a couple of fronts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed, but that's a whole other discussion.

I do think Lucic from a deterrent stand point is well up the list, so the $3M price tag makes sense for that type of player.

Wanting that type of player is discussion in itself though. I don't love the idea, but I also don't like the idea of sitting productive players for guys that can't even play and fill a spot in your 12 forwards (Peluso)

But hes more than just a deterrent. He holds the puck up well and has nice fancy possession stats.

When Lucic eventually acquires the puck its difficult to get it off of him, if he can hold the puck while his linemates eventually show up then you've got a pretty good 4th line player whereas Neal fires it as soon as he gets it, and then not all that well.

The face-punching element is likely just an occasional bonus.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I've been thinking it for a while, but don't want to make up rumours, I wonder if James Neals injury last season was actually a symptom of a more serious chronic problem. Pure speculation of course, but it would make sense on a couple of fronts.

It would, but I doubt it. One would think any injury of that sort would have been diagnosed and common knowledge by this point.